The Crisis in Animal Welfare: How National Organizations Fail Shelter Animals
No Kill or No Help? Billions Raised, But Local Shelters Still Struggle
In the United States, national organizations like Best Friends Animal Society, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) have long championed animal welfare. With billions of dollars in donations raised through high-profile marketing campaigns, these groups promise to end animal suffering and reduce euthanasia to control pet overpopulation. Yet, as local shelters grapple with overpopulation, dwindling resources, and mounting pressure to meet lofty benchmarks, a troubling question arises: Are these national organizations truly supporting shelters on the front lines—or are they intentionally or unintentionally exacerbating the crisis?
This article explores the complex relationship between national animal welfare organizations and local shelters, revealing how fundraising-driven initiatives often fail to address the realities facing shelters across the country.
The Financial Paradox: Billions Raised, But Where Does It Go?
The ASPCA, HSUS, and Best Friends Animal Society have collectively raised billions of dollars over the past several decades. ASPCA’s annual revenue, for instance, skyrocketed from $85 million in 2007 to nearly $390 million in 2021, raising over $2 billion since launching their iconic, and some would say, brutal Sarah McLachlan ads. HSUS reported a staggering $260 million in revenue in 2021, and Best Friends raised an impressive $360.9 million in 2023. Yet, questions linger: how much of this money directly benefits the animals?
Despite these massive revenues, countless local shelters remain in crisis, overwhelmed by the volume of animals and limited resources. Critics argue that national organizations direct much of their funds toward overhead, executive salaries, and aggressive fundraising campaigns rather than meaningful support for shelters or essential programs.
Notably, these organizations have largely stopped funding high-volume spay/neuter services—an essential tool for controlling pet overpopulation—casting serious doubt on their commitment to solving the problem. In some cases, executives at these organizations receive exorbitant salaries, further draining resources that could otherwise address urgent needs on the ground.
Many donors contribute with the expectation that their money will go directly toward saving animals' lives or funding crucial programs like spay/neuter services. Yet with so much of these donations going toward overhead costs and executive salaries, it's unclear whether these funds are truly benefiting animals as intended by donors.
This financial disconnect leaves many shelters struggling to meet ambitious goals, such as achieving a '90% Live Release Rate'—targets heavily promoted by national organizations but often inadequately supported with the necessary resources that are readily available.
The "No Kill" Dilemma: Unrealistic Goals with Unintended Consequences
One of the most ambitious goals set by national organizations is achieving "No Kill" status nationwide by 2025—an initiative spearheaded by Best Friends Animal Society. "No Kill", according to Best Friends, requires that 90% or more of animals entering a shelter leave alive through adoption or other means. While this goal sounds laudable, it has become a powerful fundraising tool for organizations like Best Friends and ASPCA, who actively promote the vision of a "No Kill" nation to drive donations. Because these national organizations are not directly involved in shelter operations, they can publicly take credit when a shelter achieves this goal, but they distance themselves—and even fundraise off the “need” for further donations—when shelters fall short.
The pressure to achieve these live outcome metrics, without adequate financial support or resources from national organizations, places a significant burden on local shelters. In some cases, this has led to controversial practices like "managed intake," where only the most adoptable animals are accepted while others are turned away due to space limitations. This approach leaves many animals abandoned on the streets to fend for themselves or sent to overcrowded facilities that can’t accommodate them.
At Pima Animal Care Center (PACC) in Arizona—a shelter once celebrated for striving toward "No Kill"—overcrowding and resource shortages have reportedly forced staff to euthanize animals during peak periods and turn away dogs due to lack of space. Despite these challenges, national organizations can still frame PACC's struggles as part of an ongoing need, which keeps donations flowing without them having to address the underlying resource gap that they helped create.
Critics argue that some shelters under the intense pressure to meet "No Kill" targets may resort to manipulating intake processes or even covertly euthanizing animals to maintain favorable statistics. This raises serious ethical questions about whether these metrics reflect actual improvements in animal welfare or are merely a numbers game designed to bolster national organizations' fundraising and public relations efforts.
While these groups promote their vision of a "No Kill" nation to appeal to donors, the responsibility for making the difficult day-to-day decisions falls on local shelters, who often lack the resources needed to turn that vision into reality.
Strategic Partnerships: National Influence at a Local Cost
National organizations like Best Friends are increasingly forming partnerships with local shelters—especially in major urban centers like Los Angeles—to expand their fundraising reach. While these partnerships promise resources and expertise, they often impose rigid strategies that overlook local challenges and community needs.
For instance, Best Friends’ emphasis on live release rates can sometimes overshadow comprehensive welfare approaches, such as investing in spay/neuter programs to address overpopulation at its source. This one-size-fits-all method strains local shelters, many of which already struggle with limited resources.
A recent example is Riverside County’s Department of Animal Services (RCDAS), where a lawsuit revealed significant management challenges. Kristen Hassen, a prominent proponent of Best Friends’ no-kill approach, was recently awarded a $2.5 million consulting contract to guide the shelter's practices. While her focus on increasing live release rates aligns with national goals, some question whether this emphasis on metrics might overlook deeper, systemic issues—as reported by other communities where Hassen has previously worked.
These partnerships often serve as high-profile success stories for national organizations’ fundraising campaigns but may fail to address the real needs of local shelters.
Transparency, Accountability, and a Path Forward: Reforming Animal Welfare
One of the most glaring issues plaguing national animal welfare organizations is a lack of transparency in how they allocate resources and manage shelter operations. Contracts awarded to consulting firms—often at significant expense—have come under scrutiny for focusing on metrics like live release rates rather than comprehensive welfare strategies that address both short-term needs and long-term solutions.
In California, activists have begun mobilizing against what they see as mismanagement within the animal welfare sector. Initiatives like "Fix our Shelters" and "Cal Animals Exposed" aim to redirect funds toward effective solutions such as spay/neuter programs rather than consulting contracts that perpetuate existing problems without addressing root causes. The frustration is palpable among those working on the front lines at local shelters who feel abandoned by national organizations more focused on maintaining appearances than solving real problems.
As we navigate these complex challenges in animal welfare management, it is clear that reform is needed at both the national and local levels. National organizations must prioritize transparency in how they allocate resources while ensuring that their strategies are tailored to meet the unique needs of each community they serve.
To move forward effectively:
Stricter Regulations on How Donations Are Spent
Mandatory Financial Transparency: National animal welfare organizations should publicly disclose detailed breakdowns of how donations are allocated, including separating funds used for direct animal care, spay/neuter programs, and overhead costs like executive salaries.
Third-Party Audits: Regular third-party audits should be conducted to ensure that donations are being used as intended. These audits should be made public to build trust with donors and communities.
Cap on Overhead Spending: A cap could be placed on the percentage of donations that can be spent on overhead (e.g., administrative costs), ensuring more funds go directly to animal care.
Increased Collaboration Between Local Governments and National Organizations
Targeted Funding for Local Needs: National organizations should work closely with local governments and shelters to identify specific community needs (e.g., spay/neuter programs) and tailor their funding accordingly.
Public-Private Partnerships: Local governments could partner with national organizations to create joint initiatives that address both animal welfare and broader social issues like homelessness.
Grant Programs for Shelters: National organizations should establish grant programs specifically designed to help local shelters improve their infrastructure or implement innovative solutions for overpopulation.
Accountability for Consulting Contracts
Performance-Based Contracts: Consulting contracts awarded by national organizations or local governments should be based on measurable outcomes beyond just live release rates.
Transparency in Contracting: All consulting contracts should be subject to public scrutiny, with clear deliverables outlined before the contract is awarded.
Community Involvement in Contract Decisions: Local communities should have a voice in deciding whether consulting firms are brought in to manage shelter operations.
Community Engagement and Public Education
National organizations should invest in public education campaigns focused on responsible pet ownership, spay/neuter services, and shelter overpopulation realities.
Shelters should develop robust volunteer programs that engage local communities in caring for animals and fostering pets.
Ethical Practices in Animal Welfare
While live release rates are important, they should not overshadow other critical aspects of animal care such as medical treatment or behavioral rehabilitation.
Shelters must adopt ethical frameworks for decision-making that consider both human and animal needs.
By implementing these reforms, national organizations can better align their efforts with the needs of local shelters while ensuring greater transparency and accountability across the board. Only through collective action—fueled by accountability—can we hope to create a more humane future for all creatures in our care.
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.
THIS: "Critics argue that national organizations direct much of their funds toward overhead, executive salaries, and aggressive fundraising campaigns rather than meaningful support for shelters or essential programs." A former staffer from one of these groups, who is a friend of mine, relayed that numerous positions at his former organization were referred to as "candy jobs." Remote work can further contribute to the question of performance. While we can agree that these large organizations have done -and continue to do - some good, why would they want to work themselves out of a job, and a well-compensated one, at that? Their primary focus appears to be on adoptions of companion animals - on reactive measures rather than preventive approaches. They're trying to put out fires that could have been prevented in the first place. This should be very concerning to those who donate, assuming their contribution is making a difference. In some instances, it could definitely be put to much better use via spay/neuter and other proven, effective programs. Perhaps donors need to start asking more questions.
Thank you!