Best Friends' Year-End Appeal Raises Questions About Transparency and Accountability
As Donors Rally to Unlock Millions Nationwide, Concerns Grow Over Fund Allocation, Legal Challenges, and Sustainability of No-Kill Strategies
As the clock ticks down on 2024, Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) has launched an emotionally charged fundraising campaign urging supporters to help "unlock $500,000" in matching funds by recruiting a specific number of donors from each state. The appeal, tailored to create a sense of urgency and local impact, has sparked both enthusiasm and concern among donors and stakeholders. With BFAS' ambitious goal of achieving a no-kill nation by 2025 already under scrutiny, this campaign raises important questions about transparency, fund allocation, and the sustainability of its strategies.
The Tailored Appeal: Strategic or Misleading?
The campaign’s messaging emphasizes that a specific number of donors from each state are needed to unlock $500,000 in matching funds. However, BFAS does not explain how these state-specific targets are determined. While it is possible that factors such as population size or historical donor participation influence these numbers, the lack of transparency risks undermining trust. Clear communication about these targets could strengthen donor confidence and deepen their connection to the campaign’s goals.
The appeal is promoted as a triple-match challenge, meaning donors must collectively raise $166,667 per state - one-third of the matching goal - to unlock $500,000 in funds. If successful in all 50 states, this campaign could generate $33.33 million—an amount that would significantly augment BFAS’ reported annual revenue of over $170 million (according to recent IRS Form 990 filings).
However, with an average of only 6.33% of revenue allocated to grants over the past three years and the appeal making no mention of spay/neuter programs—widely regarded as essential to achieving authentic no-kill status—donors may question how these additional funds will be used.
The Broader Context: Legal and Ethical Challenges
BFAS’ no-kill strategy has faced significant challenges in recent months. A San Diego judge recently declared two cornerstone policies—managed intake and community release—violate California Penal Code §597s, which prohibits abandonment - the net result of these policies. Critics have long argued that these policies manipulate shelter statistics to reduce euthanasia rates on paper, while neglecting systemic issues like shelter overcrowding and pet overpopulation.
This ruling is more than just a legal setback, critics charge these policies represent a fundamental betrayal of ethical animal welfare principles. Managed intake and community release policies shift responsibility away from shelters and onto communities ill-equipped to handle the challenges of stray and abandoned animals. Rather than reducing suffering, these strategies often exacerbate it, leaving vulnerable animals at greater risk of neglect, injury, or death. Such approaches undermine public trust and divert attention from proven interventions—such as spay/neuter programs—that genuinely address the root causes of overpopulation.
Call to Action
For donors:
Before contributing to BFAS’ year-end appeal, demand clear answers on how your donations will be used. Insist that funds directly benefit animals in need, rather than being allocated toward administrative costs or marketing efforts. Specifically, donors should seek clarity on the following questions:
How will funds raised through this campaign support sustainable solutions such as spay/neuter?
What initiatives will replace managed intake and community release policies?
How will BFAS ensure donations directly benefit animals rather than administrative or marketing costs?
By withholding contributions until these questions are satisfactorily addressed, donors can push for greater transparency and accountability.
For shelters and municipalities:
Communities currently adopting or considering BFAS strategies should carefully evaluate whether these approaches genuinely address local animal welfare needs and comply with relevant laws. Alternative models emphasizing sustainable practices like spay/neuter and improved shelter infrastructure may offer more reliable long-term solutions. Until BFAS addresses its documented legal challenges, ethical concerns, and operational gaps, communities may wish to explore alternative strategies that better align with sustainable animal welfare goals.
Calls for Independent Audit
The scale of this campaign adds weight to growing calls for an independent audit of BFAS’ finances and operations. Such an audit could address key concerns:
Fund Allocation: Are donations being directed toward local programs that deliver measurable results for animals in need where the funds are raised?
Transparency: How are matching funds sourced, and how will they be distributed across states?
Effectiveness: Are BFAS’ strategies genuinely reducing euthanasia rates in a sustainable way?
An independent audit would not only provide much-needed clarity but also reassure donors and stakeholders while helping BFAS maintain its reputation as a leader in animal welfare.
Recommendations for BFAS
To address these concerns and strengthen donor confidence, BFAS should:
Clarify Campaign Details: Explain the tailored nature of the appeal and provide transparency about how donor targets were determined.
Update Messaging: Acknowledge recent legal challenges and outline how funds will be used to overcome them.
Embrace Accountability: Commission an independent audit to demonstrate a commitment to ethical practices and effective fund allocation.
Focus on Sustainability: Shift resources toward evidence-based solutions like spay/neuter programs, community outreach, and shelter infrastructure improvements.
Provide Regular Impact Reports: Share regular updates or state-specific reports on how funds are raised and used to foster trust and transparency.
Conclusion
BFAS’ year-end appeal underscores the power of emotionally compelling campaigns but it also highlights the critical need for transparency and accountability in fundraising. Donors should ask one simple question before contributing: How will my money directly benefit animals in need?
By taking steps to clarify fund allocation, embrace accountability, and focus on sustainable solutions, BFAS can still achieve its stated mission while setting a new standard for transparency in animal welfare.
Disclaimer and Author’s Perspective
These recommendations are based on publicly available information and reflect the author’s opinion on how stakeholders can best support sustainable animal welfare practices. Donors and stakeholders should continue to advocate for clear answers and responsible fund allocation to ensure their contributions make a lasting difference.
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.
We need to educate people, these campaigns play on the heart strings of donors and the real question should be why after all these years are we still stuck in the same place and how much goes into paychecks and perks. Every penny needs to be accounted for. But we need to educate the public to ask lot's and lot's of questions.
These emails are working. My sister in Iowa has been inundated with these emails and was about to donate—until it occurred to her this is the organization that I told her about.
I’ll give Best Friends credit for being savvy marketers, but I wish they would redirect their efforts from “no-kill” and data that doesn't give the full picture of individual dogs suffering for years in kennels that are not adoptable. Thank you for bringing attention to this issue. It’s critical that people, corporate donors and legislatures understand the full picture.