Behind the Numbers: Unpacking Best Friends' 2024 Data Report

Transparency, Accountability, and the Real Story Behind the No-Kill Movement

As the clock ticks down to Best Friends Animal Society’s (BFAS) self-imposed 2025 deadline to achieve a no-kill nation, the organization has released its January–September 2024 Shelter Pet Lifesaving Data Report. The report highlights a 3.4% decrease in animals killed and a 4% increase in adoptions across a sample of 688 shelters.

On the surface, these numbers suggest progress toward BFAS’ ambitious goal. However, deeper scrutiny reveals troubling inconsistencies, omitted context, and transparency issues that cast doubt on the report’s credibility. Critics argue that this latest report functions more as a fundraising tool than an honest assessment of national animal welfare.

Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?

The Numbers Don’t Add Up

Sample Size Discrepancy

The 2024 BFAS report analyzes data from 688 shelters, a sharp reduction from the 4,119 shelters included in its 2023 dataset. This drop coincides with BFAS’ shift from Shelter Animals Count (SAC), which aggregated data from 13,527 organizations in its 2024 report, to its proprietary Shelter Pet Data Alliance (SPDA).

Critics contend this transition allows BFAS to control the narrative by excluding over 3,400 shelters—disproportionately omitting underfunded or struggling shelters, particularly in marginalized communities. The exclusion is said to inflate metrics like save rates and adoptions to present a more favorable picture of progress.

This narrowed dataset aligns with allegations that BFAS prioritizes optics over impact, focusing on shelters with fewer systemic challenges while avoiding complex shelter issues. Without broader representation or regional data, assessing genuine progress or designing interventions for the communities most in need becomes difficult, if not impossible.

Selective Reporting

The BFAS 2024 report lacks year-over-year comparisons and regional breakdowns, making it unclear whether reported trends reflect genuine progress or temporary fluctuations. For example, national adoption events like PetSmart Charities' National Adoption Week often lead to short-term spikes in adoptions. Without intake and failed adoption data, the reported 4% increase in adoptions may mask deeper issues such as overcrowding or rising euthanasia rates.

BFAS also does not disclose how many adoptions stemmed from routine independent shelter efforts versus national or regional campaigns, raising questions about attributing progress solely to its strategies. By omitting critical details on intake trends, return rates, and regional disparities, the report raises concerns about transparency. Without comprehensive data, it’s impossible to determine whether BFAS’ reported metrics reflect meaningful progress or a curated narrative designed to project success.

Methodology Concerns

BFAS relies on voluntary data submission, allowing shelters to opt in or out—creating selection bias that over represents high-performing shelters while excluding struggling ones. To fill gaps from non-reporting shelters, BFAS uses regression modeling that introduces assumptions potentially distorting results by masking regional disparities or inflating progress in underperforming areas.

Compounding these issues is the lack of public access to raw data or third-party validation of BFAS’ findings. Critics argue this opacity allows BFAS to selectively present favorable metrics while downplaying systemic challenges. Without independent oversight or access to detailed shelter-level data, BFAS’ reported trends remain unverifiable, raising concerns about whether they reflect actual progress or obscure deeper systemic challenges.

Spay/Neuter: The Missing Piece

One glaring omission from BFAS’ 2024 report is its lack of emphasis on spay/neuter programs—historically the most effective strategy for reducing shelter intake and euthanasia. Between 1990 and 2010, spay/neuter initiatives reduced U.S. shelter euthanasia rates by nearly 80%. However, BFAS has deprioritized spay/neuter funding over the past decade in favor of adoption marketing and public relations.

Critics argue this pivot undermines efforts to address overpopulation at its source. Communities with robust spay/neuter programs report lower intake rates and euthanasia numbers compared to those without such initiatives. By prioritizing short-term adoption metrics over prevention strategies, BFAS perpetuates systemic challenges rather than solving them.

Community Cat Controversies

BFAS continues to promote community cat programs despite mounting legal and ethical challenges. In December 2024, a California Superior Court ruled that releasing cats without designated caretakers constitutes illegal abandonment, casting doubt on the legality of community cat programs central to BFAS’ approach.

Critics argue that while Trap/Neuter/Return (TNR) programs aim to humanely reduce feral cat populations, BFAS’ practice of including pet cats in these programs puts these vulnerable animals at risk of starvation, predation, and other harsh conditions.

Financial Transparency: A Trust Deficit

Despite raising over $361 million in 2023, BFAS provides limited clarity on how funds are allocated between lifesaving programs and administrative costs. Its most recent IRS Form 990 lacks detailed breakdowns, leaving donors uncertain about how much is spent on direct shelter support versus overhead or public relations campaigns.

In contrast, the ASPCA offers more transparent financial disclosures. Its IRS Form 990 filings and annual reports clearly delineate spending on program services like spay/neuter initiatives, community outreach, and shelter support. For example, the ASPCA reported total revenue of approximately $390 million in 2021, with an estimated 2%–4% allocated to spay/neuter programs. While this percentage is embarrassingly small, the transparency allows donors to see exactly how funds are used.

Critics argue that BFAS’ lack of clarity raises questions about its priorities. Unlike the ASPCA, BFAS does not provide clear data on how much is spent on preventative measures like spay/neuter programs versus adoption marketing or overhead. This opacity makes it difficult for donors to assess whether their contributions are effectively addressing systemic challenges like overpopulation.

To build trust, BFAS must adopt more transparent financial practices. Detailed expenditure breakdowns and independently audited reports would allow stakeholders to evaluate whether resources are being used to create meaningful change or merely to bolster public perception.

Who Deserves Credit?

While BFAS positions itself as a leader in the no-kill movement, much of the real progress is being driven by local shelters. These organizations often achieve remarkable results through grassroots efforts, independent of BFAS’ direct involvement.

Local Heroes

Take Burke County Animal Services in Georgia, for example. In 2024, the shelter achieved a 45% increase in adoptions through creative strategies like social media outreach and community partnerships, independent of any direct BFAS intervention. In stark contrast, Indianapolis Animal Care Services, which had a BFAS-embedded interim manager throughout 2024, saw its performance metrics plummet, indicating that BFAS’ involvement does not necessarily translate into success.

Selective Success Stories

The BFAS report highlights isolated victories but ignores systemic challenges, particularly in underfunded areas. This selective reporting creates an overly optimistic narrative that may bolster donor confidence at the expense of glossing over persistent structural inequities within the sheltering system. By focusing on success stories from well-resourced shelters or regions with fewer challenges, BFAS sidelines communities most in need of support.

Fundraising vs. Accountability

With billions raised over four decades and a looming 2025 deadline, BFAS faces pressure to demonstrate some success—which may explain why its reports prioritize optics over substantive progress. Critics argue that BFAS operates more as a branding powerhouse than a genuine animal welfare organization, emphasizing high-profile adoption events and media campaigns rather than tackling root causes like overpopulation.

Transparency Concerns

Despite its vast resources, BFAS provides limited public insight into how funds are allocated at the local level. Donors are left questioning whether their contributions are being used effectively to address systemic challenges like underfunded shelters or preventative measures such as spay/neuter programs.

To restore confidence and ensure meaningful progress, BFAS must embrace greater transparency and independent oversight:

• Third-Party Audits: Conduct regular external audits of financial and data reporting methodologies to verify claims.

• Public Access to Raw Data: Share anonymized raw data alongside aggregated reports to allow independent analysis of trends and outcomes.

• Equitable Resource Allocation: Increase funding for under-resourced shelters and preventative measures like spay/neuter programs that address overpopulation at its source.

Conclusion: Transparency Is Non-Negotiable

BFAS has undoubtedly contributed to advancing animal welfare, but its latest data report exposes persistent gaps in transparency, equity, and systemic reform. While it has excelled at building a recognizable brand, critics argue that its focus on self-promotion comes at the expense of addressing deeper structural issues within the sheltering system.

Donors deserve clarity—not just about lifesaving metrics but also about how resources are used to create meaningful change. Without independent verification or detailed financial disclosures, BFAS’ self-reported success remains unproven. As the no-kill movement approaches its critical 2025 milestone, it risks being led by marketing narratives rather than meaningful reform.

Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, City of 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.