{"schema_version":1,"research_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp05_external_evaluation_20260803","source_assessment_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__disaster_management:P2:v0","cell_id":"deadweight_loss_reduction__disaster_management","search_queries":["site:fema.gov emergency shelter household pets co-location co-sheltering guidance","site:ada.gov emergency shelters service animals pets shelters ADA","companion animals evacuation refusal shelter empirical study disaster pet owners","emergency shelter co-sheltering people pets best practices ventilation zoning animal shelter","site:ready.gov PETS Act state local emergency plans household pets sheltering official","site:congress.gov Pets Evacuation Transportation Standards Act household pets shelter plans","site:redcross.org disaster shelter pets co-located shelter policy","\"cohabitated sheltering\" pets emergency shelter United States","\"Pet Ownership and Evacuation Prior to Hurricane Irene\" journal","\"Evacuation of Pets During Disasters\" public health intervention resilience authors","\"Disaster Preparedness for Accepting Companion Animals\" 205 respondents","site:fema.gov \"Co-location of people and household pets may require\""],"sources":[{"source_id":"S1","title":"Pets in Evacuation Centers","publisher":"U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention","url":"https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-pets/emergency-preparedness/pets-in-evacuation-centers.html","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2025-01-30","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Many evacuation centers do not allow pets.","Housing people and animals together creates bite, scratch, zoonotic-disease, sanitation, and allergy risks.","Controls include cages or leashes, separation from food areas and allergy-sensitive people, vaccination, hygiene, waste management, and species-specific precautions."]},{"source_id":"S2","title":"Frequently Asked Questions about Service Animals and the ADA","publisher":"U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division","url":"https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-faqs/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2020-02-28","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Companion animals and service animals have different legal status.","A no-pets policy generally must be modified for qualifying service animals.","Staff may not demand service-animal documentation and may exclude an animal only on limited, individualized grounds such as lack of control or direct threat.","Service animals cannot simply be routed into a companion-animal-only zone."]},{"source_id":"S3","title":"Resource Typing Definition: Animal Sheltering Team—Cohabitated Shelter","publisher":"Federal Emergency Management Agency, Resource Typing Library Tool","url":"https://rtlt.preptoolkit.fema.gov/Public/Resource/View/1-508-1227?a=False&p=23&s=Name","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2024-11-01","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["FEMA already recognizes cohabitated animal sheltering as a typed mass-care resource.","The team coordinates with incident command and maintains identification, biosecurity, sanitation, security, and animal welfare.","Typed configurations require roughly four to ten core personnel plus additional intake, care, veterinary, or facilities support according to scale."]},{"source_id":"S4","title":"Cohabitated Human/Household Pet Sheltering Toolkit, Version 19","publisher":"Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry","url":"https://goea.louisiana.gov/media/ijnii1qz/cohabitated-human-pet-sheltering-toolkit-v-19-07-23-2018.pdf","source_class":"OFFICIAL_GUIDANCE","publication_date":"2023-07-11","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["The proposed model closely matches existing government guidance for establishing and operating cohabitated or collocated human-pet shelters.","The toolkit states that some people refuse evacuation unless assistance includes their pets and directs each jurisdiction to identify a lead agency.","Existing controls include separating pet-owning and non-pet populations, isolating sick or aggressive animals, crates or leashes, animal-control availability, sanitation, registration, exercise areas, transition options, and bite reporting.","Its site-selection worksheet expressly tests HVAC separation, ventilation, solid barriers, noise, allergens, pathogens, isolation, quarantine, fire inspection, utilities, and capacity."]},{"source_id":"S5","title":"Cohabitated Sheltering: A Template for the Nation","publisher":"Friends For Life Animal Shelter","url":"https://friends4life.org/disastertoolkit/","source_class":"OFFICIAL_ORGANIZATION_DATA","publication_date":"2019","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["A large cohabitated shelter was implemented during Hurricane Harvey at Houston's George R. Brown Convention Center.","The operator reports processing 671 animals in the first 24 hours and 1,500 over two weeks, using registration, crates, supplies, veterinary support, records, and owner care.","The account identifies local emergency management, animal control, shelter operators, veterinarians, law enforcement, and facility owners as necessary authorities or partners.","The reported outcomes are first-party and not an independently controlled effectiveness evaluation."]},{"source_id":"S6","title":"Pet Ownership and Evacuation Prior to Hurricane Irene","publisher":"Animals (MDPI)","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4494278/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2012","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["In a survey of 90 pet owners and 27 non-pet owners in mandatory evacuation zones, pet ownership was not a statistically significant overall predictor of evacuation failure.","Among pet owners who did not evacuate, 20 of 39 reported pet-related factors—including transport cost and lack of a place for the pet—to a great degree.","Only 6% of the sample used an emergency evacuation shelter, limiting direct inference about shelter-admission rules."]},{"source_id":"S7","title":"Evacuation of Pets During Disasters: A Public Health Intervention to Increase Resilience","publisher":"American Journal of Public Health","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28727532/","source_class":"AUTHORITATIVE_SECONDARY","publication_date":"2017-09","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Published literature documents evacuation refusal, unsafe reentry, responder exposure, and distress associated with unavailable pet evacuation or sheltering options.","The article identifies established animal-evacuation and sheltering manuals, organizations, and planning resources.","Its broader estimates synthesize prior studies rather than demonstrating the proposed zoned lane's causal effect."]},{"source_id":"S8","title":"Disaster Preparedness for Accepting Companion Animals in Urban Evacuation Shelters in Japan","publisher":"Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science","url":"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40211985/","source_class":"PRIMARY_RESEARCH","publication_date":"2025","accessed_at":"2026-08-03","claims_supported":["Among 205 responding urban evacuation shelters, 51.7% were undecided about accepting pets.","Space concern was the strongest reported factor; shelters with that concern were 4.9 times more likely to reject pets.","This supports visible implementation uncertainty but is not evidence about a particular U.S. shelter or the proposed lane's effectiveness."]}],"problem_evidence":{"support":"MODERATE","rationale":"The exclusion rule and its safety rationale are visible in current CDC guidance, and empirical and review literature shows that pet-related constraints can influence evacuation decisions. However, the Hurricane Irene study found no significant overall pet-ownership effect, shelter use was rare, and no evidence establishes the candidate's specific target state: animal-caused denial or departure while a separable general-shelter area sits unused and accessible alternatives are unavailable.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S6","S7","S8"]},"stakeholder_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Louisiana's official toolkit expressly identifies pet-related evacuation refusal, directs jurisdictions to designate a lead agency, and specifies emergency-management, public-health, veterinary, animal-control, security, and shelter-management roles. FEMA maintains a typed cohabitated-shelter resource, while the Houston operator reports a city-authorized deployment. A specific candidate facility and signed local sponsor remain unidentified.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"prior_art":{"proximity":"ESTABLISHED_PRACTICE","closest_analogues":[{"name":"Louisiana Cohabitated Human/Household Pet Sheltering Toolkit","similarity":"Near-exact operational analogue: it covers joint or nearby sheltering, separate areas for people with and without pets, controlled intake, crates, sanitation, species and behavior restrictions, animal control, veterinary escalation, HVAC and allergen checks, records, and transition to alternatives.","remaining_difference":"The candidate adds an explicit trigger based on unused human capacity and inaccessible alternatives, a lane metaphor, exercise-first authorization, predefined comparative outcomes, and detailed halt criteria; these are a local governance and evaluation wrapper rather than a new sheltering method.","source_ids":["S4"]},{"name":"FEMA Animal Sheltering Team—Cohabitated Shelter","similarity":"A nationally typed team already exists to set up, operate, sanitize, secure, document, and demobilize a temporary cohabitated animal shelter under incident command.","remaining_difference":"FEMA's definition is scalable and generic; the candidate is a one-site, fixed-capacity, conditionally activated pod tied to a claimed admission wedge.","source_ids":["S3"]},{"name":"Houston George R. Brown Convention Center cohabitated shelter during Hurricane Harvey","similarity":"Live first-party precedent for city-authorized sheltering of evacuees with animals using intake, identification, crates, owner care, supplies, veterinarians, records, and animal-control coordination.","remaining_difference":"The reported Houston operation was disaster-scale and allowed animals with families in living quarters; the candidate emphasizes a physically segregated pod, explicit service-animal routing, comparator measurement, and automatic expiry.","source_ids":["S5"]}],"distinctive_claim_remaining":"Only a site-specific effectiveness claim remains: when animal exclusion is verified as the binding admission barrier, alternatives are inaccessible, and a suitable spare zone exists, the bounded pod will increase completed household shelter admissions relative to ordinary exclusion and accessible separate-pet sheltering without exceeding prespecified safety, disability-access, staff-load, equity, animal-welfare, or net usable-capacity thresholds. The sheltering concept itself is not distinctive.","confidence":"HIGH"},"implementation_evidence":{"support":"STRONG","rationale":"Government and first-party materials show that the required workflow, staffing roles, intake records, cages, owner-care model, separation, sanitation, animal-control escalation, veterinary support, and demobilization are implementable. CDC and DOJ guidance define material safety and disability-access constraints. Feasibility remains site-specific for fire code, occupancy, HVAC, routes, food and medical separation, veterinary licensing, liability, labor agreements, data handling, transfer capacity, and actual staff availability.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S3","S4","S5"]},"scores":{"meaningful_impact":{"score":4,"rationale":"If the hypothesized local wedge is present, preventing delayed evacuation and unsafe shelter alternatives is consequential, but prevalence and attributable admissions are unmeasured.","source_ids":["S6","S7"]},"stakeholder_pull":{"score":4,"rationale":"Official guidance, a FEMA resource type, and an implemented city response demonstrate institutional recognition and credible authorizers, though no named facility has committed to this candidate.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"incremental_advantage":{"score":2,"rationale":"The conditional activation and measurement package could improve local decision quality, but the physical and operational intervention substantially reproduces established cohabitated and collocated shelter practice.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"distinctiveness_plausibility":{"score":1,"rationale":"Exact-practice guidance and a large prior deployment leave no credible web-supported conceptual novelty beyond site-specific rules and evaluation thresholds.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"technical_implementability":{"score":4,"rationale":"Detailed operational guidance and field precedent support implementation, conditional on suitable separation, utilities, staffing, sanitation, veterinary and transfer support.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"adoption_authority_feasibility":{"score":4,"rationale":"Emergency management, the facility owner, shelter management, public health, animal control, and disability-access officials are identifiable authorities; jurisdiction-specific approvals still must be obtained.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5"]},"evidence_readiness":{"score":3,"rationale":"The candidate supplies measurable outcomes and falsifiers, but causal prevalence, site suitability, costs, and comparative performance require local records and an exercise or activation.","source_ids":["S4","S6"]},"safety_net_benefit":{"score":4,"rationale":"A fixed-capacity, exercise-first, sunsetted pod with transfer and halt rules offers a reversible alternative to both blanket exclusion and uncontrolled admission.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"scalability":{"score":3,"rationale":"FEMA typing and reusable government guidance support replication, but compatible facilities, animal-response partners, laws, hazards, and demand vary substantially by jurisdiction.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S8"]}},"score_confidence":"MODERATE","costs":{"first_evidence":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"One-site code and facility review, de-identified intake analysis, exercise design, a one-day functional exercise, observer time, and after-action analysis; excludes construction and live evacuees.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Existing shelter and animal-control personnel contribute part of their time.","The exercise uses existing space and mostly borrowed or cached equipment.","No major HVAC testing, remediation, or proprietary software procurement is required.","The band is a resource-equivalent planning estimate; none of the eight sources supplies a priced bill of materials."],"source_ids":["S3","S4"]},"initial_deployment_startup":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Prepare one fixed-capacity pod with reusable crates, barriers, signage, registration supplies, sanitation stations, storage, minor route or surface work, training, agreements, and a contingency stock; excludes major building or HVAC construction.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["A compatible public facility already exists.","Only minor physical alterations are needed.","Capacity is tens to low hundreds of animals, not a regional mega-shelter.","Veterinary and animal-control capability is obtained through existing agencies or standby agreements."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"operational_launch":{"band_2026_usd":"50K_TO_250K","scope":"Activate one shelter pod for approximately 72 hours to one week, including four to ten core animal-response personnel, surge intake and cleaning, security, consumables, veterinary escalation, waste service, transport, and demobilization.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["Owners provide routine animal care where able.","The event does not require prolonged lodging, major veterinary treatment, or more than roughly 300 animals.","Some personnel and supplies are public or donated resource equivalents.","A disaster-scale operation like Houston could exceed this band."],"source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"annual_recurring":{"band_2026_usd":"10K_TO_50K","scope":"Annual readiness inspections, agreement maintenance, refresher training or drill, inventory rotation, records templates, equipment storage, and partner coordination; live activations are excluded.","confidence":"LOW","assumptions":["No dedicated full-time team is maintained.","The shelter remains physically compatible without capital renovation.","One readiness exercise is conducted annually.","Activation costs are separately incident-funded."],"source_ids":["S3","S4"]}},"verified_pipeline_gates":{"externally_supported_problem":{"status":"YES","reason":"Multiple sources support pet-related evacuation barriers and the continuing existence of no-pet shelters, although the candidate's local prevalence is unverified.","source_ids":["S1","S4","S6","S7"]},"externally_credible_adopter_or_authorizer":{"status":"YES","reason":"Local emergency management, shelter owners and managers, public health, animal control, and disability-access authorities are identifiable; FEMA and Louisiana guidance assign comparable roles and Houston provides an authorization precedent.","source_ids":["S2","S3","S4","S5"]},"distinct_testable_incremental_claim":{"status":"NO","reason":"The local effectiveness proposition is testable, but the intervention is not incrementally distinct from established cohabitated or collocated shelter practice; its remaining differences are activation and evaluation details.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]},"bounded_next_evidence_step":{"status":"YES","reason":"A single-site facility review, historical intake analysis, and non-activation functional exercise can compare baseline exclusion, accessible separate-pet transfer, and the zoned pod using predefined operational and safety falsifiers.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"no_unresolved_safety_or_authority_stop":{"status":"YES","reason":"The proposed next step is a non-activation exercise that need not expose evacuees or create live admission authority. Live use must remain prohibited unless separation, accessibility, fire, occupancy, sanitation, animal-control, veterinary, and transfer requirements pass review.","source_ids":["S1","S2","S4"]},"credible_cost_scope_and_range":{"status":"UNCERTAIN","reason":"The resource scope is well described by FEMA typing and the toolkit, but no source provides local 2026 prices, facility-remediation needs, wage assumptions, activation duration, or animal volume; the bands are therefore planning estimates only.","source_ids":["S3","S4","S5"]}},"next_evidence_step":"At one named candidate shelter, obtain lawful, de-identified records for prior evacuation activations and code animal-related arrival, denial, departure, transfer, and completed-admission outcomes alongside cot availability and alternative-site status. Independently conduct a facility review and one non-activation exercise with a fixed roster covering ordinary pets, near-boundary health or behavior cases, transfer-required animals, a service-animal route, allergy-sensitive observers, language access, and missing documentation. Compare (A) ordinary exclusion plus existing referrals, (B) an accessible collocated or separate-pet shelter with transport, and (C) the zoned pod. Primary endpoints are completed human admissions attributable to each pathway, net usable human capacity, intake time and classification agreement; safety endpoints are route crossings, containment failures, bites or simulated bite response, sanitation cycles, service-animal interference, staff minutes per case, transfer completion, and subgroup exclusion. Falsify the claimed advantage if animal separation is not a material historical barrier, comparator B performs as well with lower burden, the pod releases no net human capacity, household acceptance does not improve, any protected safety threshold fails, or required authority and staffing cannot be secured.","blocking_evidence":["No named jurisdiction, shelter facility, owner, or committed operational sponsor is provided.","Local intake data do not establish how often animal exclusion causes denial, departure, delayed evacuation, or idle capacity.","Facility fire, occupancy, HVAC, allergen, pathogen, sanitation, accessibility, food-service, medical-route, and animal-welfare suitability is unknown.","The performance of the strongest comparator—accessible separate or collocated animal sheltering with reliable transport—is unmeasured.","Local veterinary-practice, animal-control, liability, labor, procurement, privacy, and emergency-authority requirements have not been reviewed.","No independently evaluated evidence shows that this particular zoned design improves completed admissions without net capacity displacement or concentrated harms.","Local 2026 labor, equipment, renovation, storage, insurance, waste, veterinary, and transport costs are unavailable."],"research_disposition":"KNOWN_PRACTICE_DIFFUSION","world_novelty_boundary":"World novelty, patentability, freedom to operate, market size, and realized impact were not measured. The bounded search found nationally typed FEMA resources, a detailed government toolkit, and a large prior field implementation that substantially encompass the intervention. This establishes an evidence boundary of established U.S. practice, not an exhaustive worldwide prior-art or patent search.","arm":"COMPLETE_PROPOSAL_PORTFOLIO","candidate_version":0,"controller_recommendation":{"action":"STOP_EMPIRICAL_RESEARCH_NEEDED","repairable":false,"material_progress_observed":false,"progress_targets":["Name a willing shelter owner and emergency-management sponsor and document the complete local authorization path.","Estimate local problem prevalence and attributable unused capacity from de-identified historical intake and alternative-site records.","Demonstrate in a controlled facility exercise that zoning, HVAC, circulation, sanitation, accessibility, service-animal routing, staffing, containment, records, and transfer controls meet predefined thresholds.","Compare the zoned pod directly with accessible separate or collocated animal sheltering and ordinary exclusion using completed admissions, net human capacity, safety, equity, workload, and full resource-equivalent cost.","Reframe the proposal as adoption and adaptation of established cohabitated-sheltering practice rather than a distinctive intervention."],"reason":"Bounded web research establishes that the problem can matter and that the workflow is implementable, but it also finds substantial established practice. The unresolved decision is local and empirical: whether animal exclusion is the binding wedge at a particular shelter and whether this pod outperforms accessible separate sheltering without unacceptable safety, access, workload, or capacity effects. Those questions require proprietary intake data and field exercise or live-operation evidence, so further web research cannot resolve them."},"proposal_index":2}