Behind the Contracts: The Need for Accountability and Transparency in Animal Services
How the Best Friends-Hassen Partnership Could Shape the Future of Animal Welfare—And What’s at Stake for Public Safety
Preamble
In recent weeks, Animal Politics has closely followed the unfolding story involving Kristen Hassen and Best Friends Animal Society. While this focus highlights specific concerns, it also reflects broader issues critical to animal welfare management, transparency, and public safety across the United States.
Hassen’s collaboration with Best Friends is particularly concerning due to their controversial policies, which prioritize high live release rates over animal welfare and community safety, which have already resulted in negative outcomes in various jurisdictions. By examining this story, Animal Politics aims to foster a deeper understanding of the complexities and responsibilities inherent in modern animal welfare, encouraging informed decisions that prioritize both animal well-being and public safety.
The Saga Continues
The recent approval of contracts with Kristen Hassen in Los Angeles ($24,995) and Riverside County ($2.4 million) has raised significant concerns about the influence of Best Friends and their close relationship with Hassen. Hassen has long been affiliated with Best Friends, and her approach to shelter management closely mirrors Best Friends’ controversial policies, particularly their prioritization of high live release rates and managed intake strategies.
This collaboration raises red flags due to Hassen's controversial past and Best Friends' checkered history in Los Angeles—including their management of the Mission Hills Shelter, which ended amid operational difficulties, legal issues, and a premature 'no-kill' declaration. Given this history, many worry that their combined influence could once again result in unmet promises and ineffective solutions.
Historic Background
Hassen has close ties to Tawny Hammond, Director of No-Kill Advancement at Best Friends, who was her superior at the Fairfax County Animal Shelter (FCAS). Known then as Kristen Auerbach, Hassen served as Assistant Director under Hammond, who led the shelter from 2011 to 2015. Together, they developed policies aimed at achieving a 90% live release rate—an approach that remains central to Best Friends' strategy today.
Their push for a 90% live release rate at FCAS mirrors Best Friends' previous unsuccessful efforts in Los Angeles, which have culminated in a new proposal to the City Council. This raises concerns about Best Friends’ role in securing Hassen's contracts and whether its objectives truly address the broader needs of Los Angeles and Riverside County.
Additionally, there are allegations that Best Friends and Hassen played a role in influencing the selection of general managers for both LA and Riverside County Animal Services, past and present.
Results and Outcomes
The case of Odin illustrates the dangers of prioritizing high live release rates over community safety. It underscores the serious consequences of shelter policies that focus on numbers rather than the well-being of both animals and the public.
Key Events:
Initial Adoption and Return: Odin was initially adopted from Shenandoah Valley Animal Services Center (SVASC), but returned after killing a family cat. Despite this behavior, he was transferred to FCAS.
Multiple Adoptions and Returns: At FCAS, Odin was adopted and returned several times. During his stay at FCAS, he attacked other animals and was involved in an incident that seriously injured a person.
Lack of Disclosure: FCAS allegedly failed to disclose Odin's violent history to subsequent adopters, raising concerns about transparency and public safety.
Legal Implications:
The legal case against FCAS included allegations of breach of contract, gross negligence, and violations of consumer protection laws. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that FCAS misrepresented Odin's history and failed to comply with legal requirements for reporting dangerous animals. Although the lawsuit's final outcome remains uncertain, it exposed significant shortcomings in shelter policies that did not result in meaningful improvements.
Calls for stricter guidelines for disclosing an animal's history to potential adopters and revising procedures for handling dangerous animals did not effectively enhance public safety or ensure transparency. Instead, they underscored ongoing concerns about the ethical responsibilities of the department. Procedurally, the original complaint was dismissed without prejudice in federal court and later re-filed in Virginia state court.
As one of the first dangerous dogs released under the Hammond/Hassen 90% doctrine, Odin's situation raises alarming questions about the dangers of prioritizing statistics over thorough behavioral assessments, ultimately jeopardizing community safety.
Further Fallout of Hassen's Dangerous Dog Policies
A memorandum dated June 8, 2016, from Fairfax County's Master Animal Control Officer, Forrest Higginbotham, to Captain Anthony Matos, Commander of the local police department, raised serious concerns about how animal control was handling dangerous dogs under the policies implemented by Hammond and Hassen. It acknowledged potential overreach of authority and inappropriate practices. The memo pointed out that animal shelter personnel had taken on significant discretion regarding the disposition of aggressive dogs, undermining the established role of law enforcement.
Specifically, under Hassen’s 90% live release rate policy, relinquishing ownership of aggressive dogs became more complicated. Hassen's limited admission policy prevented dangerous dog owners from easily surrendering their pets, forcing them to remain legally responsible for their animals' actions even after expressing a desire to relinquish ownership. This raised critical questions regarding pet owners' rights and the department's ethical responsibilities.
The memo further explained that the emphasis on maximizing live release rates led to a troubling prioritization of statistics over public safety. By granting significant discretion to animal shelter personnel, Fairfax County risked placing potentially dangerous animals into homes, endangering both the public and the welfare of the animals involved.
Overall, the memo served more as an indictment of how aligning shelter practices solely with the goal of increasing live release rates could lead to questionable, if not illegal, actions that compromised the welfare of both animals and the communities they inhabit. The Hammond/Hassen shift in policy reflected a troubling departure from the established role of law enforcement in managing dangerous dogs, leading to gaps in accountability and public safety.
As Los Angeles and Riverside County embark on new partnerships, it is crucial to prioritize public safety while enhancing animal welfare outcomes. The case of Odin and the revelations in this memo serve as stark warnings for shelters attempting to reconcile lifesaving goals with their ethical responsibilities to the communities they serve. Ensuring transparency, accountability, and proper management of dangerous animals must be at the forefront of their efforts, or risk repeating the mistakes of the past.
Entangled Interests
Kristen Hassen currently contracts with the City of Los Angeles and Riverside County, collaborating closely with Best Friends, which reflects her controversial policies. Tawny Hammond, the Director of No-Kill Advancement at Best Friends and Hassen’s former supervisor, significantly influenced Hassen’s shelter management philosophy. This relationship raises troubling questions about the potential for collusion among these entities, highlighting concerns about their collective priorities and accountability.
Concerns for Los Angeles and Riverside County
Conflict of Interest: The close relationship between Hassen’s consulting business and Best Friends raises concerns that decisions could prioritize organizational goals potentially at the expense of the needs of Los Angeles or Riverside County residents and their pets. Policies must be tailored to reflect local conditions rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach.
Influence on Policy: Best Friends' extensive involvement in these communities could result in policy shifts that favor their agenda, potentially sidelining other stakeholders. Ensuring transparency in policy development and implementation is vital for maintaining public trust.
Ethical Implications: City and County leadership must uphold ethical standards in public-private partnerships. It is essential to evaluate whether these collaborations genuinely benefit the community without unduly favoring any single organization.
Furthermore, allegations have surfaced that Best Friends’ contracts in other communities include non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) preventing municipalities from publicly expressing concerns about shelter management practices and animal welfare. Hassen’s contract reportedly mirrors these terms. The use of NDAs is troubling as it limits transparency and undermines accountability, directly impacting community members who rely on these services for the safety and welfare of their pets.
Concealing key information fosters suspicion, suggesting that protecting the organization’s reputation may take precedence over community safety and animal well-being, ultimately eroding public trust. To uphold ethical standards and restore public confidence, it is essential that stakeholders address these concerns and prioritize transparency in all shelter operations and partnerships.
In light of these issues, it is imperative that city and county leaders act decisively to prioritize the welfare of their communities and ensure that partnerships enhance, rather than compromise, public safety and animal welfare.
Recommendations for Oversight
Transparent Processes: Communities should implement measures to ensure transparency in all dealings with Hassen and Best Friends. This includes maintaining a public record of all interactions, publishing meeting minutes, and providing access to decision-making documents related to animal welfare policies.
Stakeholder Engagement: Engaging a diverse range of stakeholders, including other animal welfare organizations and community members, can provide balanced perspectives and mitigate potential biases.
Independent Review: An independent review of the contract terms and ongoing oversight can help identify and address any conflicts of interest or ethical concerns as they arise, ensuring that decisions are made in the best interest of the community.
Avoid NDAs: It is recommended that the city and county consider refraining from entering into non-disclosure agreements with Best Friends or any involved entities. NDAs can limit transparency and hinder the ability to discuss critical issues affecting animal welfare, public safety, and community interests. Maintaining open lines of communication is essential to uphold public trust and ensure that decisions serve the best interests of the community.
If Los Angeles and Riverside County move forward with these partnerships, they must remain vigilant in protecting the public interest while advancing animal welfare. By implementing these recommendations and confronting these concerns directly, they have the opportunity to set a powerful precedent for ethical collaboration in animal services—one that prioritizes community safety and animal well-being, serving as a model for other communities to follow.
Call to Action:
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors has the opportunity to reconsider Kristen Hassen’s $2.4 million contract. This is a pivotal moment for animal welfare in our community. I urge you to contact the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and express your opinion. Encourage prioritization of transparency, accountability, and the safety of animals and neighborhoods in any management strategies considered. Call today and stand up for responsible animal welfare!
You can also reach Mayor Bass’ Office at mayor.lacity.gov
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and are based on documented evidence and reported incidents regarding the actions and policies of Kristen Hassen and associated organizations. The author does not intend to malign any individual but aims to highlight concerns within animal welfare management related to transparency, accountability, and public safety.
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments. He is available for consultations. 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.
The general rule in California concerning non-disclosure agreements vs. the public right to know in the interest of governmental accountability is that, "If an NDA seeks to prevent the disclosure of information that involves public safety or public interest, it may be overridden by public policy considerations." A much more detailed discussion of this issue may be found at https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Menell-Tailoring-a-Public-Policy-Exception-to-Trade-Secret-Protection-105CalLRev1.pdf. In light of this information, good lawyers could probably flush out everything that Best Friends, Kristen Hassen, and the Los Angeles & Riverside officials hope to conceal through non-disclosure agreements, at enormous cost to the parties. In view of that, public accountability would be best served by practicing transparency from the start.
The matter of what to do with dogs who have a bite history is very troubling. I think that some dogs simply are not adoptable. No one wants to euthanize an animal, and at the shelter that I volunteer at, we have an extremely low euthanasia rate. But if a dog has bitten someone once, that is usually the end of the line for that dog. Much of it is the impact on our insurance costs which are already incredibly high. If we conceal information to a potential adopter about an animal that has already bitten, they take that animal home, it bites their kid, and we are sued, the financial repercussions could be ruinous