Best Friends’ 2024 Report: Lifesaving Data or Smoke and Mirrors?

While Best Friends touts lifesaving progress, questions about donor fund allocation remain unanswered

Best Friends Animal Society recently released its January–September 2024 Shelter Pet Lifesaving Data Report, highlighting a 3.4% decrease in animals killed and a 4% increase in adoptions across a sample of 777 shelters. These numbers, marking the first positive national trend since the pandemic, are certainly encouraging. However, they fail to provide crucial context—are these figures part of a sustained trend, or are they an anomaly? How do they compare to previous years or other significant events in animal welfare, such as the post-pandemic influx of surrendered pets or recent changes in intake policies?

Without this broader analysis, it’s difficult to assess whether these metrics signal genuine, lasting progress or simply reflect short-term fluctuations. More importantly, this report does nothing to address growing concerns about financial transparency—specifically, how Best Friends is allocating its substantial donor funds. The organization owes it to its supporters and the animal welfare community to provide a clearer picture of both its financial practices and how these numbers fit into the larger no-kill movement.

This isn’t the first time Best Friends has misinterpreted data. In 2021, they prematurely declared Los Angeles a "no-kill" city after citing a short lived 90.49% save rate. This tendency raises concerns about whether Best Friends is once again overstating its impact in its 2024 report—and why they continue to omit crucial financial details that would provide a clearer picture of how donor funds are being used.

Best Friends' 2024 YTD Data Report is bereft of financial transparency.

Who Deserves Credit for These Improvements?

The report paints a picture of national progress, but it’s important to clarify that these improvements are based on data from a select group of shelters. While Best Friends highlights its role in facilitating collaboration between municipal and private shelters, it’s worth asking whether the organization is taking more credit than is warranted. Many local shelters, such as Burke County Animal Services in Georgia, have seen significant improvements—Burke County reported a 45% increase in adoptions through community engagement strategies like social media outreach and partnerships. These local efforts have been largely independent of direct intervention from Best Friends.

This raises an important question: To what extent is Best Friends responsible for these national trends, and how much credit should go to local shelters that are driving change on their own? It’s crucial to recognize the hard work of individual shelters while also examining Best Friends’ actual involvement.

Financial Transparency: Where Are the Funds Going?

Best Friends has become one of the most prominent fundraising organizations in animal welfare, raising hundreds of millions of dollars annually. However, despite this significant financial power, there remains a lack of detailed reporting on how these funds are allocated. The 2024 report focuses on positive trends but offers little insight into how much money is being funneled into lifesaving programs versus administrative costs or other expenses.

In light of this, it’s reasonable to ask: Could Best Friends provide more transparency regarding how donor dollars are spent? Donors deserve to know whether their contributions are directly supporting shelter animals or being absorbed by overhead costs. A full audit of Best Friends’ financials could help clarify how resources are being used and ensure that funds are maximized for lifesaving efforts.

Dog Intake: A Growing Challenge

The report acknowledges that while adoptions are up, dog intake has increased by 1.1%, particularly affecting municipal shelters. Municipal agencies have seen a 3.1% rise in dog intake, while private shelters without government contracts have experienced a 5.8% decrease in intake from transfers or direct intake. This shift places additional pressure on municipal shelters to manage capacity challenges on their own.

Best Friends suggests that restrictive adoption practices at private shelters may be contributing to longer stays for animals and fewer transfers from municipal shelters. However, this raises another question: What role could Best Friends play in helping these private organizations adopt more open and barrier-free practices? If private shelters are struggling with intake and adoption rates, perhaps more direct support from Best Friends could alleviate some of these challenges.

The Need for Collaboration and Accountability

One of the key takeaways from the report is that no shelter operates in isolation—municipal and private organizations must collaborate to achieve no-kill status nationwide. But collaboration requires more than just data-sharing; it requires tangible support and resources. Best Friends has done tremendous work raising awareness about no-kill initiatives, but it’s worth asking whether they could do more to support smaller, under-resourced shelters that are struggling with capacity issues.

At this critical juncture, as we approach 2025—the year by which Best Friends aims to make the U.S. a no-kill nation—it’s essential for all stakeholders to be credited as well as held accountable for their roles in this effort. This includes not only local shelters but also large organizations like Best Friends that wield significant influence and financial power.

A Call for Greater Transparency

While the positive trends noted by Best Friends are encouraging, they should not overshadow the pressing need for clarity about how funds are used and who is driving real change. The report leaves unanswered questions about financial transparency and resource allocation—issues critical to maximizing lifesaving efforts and maintaining donor trust.

Moving forward, Best Friends should publish detailed, independently verified financial reports or partner with external auditors to ensure accountability. Transparent reporting that clearly outlines the allocation of resources between national programs and local initiatives would benefit donors and shelter partners alike. This level of openness is essential to ensuring that contributions directly support lifesaving efforts.

With the 2025 no-kill goal fast approaching, Best Friends owes donors, shelters, and the public full transparency—not just in sharing lifesaving data, but in sharing how it allocates the hundreds of millions entrusted to it each year.

Previous Articles on This Ongoing Investigation:

This article is part of an ongoing investigation into Best Friends Animal Society's transparency and accountability, which has been unfolding over several months. Like peeling an onion, each layer reveals new questions about how the organization operates, particularly in terms of its financial practices and data reporting. Below are previous articles that delve deeper into these issues:

• Best Friends: Lofty Promises, Lingering Doubts in Los Angeles (9/8/24)

• Animal Shelters at the Brink: Addressing the Crisis in Arizona an California (9/29/24)

• Best Friends: Pressure Tactics or Lifesaving Solutions? (10/3/24)

• Best Friends’ Latest Play in LA: Is the Cat Out of the Bag? (10/7/24)

• LA’s Dangerous Gamble: Are Homeless Animals Pawns in a Numbers Game? (10/8/24)

• Best Friends’ No-Kill Initiative: A Power Play with Local Consequences (10/10/24)

• Behind the Contracts: The Need for Accountability and Transparency (10/12/24)

• Are National Animal Groups Shaping Local Animal Welfare Policies for Profit? (10/14/14)

• By the Numbers: Best Friends Accounting Practices Under Scrutiny (10/24/24)

• The Crisis in Animal Welfare: How National Organizations Fail Shelter Animals (11/7/24)

• Animal Welfare Donations: Where Are They Really Going? (11/14/24)

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.