Per Capital Rate is a brilliant idea. Would reflect a better reality for the community, but it (like every other counting metric) does not include the number of animals turned away. That number is growing as shelters ‘manage’ their intake and game the system. We need a way to count those ‘ghost animals’ and also to count the number of animals who would be surrendered but are able to remain in their homes because of assistance the shelter gives them (food, veterinary care, training, resources)
Thank you, Cara, for your thoughtful comment! You’re right—any metric depends on ethical recorders. The growing practice of turning animals away was recently put on notice by a San Diego judge as unethical and illegal. Hopefully that will cause unethical shelters some pause. The LRR actually incentivizes “ghost animals” where the PCR incentivizes full disclosure. Developing ways to identify and remove de-centivizing factors would make the PCR even more comprehensive and impactful. Your insight highlights an important next step for improving how we measure progress in animal welfare—thank you for sharing!
Thank you, Ed, & thanks also for coming up with "PCR" as shorthand for the ratio of shelter killing to human population. I often wonder what might have happened if in 1995, when I began compiling this data, I'd had the brains to come up with "PCR," short enough for the attention spans of most of the public, instead of paragraph-long geeky explanations.
Concerning the problem of PCR not counting the number of animals turned away, that wasn't a problem of significance in 1995 & for about 20 years thereafter, because animal control departments and humane societies were mostly separate agencies with separate agendas. Animal control departments historically won their funding allocations from community governments based on intake, not exits, so had incentive to pick up as many animals running at large as possible. "Dogcatching" was a competitive field.
Maddie's Fund founding director Richard Avanzino can be faulted for instigating quite a lot of what's wrong with the present system, but one thing he did right was insisting that animal control and humane societies had to be separated from each other, as having inherently incompatible missions.
Over the past couple of decades, the pendulum has swung in completely the opposite direction, with animal control agencies trying hard to be popular by pursuing the "live release rate" metric, which is only appropriate for humane societies that can pick and choose their intake, and humane societies (such as in San Diego) increasingly often taking over animal control contracts, as was also common from 1895, when the ASPCA took over the New York City animal control contract, until 1985, when Avanzino returned the San Francisco animal control contract to the city.
Avanzino, who retired in 2015, never foresaw that humane societies would return to doing animal control work, & unfortunately never realized, either, the extent to which the Asilomar Accords formulas could be manipulated to disguise malfeasance, even though I argued like hell with him trying to point this out.
Back in 1997 I wrote an essay entitled "White Hats & Black Hats," which pointed out the necessity of there being people willing to wear the black hat of animal control, picking up and euthanizing dangerous dogs, potentially rabid animals, severely injured animals, et al, in order for the white hats at no-kill humane societies to do their work of life-saving without jeopardizing the public. Animal care & control still needs the black hats, just as does every western melodrama and cop show. Unfortunately, because nobody wants to be perceived as the bad guy, we don't have any authentic good guys, either, & the whole field now exists in shades of grey.
Incidentally, as a muckrake I've always worn a black hat. White hats do public relations.
Thank you, Merritt, for your thoughtful note and for the historical insights—it’s always a pleasure to learn from your perspective. The work you began in 1995 continues to inspire and guide much of the progress we strive for today, and I’m glad that you introduced me to the PCR concept and that my "PCR shorthand" resonates as a tool for clearer communication.
Your reflections on the shifts in animal control and humane society roles, as well as the challenges of balancing "white hat" and "black hat" responsibilities, resonate with me. The shades of grey you describe are precisely why transparency and accountability, like those PCR can foster, are more crucial than ever.
Thank you for continuing to be such a powerful voice in the field. Your work and candor have always been an invaluable resource for advancing animal welfare.
You may be aware of this but some readers may not be. Maddie’s Fund was the one who held the Asilomar Conference (Mark Goldstein SDHS previous CEO was one of the “industry leaders” in attendance) and the Asilomar Accords were created at this conference. To be eligible for Maddie's Fund's grants, a shelter must post their annual animal statistics, their lifesaving percentage and the formula for how it was calculated on their website, with the suggestion of using the Asilomar Accords format for the data. This conference was where the 90% live release rate to be labeled “No Kill” was cemented. They also give exceptions to shelters who are “trying” but can’t achieve 90% live outcomes.
Interestingly, the Humane Society of Southern Arizona has not released their 2023-2024 data to show whether they counted the 323 small pets given to Colten Jones as “live releases.” Surely if they didn’t, that would plummet their LRR. Waiting for the data to be published on their website. It was due out late summer/ early fall since their fiscal year is July 1 -June 30. So basically no data has been published since June 20, 2023 and we are approaching June 30, 2025.
San Diego Humane did classify the 323 small pets as “live releases.” Some argue this is correct because SDHS transferred them to HSSA. I would be okay with that IF the animals actually went into the the HSSA facility. Christian Gonzalez, former CPO, stated many times that HSSA was just the “middle man” because they “didn’t have the ability to care for that many animals. Also, had SDHS done their due diligence and followed protocols (AAWA and ASV protocols) they claim to have followed but later stated “there are no procedures for small animals,” it would be different. Not a single thing in the protocol was followed. Also, if SDHS would be transparent and release the records (emails, intake records, euthanasia records, et ) that we have asked for 17 months to prove they were “hoodwinked” as they say, it would help solidify the opinion held by some that the animals were indeed live outcomes.
Thank you, Kelly, for sharing this detailed and important context! It is important for us to understand the historical role Maddie’s Fund played in shaping industry standards, including the creation of the Asilomar Accords and the emphasis on Live Release Rates (LRR) as a benchmark for no-kill. The connection to grant eligibility and the 90% LRR threshold really highlights how these metrics became entrenched in sheltering practices. Your point about transparency—especially regarding shelters like the Humane Society of Southern Arizona and their handling of data—is an excellent reminder of why we need more robust, community-focused metrics like the Per Capita Kill Rate (PCR). It’s insights like yours that drive meaningful conversations about reform. Thank you for contributing!
Per Capita Rate may have been a useful metric until shelters around the country adopted "managed intake," thanks to Maddies, Best Friends, etc. When our county took over management of the shelter in 2004, they restricted intakes to strays, and refused to take in owned animals. As a result, their metrics look great (PCR = 5.82). This, however, fails to reflect the animals that are turned away and as a result, are abandoned, given away online, or killed. In a rural area like ours, it is easy for these unwanted animals to simply disappear and their deaths are not reflected by any metrics. Those of us who witness cruelty on a daily basis would argue for humane euthanasia at an animal shelter as a kinder alternative.
Jennifer, thank you for your thoughtful note and for highlighting this issue. The recent introduction of Managed Intake does complicate the utility of metrics like PCR by creating a disconnect between what’s reported and the reality faced by animals turned away. Your point about the unmeasured suffering of abandoned or rehomed animals is an important reminder that metrics alone can't capture the full picture.
I also agree that humane euthanasia at a shelter, while difficult, can sometimes be the most compassionate option for animals with no safe alternatives. These nuances are exactly why we need to push for metrics that account for the broader welfare impact on entire communities, not just what happens within shelter walls.
Thank you for your advocacy and for sharing your on-the-ground perspective—it’s voices like yours that bring much-needed clarity to these conversations.
Any metric system used has room for abuse. LRR should be calculated based off animals in/animals out. Period. All count in the end, otherwise organizations fudge numbers/reasons in order to reach otherwise unattainable goals.
Asilomar Accords have a purpose in organizations that are truly transparent and honest.
Thank you, Jennifer, for sharing your perspective! You’re right—any metric, including the LRR, can be manipulated if transparency and honesty aren’t prioritized. Calculating LRR based on all animals in and out, without exclusions, would certainly provide a more accurate and straightforward picture of shelter performance.
The Asilomar Accords do have value when applied with integrity, but as you point out, the challenge lies in ensuring organizations remain transparent and accountable. This is why alternative metrics like the Per Capita Kill Rate are so important—they offer a broader view of community-wide progress while reducing opportunities for data manipulation.
Thank you for contributing to this important discussion! Your insights help highlight the need for honest and equitable practices in animal welfare.
One of my friends was a volunteer dog walker at the San Diego Humane Society for five years. She would pick out the three dogs she was going to walk at the start of her shift. She was often in tears when one of the friendly, healthy dogs she had chosen was euthanized while she was walking another dog. She learned not to ask what happened to her "clients" when they were no longer in the shelter, as the answer wasn't always that they were adopted, but euthanized. To meet the 90% live release rate, the San Diego Humane Society had to be classifying friendly, healthy dogs as untreatable/unadoptable. I think it is merciful, and sometimes necessary to euthanize an animal, but to lie about the numbers so they look good is wrong.
Thank you, Suzanne, for sharing this heartfelt and troubling account. It’s deeply disheartening to hear about the emotional toll this took on your friend as a volunteer and the broader implications it raises about transparency in shelter practices. The possibility of misclassifying healthy, adoptable animals as "untreatable/unadoptable" to meet Live Release Rate (LRR) goals is a serious concern that undermines public trust and the integrity of no-kill efforts.
Your story highlights why metrics like the Per Capita Kill Rate (PCR) are so important—they focus on community-wide progress and accountability rather than shelter-specific numbers that can be manipulated. Transparency and honesty are essential for building trust with both volunteers and the public, and stories like this remind us of the urgent need for reform. Thank you for sharing this perspective—it adds an important voice to the conversation.
Per Capital Rate is a brilliant idea. Would reflect a better reality for the community, but it (like every other counting metric) does not include the number of animals turned away. That number is growing as shelters ‘manage’ their intake and game the system. We need a way to count those ‘ghost animals’ and also to count the number of animals who would be surrendered but are able to remain in their homes because of assistance the shelter gives them (food, veterinary care, training, resources)
Thank you, Cara, for your thoughtful comment! You’re right—any metric depends on ethical recorders. The growing practice of turning animals away was recently put on notice by a San Diego judge as unethical and illegal. Hopefully that will cause unethical shelters some pause. The LRR actually incentivizes “ghost animals” where the PCR incentivizes full disclosure. Developing ways to identify and remove de-centivizing factors would make the PCR even more comprehensive and impactful. Your insight highlights an important next step for improving how we measure progress in animal welfare—thank you for sharing!
Thank you, Ed, & thanks also for coming up with "PCR" as shorthand for the ratio of shelter killing to human population. I often wonder what might have happened if in 1995, when I began compiling this data, I'd had the brains to come up with "PCR," short enough for the attention spans of most of the public, instead of paragraph-long geeky explanations.
Concerning the problem of PCR not counting the number of animals turned away, that wasn't a problem of significance in 1995 & for about 20 years thereafter, because animal control departments and humane societies were mostly separate agencies with separate agendas. Animal control departments historically won their funding allocations from community governments based on intake, not exits, so had incentive to pick up as many animals running at large as possible. "Dogcatching" was a competitive field.
Maddie's Fund founding director Richard Avanzino can be faulted for instigating quite a lot of what's wrong with the present system, but one thing he did right was insisting that animal control and humane societies had to be separated from each other, as having inherently incompatible missions.
Over the past couple of decades, the pendulum has swung in completely the opposite direction, with animal control agencies trying hard to be popular by pursuing the "live release rate" metric, which is only appropriate for humane societies that can pick and choose their intake, and humane societies (such as in San Diego) increasingly often taking over animal control contracts, as was also common from 1895, when the ASPCA took over the New York City animal control contract, until 1985, when Avanzino returned the San Francisco animal control contract to the city.
Avanzino, who retired in 2015, never foresaw that humane societies would return to doing animal control work, & unfortunately never realized, either, the extent to which the Asilomar Accords formulas could be manipulated to disguise malfeasance, even though I argued like hell with him trying to point this out.
Back in 1997 I wrote an essay entitled "White Hats & Black Hats," which pointed out the necessity of there being people willing to wear the black hat of animal control, picking up and euthanizing dangerous dogs, potentially rabid animals, severely injured animals, et al, in order for the white hats at no-kill humane societies to do their work of life-saving without jeopardizing the public. Animal care & control still needs the black hats, just as does every western melodrama and cop show. Unfortunately, because nobody wants to be perceived as the bad guy, we don't have any authentic good guys, either, & the whole field now exists in shades of grey.
Incidentally, as a muckrake I've always worn a black hat. White hats do public relations.
Thank you, Merritt, for your thoughtful note and for the historical insights—it’s always a pleasure to learn from your perspective. The work you began in 1995 continues to inspire and guide much of the progress we strive for today, and I’m glad that you introduced me to the PCR concept and that my "PCR shorthand" resonates as a tool for clearer communication.
Your reflections on the shifts in animal control and humane society roles, as well as the challenges of balancing "white hat" and "black hat" responsibilities, resonate with me. The shades of grey you describe are precisely why transparency and accountability, like those PCR can foster, are more crucial than ever.
Thank you for continuing to be such a powerful voice in the field. Your work and candor have always been an invaluable resource for advancing animal welfare.
Thank you, Merritt. I appreciate the fact that you've always exposed the truth, no matter how painful or unpopular.
Merritt Clifton, thank you for all of the hard work that you put into the ANIMAL PEOPLE publication that you published for so many years. I was a fan!
My wife Beth & I have been doing similar but daily at www.Animals24-7.org since 2014. Subscriptions are free!
Right on!! :)
You may be aware of this but some readers may not be. Maddie’s Fund was the one who held the Asilomar Conference (Mark Goldstein SDHS previous CEO was one of the “industry leaders” in attendance) and the Asilomar Accords were created at this conference. To be eligible for Maddie's Fund's grants, a shelter must post their annual animal statistics, their lifesaving percentage and the formula for how it was calculated on their website, with the suggestion of using the Asilomar Accords format for the data. This conference was where the 90% live release rate to be labeled “No Kill” was cemented. They also give exceptions to shelters who are “trying” but can’t achieve 90% live outcomes.
Interestingly, the Humane Society of Southern Arizona has not released their 2023-2024 data to show whether they counted the 323 small pets given to Colten Jones as “live releases.” Surely if they didn’t, that would plummet their LRR. Waiting for the data to be published on their website. It was due out late summer/ early fall since their fiscal year is July 1 -June 30. So basically no data has been published since June 20, 2023 and we are approaching June 30, 2025.
San Diego Humane did classify the 323 small pets as “live releases.” Some argue this is correct because SDHS transferred them to HSSA. I would be okay with that IF the animals actually went into the the HSSA facility. Christian Gonzalez, former CPO, stated many times that HSSA was just the “middle man” because they “didn’t have the ability to care for that many animals. Also, had SDHS done their due diligence and followed protocols (AAWA and ASV protocols) they claim to have followed but later stated “there are no procedures for small animals,” it would be different. Not a single thing in the protocol was followed. Also, if SDHS would be transparent and release the records (emails, intake records, euthanasia records, et ) that we have asked for 17 months to prove they were “hoodwinked” as they say, it would help solidify the opinion held by some that the animals were indeed live outcomes.
Thank you, Kelly, for sharing this detailed and important context! It is important for us to understand the historical role Maddie’s Fund played in shaping industry standards, including the creation of the Asilomar Accords and the emphasis on Live Release Rates (LRR) as a benchmark for no-kill. The connection to grant eligibility and the 90% LRR threshold really highlights how these metrics became entrenched in sheltering practices. Your point about transparency—especially regarding shelters like the Humane Society of Southern Arizona and their handling of data—is an excellent reminder of why we need more robust, community-focused metrics like the Per Capita Kill Rate (PCR). It’s insights like yours that drive meaningful conversations about reform. Thank you for contributing!
Per Capita Rate may have been a useful metric until shelters around the country adopted "managed intake," thanks to Maddies, Best Friends, etc. When our county took over management of the shelter in 2004, they restricted intakes to strays, and refused to take in owned animals. As a result, their metrics look great (PCR = 5.82). This, however, fails to reflect the animals that are turned away and as a result, are abandoned, given away online, or killed. In a rural area like ours, it is easy for these unwanted animals to simply disappear and their deaths are not reflected by any metrics. Those of us who witness cruelty on a daily basis would argue for humane euthanasia at an animal shelter as a kinder alternative.
Jennifer, thank you for your thoughtful note and for highlighting this issue. The recent introduction of Managed Intake does complicate the utility of metrics like PCR by creating a disconnect between what’s reported and the reality faced by animals turned away. Your point about the unmeasured suffering of abandoned or rehomed animals is an important reminder that metrics alone can't capture the full picture.
I also agree that humane euthanasia at a shelter, while difficult, can sometimes be the most compassionate option for animals with no safe alternatives. These nuances are exactly why we need to push for metrics that account for the broader welfare impact on entire communities, not just what happens within shelter walls.
Thank you for your advocacy and for sharing your on-the-ground perspective—it’s voices like yours that bring much-needed clarity to these conversations.
Any metric system used has room for abuse. LRR should be calculated based off animals in/animals out. Period. All count in the end, otherwise organizations fudge numbers/reasons in order to reach otherwise unattainable goals.
Asilomar Accords have a purpose in organizations that are truly transparent and honest.
Thank you, Jennifer, for sharing your perspective! You’re right—any metric, including the LRR, can be manipulated if transparency and honesty aren’t prioritized. Calculating LRR based on all animals in and out, without exclusions, would certainly provide a more accurate and straightforward picture of shelter performance.
The Asilomar Accords do have value when applied with integrity, but as you point out, the challenge lies in ensuring organizations remain transparent and accountable. This is why alternative metrics like the Per Capita Kill Rate are so important—they offer a broader view of community-wide progress while reducing opportunities for data manipulation.
Thank you for contributing to this important discussion! Your insights help highlight the need for honest and equitable practices in animal welfare.
One of my friends was a volunteer dog walker at the San Diego Humane Society for five years. She would pick out the three dogs she was going to walk at the start of her shift. She was often in tears when one of the friendly, healthy dogs she had chosen was euthanized while she was walking another dog. She learned not to ask what happened to her "clients" when they were no longer in the shelter, as the answer wasn't always that they were adopted, but euthanized. To meet the 90% live release rate, the San Diego Humane Society had to be classifying friendly, healthy dogs as untreatable/unadoptable. I think it is merciful, and sometimes necessary to euthanize an animal, but to lie about the numbers so they look good is wrong.
Thank you, Suzanne, for sharing this heartfelt and troubling account. It’s deeply disheartening to hear about the emotional toll this took on your friend as a volunteer and the broader implications it raises about transparency in shelter practices. The possibility of misclassifying healthy, adoptable animals as "untreatable/unadoptable" to meet Live Release Rate (LRR) goals is a serious concern that undermines public trust and the integrity of no-kill efforts.
Your story highlights why metrics like the Per Capita Kill Rate (PCR) are so important—they focus on community-wide progress and accountability rather than shelter-specific numbers that can be manipulated. Transparency and honesty are essential for building trust with both volunteers and the public, and stories like this remind us of the urgent need for reform. Thank you for sharing this perspective—it adds an important voice to the conversation.