Oversight should require more than two reports for that amount of funding! - monthly reports or at least quarterly reports.
In addition, horrifying how little was allocated to true prevention (s/n) in a grant intended to reduce euthanasias. The chief element in "access to care" needs to be s/n, but instead "access to care" is a euphemism for other "services."
The scary thing is that an alarming number of shelters take the word of the "experts" and follow procedures and policies that are clearly taking us backward. Your explanation of how that happens is a very clear one.
There are one or two statewide funds set up to implement the solution that are working well. We need to take a look at them and provide a few good examples which stand out in this miasma. Thirty years of work are being undone.
Hi Elaine, thank you for your thoughtful comment and for highlighting such critical points. I completely agree that more frequent reporting and independent oversight are essential for a program of this scale. The lack of adequate funding for spay/neuter services is alarming, as is the euphemistic use of "access to care" to justify other expenditures.
Your suggestion to examine successful statewide funds that are making a difference is an excellent one. If you know of any, I would love an opportunity to showcase effective examples that could help guide future reforms and ensure that the progress made over the last 30 years isn’t undone. Thank you again for sharing your insights and for being part of this important conversation!
Please share the names of any public shelters , statewide funds, in CA that have been successfully implemented. I founded a TNR nonprofit in 2018. I have been following and experiencing this KSMP mess in Contra Costa County.
California's $50 Million Fiasco has not only made the situation worse for animals throughout the state, but worse for our chances of ever getting another opportunity for spay/neuter funding from the California government. Any legislator evaluating how this money has been spent, and the concurrent drastic increase in unwanted animals (both those in shelters as well as those abandoned to the "community"), would have to conclude that it has been a terrible waste of government funds (taxpayer funds), and would thus be inclined to deny any further requests for funding for this problem.
Thank you, Jennifer, for your thoughtful comment. You’ve captured an important point about the long-term consequences this mismanagement could have—not just for animals, but for future funding opportunities as well. It’s frustrating to think about how much potential was lost here, and I hope shining a light on these issues will help drive accountability and better outcomes moving forward. Thanks again for sharing your perspective!
The city council and city managers must be in on the take. I have requested numerous times for someone in the city council, which is overseeing the shelter system in Southern California, to request an audit from the California State Auditor and not one response from any of them. Is the whole council corrupted. Where does the buck stop?
I would also be interested in auditing the Koret School of Vet Medicine. Are there any whistleblowers that are not afraid to come forward?
Hi Aimee, thank you for sharing your concerns and for taking the time to comment. The issues you’ve raised about the lack of response from authorities and the need for audits are critical points that align with many of the transparency, oversight, and accountability concerns discussed in the article. Thank you for your thoughtful input—it’s voices like yours that help drive meaningful change!
“Despite shelters requesting nearly $46 million for critical spay/neuter services, only $8.67 million was allocated—while $12.5 million was spent on administrative activities, and $15.5 million on cat cage portals.” This statement here is a disgrace on how our tax money has been spent. The administrative activities are questionable at best. I believe a forensic audit of our tax money is needed and more frequent reporting with outside oversight. I do not mind paying taxes when there is benefit but 15.5 million on cat Portals which is what Hurley did an entire YouTube video (where she made an embarrassment of herself none the less) speaks volumes to how and why this money was spent there. I want to know if my tax dollars helped animals (which it seems they have not) or lined the pockets of these consortium members.
Hi Kelly, thank you for sharing your thoughts and for highlighting such an important concern. The $15.5 million spent on cat portals has raised serious questions about priorities and accountability. Your point about the need for an independent audit and oversight is spot on—transparency is critical to ensuring taxpayer dollars are used effectively to truly benefit animals. I appreciate you taking the time to engage in this conversation!
I am with an organization that has received over $450k of the funds for three different grants, mostly for spay/neuter. The funds were a huge asset to the communities we serve. Two are still open and one is closed. For the one that is closed the reporting and review process was very thorough with the committee asking a lot of detailed followup questions. I am proud to be part of an organization that has been a recipient of these funds and the difference it has made for our communities has continuing significant impact.
Thank you so much for sharing your experience and for the important work your organization is doing to serve communities through spay/neuter initiatives. It’s encouraging to hear that the funds have had such a positive impact in your area, and your description of the thorough reporting process is especially interesting.
If you don’t mind, I’d love to ask you a few follow-up questions to better understand what’s working well. Your insights could help provide a more balanced perspective on this program. If you'd be open to discussing this further offline, I’d be happy to connect! (ed@edboks.com)
Thank you again for sharing your experience—it’s incredibly valuable!
Thank you for sharing your experience with cat cage portals—it’s an important point that highlights the practicality (or lack thereof) of some of these expenditures. If the product is prone to breaking, as your experience indicates, it raises even more questions about why such a significant portion of funding was spent on them. Your insight underscores the need for greater accountability and oversight. Thanks again for your comment—it’s a valuable addition to this discussion!
It's pretty telling when the California State Controller's office, Malia Cohen and staff don't feel it necessary to respond to taxpayers concerns. Multiple calls for an audit have been ignored.
Looks like we have a case of the fox watching the henhouse. Self appointed "experts" who each back up the other up~ acting middle school clique members! Of course, the stakes are higher, but it's the same idea. SO much money, SO little oversight.
Thank you, Ed for explaining this so anyone can understand this blatant misuse of tax dollars and the web of deceit. A pile of money with such pure and wonderful intentions, turned into a money grubbing scam by those who were suppose to safeguard and help animals in need.
Many of us have heard that a veterinarian named Kate Hurley at UC Davis Vet school took FIVE million dollars of that money to create her very cat dumping scheme. Using money from this grant for travel, hotels and meals all across the country teaching animal shelters how to dump their cats out the back door of their shelters. She gave it fancy name "community cats". But the ugly truth is cats are left to die on the streets. I doubt Governor Newsom could have never anticipated this evil when the grant was given.
Kate Hurley/ UC Davis Vet school's dumping program has now been ruled in illegal after she set it up in San Diego Humane Society. They were sued and it was found that it violated California animal protection laws. My recent letter to the Dean of the Vet School, Dean Mark Stetter, letting him know of the ruling received a surprising response. He basically said: ALL THE ANIMAL WELFARE EXPERTS RECOMMEND THIS! And those experts: Best Friends, Maddie's Fund, Petco Love, PetSmart Charities and various other donors to the UC Davis Vet School. All the same members of the middle school clique....
Wrap your head around THIS: California Licensed Veterinarians who took an oath to help animals like Dean Stetter and Kate Hurley used THIS GRANT money to travel the country and recommend to shelters their new dumping friendly, tame cats on the streets by the MILLIONS to die! No shelter, no food, no vet care, no water....no caregivers. All the while, shelters keep collecting tax dollars and try to hide what they are doing because those taxpayers who pay their salaries would be horrified. Remember, these are NOT TRN ferals cats. These are cats brought to the shelter by good samaritans in the community.
And if that wasn't bad enough they used social media and created a creepy website....with the MORE grant money, no doubt.... claiming they've "saved" 5 million cats? (MillionCatChallenge.org) The deception and delusion is astonishing.......
Aimee! I saw the letters you wrote that went unanswered. As my grandson would say, "That is sure messed up". Thank you for taking the time to ask for accountability. After I saw your letters, I too wrote to Malia Cohen who heads up California State Controller office and heard nothing but crickets.... TAXPAYERS DEMAND AND DESERVE ACCOUNTABILITY! Why yes, I was yelling.
Sick isn't it? Many of the people that I work with in the animal non-profit world do not like people and are angry and cruel-and are the definition of dis-ease. I met Kristen and no thanks.
And a correction needs to be made regarding the portal grant. $22,000 was in grants for portals, not $15 million. $15 million represents the total amount of grants awarded in 2022, of which $22,000 went to the portal grants.
I see you continue your habit of manipulating statistics, the same habit which caused you to resign as Chief of L.A animal serices. You referred to a consortium and then admitted no consortium exists. The money you claim was spent on cat portals is an outright lie. Millions of dollars were sent to underfunded shelters throughout California. Those workers and volunteers are doing a difficult job for which you have no solutions. Let's call this what it is; a hit piece by a bitter man.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I value open dialogue and appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns.
First, let me clarify a few points. The report I referenced is an official document submitted to the California Legislature in March 2023, and I’ve made every effort to accurately represent its findings. I embedded a link to the report so you can evaluate it for yourself. If there are specific areas where you feel I’ve mischaracterized the data, I’d be happy to revisit those points and engage in constructive discussion.
Regarding the consortium, my reference was based on the report’s mention of partnerships with various organizations and stakeholders. If this was unclear or misinterpreted, I welcome further clarification from anyone involved in the program.
As for the funding allocation, the report itself outlines how funds were distributed, including mentions of grants for facility improvements like cat portals. If there’s evidence that contradicts these details, I’d be eager to review it. My intention is not to undermine the hard work of shelter staff and volunteers but to advocate for transparency and accountability in how public funds are used—something I believe benefits everyone involved in animal welfare.
Finally, I understand that my critiques may come across as harsh at times, but they are driven by a deep commitment to improving outcomes for animals and communities alike. If you have alternative solutions or insights into how we can better achieve these shared goals, I’d love to hear them.
Thank you again for engaging in this important conversation.
Oversight should require more than two reports for that amount of funding! - monthly reports or at least quarterly reports.
In addition, horrifying how little was allocated to true prevention (s/n) in a grant intended to reduce euthanasias. The chief element in "access to care" needs to be s/n, but instead "access to care" is a euphemism for other "services."
The scary thing is that an alarming number of shelters take the word of the "experts" and follow procedures and policies that are clearly taking us backward. Your explanation of how that happens is a very clear one.
There are one or two statewide funds set up to implement the solution that are working well. We need to take a look at them and provide a few good examples which stand out in this miasma. Thirty years of work are being undone.
Hi Elaine, thank you for your thoughtful comment and for highlighting such critical points. I completely agree that more frequent reporting and independent oversight are essential for a program of this scale. The lack of adequate funding for spay/neuter services is alarming, as is the euphemistic use of "access to care" to justify other expenditures.
Your suggestion to examine successful statewide funds that are making a difference is an excellent one. If you know of any, I would love an opportunity to showcase effective examples that could help guide future reforms and ensure that the progress made over the last 30 years isn’t undone. Thank you again for sharing your insights and for being part of this important conversation!
Please share the names of any public shelters , statewide funds, in CA that have been successfully implemented. I founded a TNR nonprofit in 2018. I have been following and experiencing this KSMP mess in Contra Costa County.
Thank you for writing about this travesty, Ed.
California's $50 Million Fiasco has not only made the situation worse for animals throughout the state, but worse for our chances of ever getting another opportunity for spay/neuter funding from the California government. Any legislator evaluating how this money has been spent, and the concurrent drastic increase in unwanted animals (both those in shelters as well as those abandoned to the "community"), would have to conclude that it has been a terrible waste of government funds (taxpayer funds), and would thus be inclined to deny any further requests for funding for this problem.
Thank you, Jennifer, for your thoughtful comment. You’ve captured an important point about the long-term consequences this mismanagement could have—not just for animals, but for future funding opportunities as well. It’s frustrating to think about how much potential was lost here, and I hope shining a light on these issues will help drive accountability and better outcomes moving forward. Thanks again for sharing your perspective!
The city council and city managers must be in on the take. I have requested numerous times for someone in the city council, which is overseeing the shelter system in Southern California, to request an audit from the California State Auditor and not one response from any of them. Is the whole council corrupted. Where does the buck stop?
I would also be interested in auditing the Koret School of Vet Medicine. Are there any whistleblowers that are not afraid to come forward?
Hi Aimee, thank you for sharing your concerns and for taking the time to comment. The issues you’ve raised about the lack of response from authorities and the need for audits are critical points that align with many of the transparency, oversight, and accountability concerns discussed in the article. Thank you for your thoughtful input—it’s voices like yours that help drive meaningful change!
“Despite shelters requesting nearly $46 million for critical spay/neuter services, only $8.67 million was allocated—while $12.5 million was spent on administrative activities, and $15.5 million on cat cage portals.” This statement here is a disgrace on how our tax money has been spent. The administrative activities are questionable at best. I believe a forensic audit of our tax money is needed and more frequent reporting with outside oversight. I do not mind paying taxes when there is benefit but 15.5 million on cat Portals which is what Hurley did an entire YouTube video (where she made an embarrassment of herself none the less) speaks volumes to how and why this money was spent there. I want to know if my tax dollars helped animals (which it seems they have not) or lined the pockets of these consortium members.
Hi Kelly, thank you for sharing your thoughts and for highlighting such an important concern. The $15.5 million spent on cat portals has raised serious questions about priorities and accountability. Your point about the need for an independent audit and oversight is spot on—transparency is critical to ensuring taxpayer dollars are used effectively to truly benefit animals. I appreciate you taking the time to engage in this conversation!
Thank you, Ed, great reporting!
I am with an organization that has received over $450k of the funds for three different grants, mostly for spay/neuter. The funds were a huge asset to the communities we serve. Two are still open and one is closed. For the one that is closed the reporting and review process was very thorough with the committee asking a lot of detailed followup questions. I am proud to be part of an organization that has been a recipient of these funds and the difference it has made for our communities has continuing significant impact.
Hi Joy,
Thank you so much for sharing your experience and for the important work your organization is doing to serve communities through spay/neuter initiatives. It’s encouraging to hear that the funds have had such a positive impact in your area, and your description of the thorough reporting process is especially interesting.
If you don’t mind, I’d love to ask you a few follow-up questions to better understand what’s working well. Your insights could help provide a more balanced perspective on this program. If you'd be open to discussing this further offline, I’d be happy to connect! (ed@edboks.com)
Thank you again for sharing your experience—it’s incredibly valuable!
Of course, I'd be happy to answer your questions. My email is joy@fieldhaven.com and my number is 916-300-8166.
My experience with cat cage portals - they break! That's a lot of product destined to fail.
Hi Cindy,
Thank you for sharing your experience with cat cage portals—it’s an important point that highlights the practicality (or lack thereof) of some of these expenditures. If the product is prone to breaking, as your experience indicates, it raises even more questions about why such a significant portion of funding was spent on them. Your insight underscores the need for greater accountability and oversight. Thanks again for your comment—it’s a valuable addition to this discussion!
It would be interesting to know if there is a financial incentive to having bought these portals. Something I will look into when I get the chance.
It's pretty telling when the California State Controller's office, Malia Cohen and staff don't feel it necessary to respond to taxpayers concerns. Multiple calls for an audit have been ignored.
Looks like we have a case of the fox watching the henhouse. Self appointed "experts" who each back up the other up~ acting middle school clique members! Of course, the stakes are higher, but it's the same idea. SO much money, SO little oversight.
Thank you, Ed for explaining this so anyone can understand this blatant misuse of tax dollars and the web of deceit. A pile of money with such pure and wonderful intentions, turned into a money grubbing scam by those who were suppose to safeguard and help animals in need.
Many of us have heard that a veterinarian named Kate Hurley at UC Davis Vet school took FIVE million dollars of that money to create her very cat dumping scheme. Using money from this grant for travel, hotels and meals all across the country teaching animal shelters how to dump their cats out the back door of their shelters. She gave it fancy name "community cats". But the ugly truth is cats are left to die on the streets. I doubt Governor Newsom could have never anticipated this evil when the grant was given.
Kate Hurley/ UC Davis Vet school's dumping program has now been ruled in illegal after she set it up in San Diego Humane Society. They were sued and it was found that it violated California animal protection laws. My recent letter to the Dean of the Vet School, Dean Mark Stetter, letting him know of the ruling received a surprising response. He basically said: ALL THE ANIMAL WELFARE EXPERTS RECOMMEND THIS! And those experts: Best Friends, Maddie's Fund, Petco Love, PetSmart Charities and various other donors to the UC Davis Vet School. All the same members of the middle school clique....
Wrap your head around THIS: California Licensed Veterinarians who took an oath to help animals like Dean Stetter and Kate Hurley used THIS GRANT money to travel the country and recommend to shelters their new dumping friendly, tame cats on the streets by the MILLIONS to die! No shelter, no food, no vet care, no water....no caregivers. All the while, shelters keep collecting tax dollars and try to hide what they are doing because those taxpayers who pay their salaries would be horrified. Remember, these are NOT TRN ferals cats. These are cats brought to the shelter by good samaritans in the community.
And if that wasn't bad enough they used social media and created a creepy website....with the MORE grant money, no doubt.... claiming they've "saved" 5 million cats? (MillionCatChallenge.org) The deception and delusion is astonishing.......
Aimee! I saw the letters you wrote that went unanswered. As my grandson would say, "That is sure messed up". Thank you for taking the time to ask for accountability. After I saw your letters, I too wrote to Malia Cohen who heads up California State Controller office and heard nothing but crickets.... TAXPAYERS DEMAND AND DESERVE ACCOUNTABILITY! Why yes, I was yelling.
Sick isn't it? Many of the people that I work with in the animal non-profit world do not like people and are angry and cruel-and are the definition of dis-ease. I met Kristen and no thanks.
Hi, the link to the report is broken and a current one is https://www.californiaforallanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/animal_shelter_assistance_program_ucd_legrpt.pdf
And a correction needs to be made regarding the portal grant. $22,000 was in grants for portals, not $15 million. $15 million represents the total amount of grants awarded in 2022, of which $22,000 went to the portal grants.
I see you continue your habit of manipulating statistics, the same habit which caused you to resign as Chief of L.A animal serices. You referred to a consortium and then admitted no consortium exists. The money you claim was spent on cat portals is an outright lie. Millions of dollars were sent to underfunded shelters throughout California. Those workers and volunteers are doing a difficult job for which you have no solutions. Let's call this what it is; a hit piece by a bitter man.
Hi Becky,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I value open dialogue and appreciate the opportunity to address your concerns.
First, let me clarify a few points. The report I referenced is an official document submitted to the California Legislature in March 2023, and I’ve made every effort to accurately represent its findings. I embedded a link to the report so you can evaluate it for yourself. If there are specific areas where you feel I’ve mischaracterized the data, I’d be happy to revisit those points and engage in constructive discussion.
Regarding the consortium, my reference was based on the report’s mention of partnerships with various organizations and stakeholders. If this was unclear or misinterpreted, I welcome further clarification from anyone involved in the program.
As for the funding allocation, the report itself outlines how funds were distributed, including mentions of grants for facility improvements like cat portals. If there’s evidence that contradicts these details, I’d be eager to review it. My intention is not to undermine the hard work of shelter staff and volunteers but to advocate for transparency and accountability in how public funds are used—something I believe benefits everyone involved in animal welfare.
Finally, I understand that my critiques may come across as harsh at times, but they are driven by a deep commitment to improving outcomes for animals and communities alike. If you have alternative solutions or insights into how we can better achieve these shared goals, I’d love to hear them.
Thank you again for engaging in this important conversation.