In “Terms” of Love
CARE uses the terms below to help define our work, both Internally and Externally.
Our Approach to Keeping People and Pets Together
When CARE’s journey began, we knew we’d be embarking upon a complex but necessary pursuit. Endeavoring for a world where all people and their animals have the opportunity to thrive together may seem unconventional to some. Yet, it is the only way to truly ensure companion animal well-being, which includes clearing our shelters and thus creating the only sustainable way toward life saving and access to vet care. At CARE, we define this work as Human and Animal Well-Being (HAW). Constraining the ever-evolving work of HAW to a single definition will never do it justice. It is continuously defined by each of its unique contributors. Here are a few indicators for how HAW operates in the community as compared to traditional approaches.
The traditional approach
Instructs the community
Seeking to save animal lives at all costs, the strategies for saving lives come from a small percentage of individuals whose lives are in large part disconnected from the realities that cause animal lives to be in jeopardy in the first place. The traditional lifesaving model develops strategies for lifesaving without the input, contributions of communities. It often delivers a one-size-fits all approach, where communities have developed their own, deeply entrenched ways of problem-solving. Engagement with “others” in community is often seen as a necessary sacrifice for the greater aim of saving animals
The HAW approach
Partners with the community
The HAW movement is shaped by proximate leaders with lived experience. It takes a community-first approach to well-being and lifesaving. Rather than instructing the community on how to achieve an outside objective, HAW seeks ways to walk alongside the community in achieving its own objectives, identifying the ways in which human and animal well-being naturally intersect. Rather than advocate for uniform solutions, HAW recognizes that successful strategies are as unique as the community working for them. It prioritizes solutions that are community-created and driven and led.
The HAW movement works through in-reach opposed to outreach. There are no “others”. It creates spaces for genuine conversation and understanding to solve problems. It acknowledges that problems do not exist in a vacuum and are intimately connected. Above all, the HAW movement works to ensure that the community has all it needs to thrive. It acknowledges that many are faced with the extremely difficult choice of declining a well-being for themselves, in order to keep a relationship with the animal. It shouldn’t be this way. Being meaningfully present in the community is not secondary to the work. It is work.
The traditional approach
Operates from a “giver-receiver” framework
The traditional approach focuses on “giving to” those who are “less fortunate.” Community members may be presented with few or no choices for giving back, because they may be viewed as being incapable of doing so. Relationships often end as soon as the service is provided.
The HAW approach
Operates from a framework of collaboration and paying it forward
The HAW approach sees everyone as a potential contributor and leader. A significant portion of those we serve through programs like Direct CARE are already doing critical and selfless work inside the community. Yet, most ask how they can use their unique skills and resources to give back when the time is right. We are happy to help facilitate ways of paying it forward, recognizing that everyone has something to contribute. As we say, “When you give back, your neighbor moves forward.” Once they are able, our Direct CARE recipients have given back through monetary and in-kind donations to go toward veterinary care for other DirectCARE recipients. The relationships created through this program are intended for the long-term.
The traditional approach
Relies on the leadership of career advocates
The traditional approach places the greatest value on leadership that doesn’t reflect communities they serve. There are plenty of lifelong animal advocates working as leaders in the lifesaving movement. While they may possess plenty of industry-recognized credentials and have the best of professional experience, they often do not have the same direct and personal experience as those who are impacted by societal barriers that directly or indirectly impact lifesaving.
The HAW approach
Sees proximate leaders as experts
The HAW approach recognizes invisible leaders. Long before the modern life saving movement came into existence, countless proximate leaders were ensuring that people and pets were cared for in community with no recognition. Their work continues to be ever-present, and it is a major reason why the traditional movement is one giant step closer to a world in which no animals are unnecessarily dying in shelters. HAW recognizes, promotes, and celebrates the work of proximate leaders in the community. We create spaces for proximate leaders from across the country to learn from and connect with each other.
Our proximate leaders are often not full-time animal advocates, but still achieve far more “wins” for animals than they are credited for. They are active in racial justice organizations, in soup and food pantries kitchens, on the frontlines of disaster clean-ups, on city commissions and boards. They are barbers and beauticians, faith-leaders, attorneys and veterinarians. It is through these roles that they are often most effective at helping animals.
Our staff and board members are well-respected leaders in and outside of animal welfare fields. Through background and lived experience, they are prepared to do the work that needs to be done in community. They are ready to partner with, uplift and celebrate the community, rather than simply serve it.
The traditional approach
Sees animal lifesaving in a vacuum
The traditional approach sees lifesaving as a single-issue. The traditional model sees animal lifesaving as separate and distinct from everything else– in advocacy, policymaking, problem-solving and more. In limited instances, the lifesaving movement may engage with community campaigns around housing or other justice issues, but involvement with “other issues’ ‘ tends to be approached as secondary or tangential to the primary goal of animal lifesaving.
The HAW approach
Recognizes that human and animal well-being are intertwined and inseparable. The HAW model realizes that human and animal well-being touches every aspect of daily living and societal decision making. The best leaders in HAW may not have written laws themselves, but are more familiar with the impact and implementation of those laws than the lawmakers and politicians. They do more with less because their situations give them no other choice. They can more easily identify and point out policy gaps. Through HAW, they are often being listened to for the first time.
Human and Animal Well-being, as opposed to Animal Welfare
Animal Welfare refers to the general health and well-being of nonhuman animals. That said, most organizations advocating for nonhuman animal well-being are charitable organizations. Because the mission-driven work of Animal Welfare is often housed within philanthropic organizations, Welfare’s primary definition referring to “Well-being,” is too often contextualized through the lens of charity. Welfare’s secondary meaning is “receiving need-based financial assistance” which promotes a saviorist approach as well as means testing, BOTH of which perpetuate inequities by resisting a transfer of power and insisting upon a standardized understanding of economic disparities.
Rather than using the term Welfare, which has several meanings, CARE uses Well-being because it’s straightforward, and ensures Human and Animal Well-being is not solely associated with addressing financial needs. CARE is a charitable organization, we recognize the complex struggles within marginalized communities, but we also actively celebrate and acknowledge the Community Wisdom residing within underserved homes and communities.
We use Human alongside Well-being because any efforts to create well-being for companion pets must be inextricably connected to the well-being of pet parents or guardians. When communities of people enjoy well-being, their pets do so as well.
The guarantee of fair treatment, access, opportunity, and advancement while at the same time striving to identify and eliminate barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups. The principle of equity acknowledges that there are historically underserved and underrepresented populations and that improving equity involves increasing justice and fairness within the procedures and processes of institutions or systems, as well as in their distribution of resources. Tackling equity issues requires an understanding of the root causes of outcome disparities within our society.
The act of creating environments in which any individual or group can be and feel welcomed, respected, supported, and valued to fully participate. An inclusive and welcoming climate embraces differences and offers respect in words and actions for all people. It is important to note that while an inclusive group is by definition diverse, a diverse group isn’t always inclusive. Recognition of unconscious and hidden bias helps organizations to be thoughtful in addressing issues of inclusivity.
Sources: D5 Coalition, Racial Equity Tools Glossary, UC Berkeley
Four key arguments make the case for diversity, equity, and inclusion in AWO:
The market case states that organizations will better serve their customers if they reflect the diversity of their market base. A dramatic demographic shift is under way in the U.S., which will be majority non-white around 2043 according to the Census Bureau. In the private sector, companies such as Deloitte recognize the buying power of minority populations and highlight that diversity is critical to growing market share and bottom line.
In the nonprofit sector, clients are our customers, and they want to see themselves represented in the organizations that serve them. And organizations with diverse leadership are more likely to understand the needs of a diverse client base. Donors are also customers, and organizations and their clients can benefit from the resources of different groups.
The moral and social justice case asserts that each person has value to contribute and that we must address barriers and historical factors that have led to unfair conditions for marginalized populations. Nonprofits are created to improve society and as such they should be diverse, inclusive, and equitable.
The economic case is based on the idea that organizations that tap into diverse talent pools are stronger and more efficient. Economists see discrimination as economic inefficiency—the result of a systematic misallocation of human resources. In fact, the Center For American Progress finds that workplace discrimination against employees based on race, gender or sexual orientation costs businesses an estimated $64 billion annually. That amount represents the annual estimated cost of losing and replacing more than 2 million American workers who leave their jobs each year due to unfairness and discrimination. In this argument, organizations should become more diverse and inclusive because it makes economic sense to leverage the talent pools of different populations.
The results case is that diverse teams lead to better outputs. Scott Page, author of The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies, uses mathematical modeling and case studies to show how diversity leads to increased productivity. His research found that diverse groups of problem solvers outperform the groups of the best individuals at solving problems. Diverse nonprofit organizations, and the diversity of perspectives within them, will lead to better solutions to social problems.
