Animal Welfare Donations: Where Are They Really Going?
Best Friends and ASPCA Raise Hundreds of Millions—But Are They Truly Helping LA’s Animals?
Over the past several months, Animal Politics has received numerous reports from concerned Angelenos expressing "donor’s remorse," a sense of disappointment over their contributions amid growing suspicions about the motives behind Best Friends Animal Society and the ASPCA’s involvement in Los Angeles. Many donors and animal advocates are questioning whether their contributions are truly making a local impact or if these national organizations are using LA’s no-kill movement as a lucrative fundraising platform for broader, less transparent ambitions.
The arrival of yet another national nonprofit, Animal Balance, underscores how Los Angeles is now seen as fertile ground for fundraising—especially for organizations leveraging the city’s no-kill ambitions in their outreach. With this growing influx, it’s crucial to ask whether these groups—especially long-established players like Best Friends and the ASPCA—are delivering on their promises to LA donors. This article seeks to address these concerns by examining whether their fundraising efforts, management practices, and local impact reflect a genuine commitment to the LA community.
A Strategic Stake in LA’s No-Kill Movement
Best Friends launched its No-Kill Los Angeles (NKLA) initiative in 2012, strategically positioning itself at the forefront of the city’s no-kill movement. The ASPCA began its Los Angeles involvement in 2014 by opening a free spay/neuter clinic targeting South Los Angeles, complemented by mobile spay/neuter units operating in surrounding areas. While these clinics offer critical services, resources are limited—accessible only to a narrow subset of zip codes where demand often exceeds capacity—and reports of funding constraints suggest that the number of surgeries performed may be restricted. These limitations raise concerns about whether these services are sufficient to meet LA's needs and contribute meaningfully to reducing shelter populations.
Both organizations have adeptly marketed their involvement in LA’s push toward no-kill status, weaving it into compelling fundraising appeals. Events like Best Friends' "Strut Your Mutt" and ASPCA's national campaigns have raised hundreds of millions, but it remains unclear how much of these funds are reinvested locally versus allocated to broader organizational goals.
Yet the question remains: how much of this financial support actually benefits Los Angeles directly? How much is reinvested into LA’s animal welfare infrastructure versus allocated to national efforts and operational expenses? Without clear reporting on how funds are allocated, it remains difficult for donors and advocates to assess whether their contributions are making a tangible impact on LA's animal welfare infrastructure.
The Fundraising vs. Impact Paradox
Best Friends has made its No-Kill Los Angeles (NKLA) initiative a flagship of its national fundraising strategy, with events like Strut Your Mutt raising millions across the country. However, it remains unclear how much of these funds are dedicated specifically to Los Angeles. Similarly, while the ASPCA pledged $25 million in 2014 over multiple years to support LA’s animals, their national fundraising efforts far exceed this commitment—raising nearly $280 million nationwide in 2019 alone, a figure that casts the commitment to Los Angeles in a new light.
This disparity raises important questions: How much of the money raised in LA is actually being reinvested into local programs? If these resources are not being reinvested locally, it could mean fewer spay/neuter surgeries, fewer adoptions, and ultimately a slower path toward achieving sustainable no-kill status in Los Angeles.
Without clear reporting on how funds are allocated—such as annual financial reports or public disclosures—it remains difficult for donors and advocates to assess whether their contributions are truly making a tangible difference for LA’s animals. As more national nonprofits enter the LA fundraising landscape, this lack of transparency sets a troubling precedent—one that currently allows organizations to prioritize national campaigns over local impact. This not only risks diverting essential resources away from LA’s shelters but also undermines trust in the no-kill movement. Clear reporting through annual financial disclosures or public accountability measures would provide donors with the assurance that their contributions are being used effectively.
Ensuring Transparency: The Case for a Comprehensive Audit
Given the scale of fundraising tied to Los Angeles, a thorough audit is needed to clarify how much of the money raised has been reinvested in local programs and services, compared to how much has been allocated for other purposes—such as administrative costs or executive salaries. Both Best Friends Animal Society and the ASPCA have profited immensely from their association with Los Angeles’ journey to no-kill status, yet much of that progress was set in motion long before their involvement. If these organizations are to take credit for this progress, then a transparent, verifiable record of their direct contributions is essential.
In particular, Best Friends’ management of the Mission Hills Shelter under a highly favorable $1-per-year lease agreement warrants special scrutiny. The contract required Best Friends to meet several key obligations, including:
Adopting 3,000 city shelter animals annually to reduce euthanasia rates.
Performing 5,000 spay/neuter surgeries per year for both shelter animals and community pets.
Absorbing all operational costs, including staffing and maintenance.
Despite these commitments, Best Friends vacated the Mission Hills Shelter at the end of 2022 without clear accountability for whether these obligations were fully met. Reports suggest they may have fallen short on adoption and spay/neuter targets, raising concerns about whether resources were properly allocated toward frontline services or diverted to administrative overhead.
Additionally, multiple lawsuits were reportedly filed during Best Friends' tenure at Mission Hills, including high-profile cases involving dog attacks that resulted in serious injuries. One notable case involved a pit bull named Bleu, which attacked a young girl and led to a lawsuit alleging that Best Friends knowingly placed a dangerous dog into a home. These legal challenges underscore the importance of transparent policies and thorough management practices, raising further questions about the organization's approach to animal welfare.
Hold National Organizations to Their Promises
Los Angeles residents deserve a clear understanding of where their donations and city resources are going. To uphold the integrity of the no-kill movement, we urge the Los Angeles City Council, the Mayor's Office, and the City Controller to take immediate action by initiating an independent audit to assess:
Fulfillment of Contractual Obligations: Verify whether Best Friends and the ASPCA met their commitments, such as adoption and spay/neuter targets, amid concerns that some goals may have gone unmet.
Transparency in Resource Allocation: Determine how much funding has been reinvested locally versus allocated to administrative costs and national campaigns, especially given the substantial donations raised in LA’s name.
Review of Adoption and Intake Practices: Examine the impact of policies like community release and managed intake on shelter populations, public safety, and overall animal welfare, amid concerns over policy-driven risks.
Contract Award and Exit Conditions: Examine the process by which Best Friends was awarded the Mission Hills Shelter contract, and review the terms and accountability measures involved in their exit to determine if public interests were adequately protected.
Given the complexity of these issues—and in light of past controversies—it may be necessary for this audit to be conducted by an independent third-party auditor. This would ensure impartiality and foster greater public trust in its findings. Alternatively, if cost or efficiency is a concern, the City Controller’s Office could conduct an initial review while bringing in independent auditors for areas requiring deeper scrutiny.
A Call for Accountability Before It's Too Late
Los Angeles has become a prime target for national animal welfare organizations seeking to raise substantial funds, and Best Friends Animal Society and the ASPCA have demonstrated how lucrative this market can be. Now, with other national nonprofits like Animal Balance staking their claim in LA, the city stands at a crossroads. Will it continue down a path of unchecked partnerships with organizations that may fund national ambitions with donations intended for local use? Or will it take decisive action to ensure that every dollar raised in LA is truly reinvested into its animals and communities?
Twelve years without accountability is long enough. The time has come for Los Angeles to set new standards for transparency and accountability in animal welfare partnerships. City leaders must demand clear, verifiable outcomes from any organization operating in LA—whether they are long-established players or new arrivals. By implementing enforceable standards for financial transparency, public reporting on program performance, and adherence to service benchmarks, Los Angeles can lead by example and protect its community from being exploited by national fundraising campaigns.
Angelenos must demand that their city leaders take action to ensure that donations raised in their name are used effectively to support local animals. With questions still lingering over Best Friends' management of Mission Hills and ASPCA's resource allocation, it's clear that transparency cannot wait.
The time to act is now—before yet another organization moves in to leverage LA’s generosity without being held accountable for delivering real results for its animals. Every local dollar wasted on national campaigns is a dollar that could have saved lives right here in our shelters.
This is not just an issue for Los Angeles—communities across the U.S. must remain vigilant when partnering with national nonprofits to ensure that local animals receive the care and resources they deserve and are promised. Without transparency, it’s difficult to ensure that funds are being used effectively to support local animals.
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
Thank you for all your work on these issues.
Definitely need more scrutiny into some of these groups. Whenever we can donate directly to a cause rather than through a "middleman," it might be wise to do so. Additionally, I believe that when local taxpayers help fund or donate to organizations, they also have the right to sue if they believe funds are being mismanaged. I do know that the Animal Legal Defense Fund has worked with citizens and whistleblowers in the past to file suits.