Riverside County Animal Services: A Crisis of Leadership and Accountability
Riverside County Animal Services Under Fire: Mismanagement, Cruelty, and Corruption Exposed
Riverside County’s Department of Animal Services (RCDAS) has recently come under intense public scrutiny following a lawsuit filed by local animal welfare advocates. The lawsuit, which was amended in early November, raises concerns about the management of the county's animal shelters, the treatment of animals in its care, and the use of taxpayer funds. The case has sparked widespread debate about how public animal shelters should be run and whether Riverside County is meeting its legal and ethical obligations to its animals and residents.
Allegations of Poor Conditions and High Euthanasia Rates
The lawsuit, filed by four longtime animal advocates, outlines troubling allegations regarding the conditions at RCDAS shelters. According to the plaintiffs, animals in these shelters have been subjected to poor living conditions, including unsanitary kennels and inadequate veterinary care. Photographs submitted as part of the lawsuit show dogs lying in filthy conditions, with some reportedly left unattended for extended periods.
The plaintiffs also claim that RCDAS has one of the highest euthanasia rates in the country. According to data cited in the lawsuit, over 24,000 animals were euthanized between 2022 and 2023—an average of about 1,000 animals per month. Many of these animals, the plaintiffs argue, were healthy or could have been made adoptable with proper care.
Legal Violations Cited
Central to the lawsuit is the alleged violation of California’s Hayden Act, a law that requires public animal shelters to make reasonable efforts to place adoptable animals into homes rather than resorting to euthanasia. The plaintiffs assert that RCDAS has failed to comply with this law by euthanizing animals that could have been saved. The lawsuit calls for RCDAS to adopt more humane policies that prioritize saving lives over euthanasia.
The plaintiffs are also seeking greater transparency from county officials regarding how taxpayer money is being used within RCDAS. They point to a $2.45 million consulting contract awarded without competitive bidding as an example of what they describe as questionable spending practices.
Concerns Over Leadership and Qualifications
The leadership of RCDAS has been a focal point of criticism in the lawsuit. Erin Gettis, who served as Director until her resignation shortly after the initial filing of the lawsuit in August 2024, is at the center of these concerns. According to court documents, Gettis had no prior experience in animal shelter management when she was appointed to lead RCDAS. Her sudden resignation was followed by her reassignment to a new executive position within Riverside University Health System Medical Center—a move that has raised questions among critics about her qualifications for both roles.
The plaintiffs argue that better-qualified leadership could have prevented many of the issues currently facing RCDAS. They contend that hiring individuals with relevant experience in animal welfare would help improve conditions for shelter animals and reduce euthanasia rates.
Financial Oversight and Public Accountability
In addition to concerns about animal welfare, the lawsuit highlights issues related to financial oversight within Riverside County’s government. The $2.45 million consulting contract awarded to Kristen Hassen—a consultant with a background in animal shelter management—has been a particular point of contention. The plaintiffs question why such a large contract was awarded without competitive bidding and whether it represents a prudent use of taxpayer funds.
At a recent Board of Supervisors meeting in October 2024, Supervisor Karen Spiegel raised concerns about this contract and called for an explanation as to why other options were not considered before awarding it. Despite these concerns, the contract was approved after minimal discussion.
Calls for Reform
The plaintiffs are calling for significant reforms at RCDAS, including a shift toward no-kill policies that have been successfully implemented in other communities across the country. They argue that with proper leadership and resources, Riverside County can reduce its reliance on euthanasia and improve outcomes for shelter animals.
As part of their legal action, they are seeking an injunction to halt further performance on the consulting contract unless county officials agree to review its terms and consider alternative approaches. They also hope their case will lead to greater accountability from county leaders regarding how taxpayer money is spent on animal services.
A Community Divided
The situation has sparked heated debate within Riverside County. While some residents support the lawsuit’s calls for reform and greater transparency, others argue that managing such a large shelter system presents unique challenges that require difficult decisions—including euthanasia in certain cases.
As this case moves forward through the courts, it will likely continue to raise important questions about how public shelters should balance their responsibilities to both animals and taxpayers.
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.
I'm glad to see taxpayers acknowledging their power and using it. Yes, they most definitely have the right to sue when they feel their tax dollars are not being used appropriately. Agencies and organizations need to be called out and held accountable when they're in dereliction of their duties and their obligation to those who help subsidize them.
Huge admiration for the animal advocates who stepped forward to bring scrutiny and file a lawsuit! It’s not easy. But they are giving voice to the animals who have none.
What a disappointment in careless humans and their lack of proper processes and systems. They have failed in their responsibility to provide proper care. How they could lack such compassion is beyond me.