Demanding Answers: Why Los Angeles Must Investigate Best Friends Animal Society’s Role in Animal Welfare

Fixing LA’s Shelter System Starts with Expanding the Audit to Expose Hidden Practices and Misaligned Priorities

Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia’s decision to audit Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) is a vital step toward addressing systemic challenges in our city’s animal welfare system. However, the scope of this audit must go further. It should include Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS), one of the most prominent animal welfare organizations in Los Angeles and across the United States. While Best Friends is celebrated as a leader in the no-kill movement, serious questions have been raised about its fundraising practices, partnerships with local rescues, and advocacy for shelter policies.

An audit of Best Friends’ operations in Los Angeles is not just a local necessity—it’s a potential game-changer for communities nationwide. With partnerships spanning all 50 states and thousands of shelters, their practices in Los Angeles set critical national precedents. By holding Best Friends accountable, Los Angeles can establish a new standard for transparency and ethical collaboration in animal welfare.

Critics argue an audit would likely reveal that underfunding spay/neuter programs drives donor engagement through crisis narratives. (AI generated image)

Transparency in Fundraising and Spending

Best Friends has leveraged its national reputation to raise significant funds. However, concerns persist about whether those funds are truly advancing their mission of saving animals.

For example, a Los Angeles rescuer described how Best Friends’ Strut Your Mutt campaign required her organization to solicit donations on behalf of Best Friends, who then collected donor data to convert supporters into their own long-term donors. Best Friends also retained a portion of the funds raised, raising concerns about whether the organization prioritizes expanding its donor base over supporting local rescues.

Moreover, recent audit findings reveal that Best Friends reported receiving approximately $186.7 million and $98.5 million in in-kind advertising contributions for the fiscal years ending September 30, 2023, and 2022, respectively. While reporting these donations as both revenue and expenses adheres to accounting standards, the unusually large scale of these contributions raises questions about transparency. Specifically:

• Visibility of Advertisements: A certified public accountant (CPA) questioned the plausibility of these ads, noting that their substantial value should correspond to widespread visibility. However, evidence of the ads’ frequency and locations remains unclear.

• Dramatic Increase in Value: The doubling of in-kind advertising value within a year, following an already steep upward trend from previous years, raises questions about the reasonableness of these increases without clear evidence of expanded advertising efforts.

• Daily Advertising Value: To meet the reported figures, Best Friends would need to orchestrate an advertising campaign worth over $511,000 every day of the year—a staggering scale that seems improbable without widespread visibility.

Such concerns suggest that advertising efforts may take precedence over direct animal welfare initiatives, potentially leaving donors with an incomplete understanding of the organization’s focus. An audit could provide clarity on whether Best Friends’ financial practices align with their stated mission or if they obscure the true allocation of resources.

Spay/Neuter: A Missed Opportunity for Systemic Change

Best Friends’ shift away from prioritizing spay/neuter funding raises significant concerns about its commitment to addressing the root causes of shelter overpopulation. Spay/neuter programs are universally recognized as one of the most effective strategies for reducing the number of homeless animals entering shelters. Yet without sufficient funding for these initiatives, communities face a steady influx of young, adoptable animals—a scenario that perpetuates the shelter "crisis."

This cycle has implications beyond shelter overcrowding. The availability of adoptable animals fuels fundraising opportunities based on emotionally charged appeals and the narrative of a never-ending crisis. This raises critical questions: Is Best Friends' shift in funding priorities a strategic decision to sustain short-term gains, such as adoptions and donations, at the expense of long-term solutions?

An expanded audit could help determine whether this deprioritization aligns with Best Friends’ stated mission or if it reflects a strategy that undermines systemic reform in favor of maintaining a lucrative crisis-driven fundraising model.

Policy Advocacy: Evidence of Systemic Issues

Best Friends’ opposition to key legislation—such as Bowie’s Law (AB 595) and AB 2265—raises questions about whether its advocacy aligns with its stated mission of promoting transparency and humane shelter practices.

• Bowie’s Law (AB 595): This bill would have required shelters to give a 72-hour public notice before euthanizing adoptable animals, allowing rescues and adopters more time to intervene. Best Friends opposed this legislation, citing logistical challenges and the need for flexibility in shelter operations.

• AB 2265: This proposed law aimed to improve shelter accountability through measures like public hearings for significant policy changes. Best Friends also joined a coalition opposing this bill.

While logistical concerns may justify opposition for some organizations, Best Friends’ significant influence in shaping shelter policy and their public commitment to transparency make their stance particularly concerning. An audit could determine whether this opposition reflects practical challenges or broader priorities that conflict with their stated mission.

Best Friends’ Network Partner Map “is made up of thousands (and counting) of shelters, rescue groups and other animal welfare organizations in all 50 states.”

National Implications: A Case for Broader Accountability

As a national organization, Best Friends’ practices in Los Angeles ripple across animal welfare systems nationwide. Their partnerships with thousands of shelters and rescues mean that their actions here set precedents elsewhere.

• If local rescues are being leveraged to expand Best Friends’ donor base, similar practices may be occurring in other cities.

• If their opposition to transparency-focused legislation reflects organizational priorities, it could slow progress toward more humane shelter policies nationwide.

By including Best Friends in the LAAS audit, the City Controller’s Office can uncover patterns and set an example for accountability and ethical collaboration in animal welfare for other municipalities.

Why an Expanded Audit Is Necessary

To ensure comprehensive reform, the City Controller’s audit must include Best Friends Animal Society’s financial practices, local partnerships, and policy advocacy. Key questions include:

• How much of their revenue is allocated to direct services versus marketing or administrative costs?

• Do their partnerships with local rescues truly support those rescues or prioritize expanding their donor base?

• Does their policy advocacy align with their mission or reflect conflicting priorities?

Auditing Best Friends alongside LA Animal Services would provide clarity on whether their actions align with their stated values and benefit the animals and communities they serve.

Call to Action: Contact the City Controller

Public accountability begins with public action. Contact City Controller Kenneth Mejia and urge him to expand the LA Animal Services audit to include Best Friends Animal Society. Together, we can ensure that resources are used ethically and effectively for the animals who depend on us.

Here’s how you can reach the City Controller’s Office:

• Email: controller.mejia@lacity.org

• Phone (General Inquiries): (213) 978-7200

• Office Address: 200 N. Main Street, Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90012

• Social Media: @lacontroller on X (Twitter), Instagram, and Facebook

Your voice matters. The animals in our shelters—and all those who advocate for them—deserve a system that prioritizes solutions over slogans, integrity over image, and results over rhetoric. Anything less is a betrayal of the trust placed in those tasked with safeguarding LA’s most vulnerable animals.

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.