The Hidden Agenda: How Maddie’s Fund Shapes Animal Welfare at a Cost
Behind the “No-Kill” Movement: The Financial Web Undermining Transparency and Ethical Animal Care
When Kelly Paolisso first made a phone call to locate 323 small pets transferred by the San Diego Humane Society (SDHS) to Tucson, she thought it would be a simple inquiry. Instead, it launched her into a labyrinth of troubling practices and systemic issues in animal welfare. What began as an effort to uncover the fate of guinea pigs—many of which were later sold to a reptile breeder—evolved into a years-long investigation into the financial and ethical forces shaping modern animal welfare policies.
Paolisso is not your typical animal advocate. With an Education Specialist degree in educational psychology and a Doctorate in Physical Therapy, she has spent much of her career honing skills in problem-based learning, critical evaluation of research, and statistical analysis. These tools gave her the ability to spot inconsistencies in data and identify patterns that others might overlook. “When something seems off in research, I can usually spot it,” she said. That expertise would prove invaluable as she uncovered what she describes as a “closed loop” of financial influence and research bias tied to one of the most powerful organizations in animal welfare: Maddie’s Fund.
A Catalyst for Investigation
The SDHS small pet transfer incident was Paolisso’s entry point into animal welfare advocacy. Her discovery that many of the animals had been sold to Colton Jones, the owner of a reptile breeding business called The Fertile Turtle, exposed significant lapses in oversight at SDHS. While this incident was deeply troubling on its own, it also opened Paolisso’s eyes to broader systemic issues. She began asking bigger questions: Who sets the standards for animal welfare practices? How are these policies funded? And who benefits from them?
Her investigation eventually led her to Maddie’s Fund, a philanthropic powerhouse that has redefined animal welfare through its substantial financial contributions. Since its founding in 1999, Maddie’s Fund has poured millions into shelter medicine programs, advocacy campaigns, and initiatives like trap-neuter-return (TNR) and shelter-neuter-return (SNR) programs for free-roaming cats. While these efforts have undoubtedly reduced euthanasia rates, critics like Paolisso argue that Maddie’s Fund’s influence has created an echo chamber where dissenting voices are marginalized.
The Maddie’s Fund Machine
Maddie’s Fund was established with the goal of reducing shelter euthanasia rates and increasing “live release” outcomes for animals. Under the leadership of Richard Avanzino, widely regarded as the father of the “no-kill” movement, the organization redefined its mission to focus on reducing intakes and promoting adoptions. To achieve this, Maddie’s Fund has invested heavily in academic institutions like UC Davis and the University of Florida, funding shelter medicine programs designed to train veterinarians and develop best practices.
One of its most high-profile initiatives is the Million Cat Challenge, launched in 2014 by Dr. Kate Hurley (UC Davis) and Dr. Julie Levy (University of Florida). The program promotes community cat management strategies like TNR and SNR as humane alternatives to euthanasia. Maddie’s Fund provided nearly $4.4 million in grants to support the initiative.
“Virtually all the leading organizations advocating for community cat programs—Best Friends Animal Society, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and others—receive funding from Maddie’s Fund,” Paolisso said. “This creates an environment where research often feels tailored to fit a predetermined narrative.”
Questionable Research Practices
Paolisso’s critique extends beyond financial influence to what she sees as troubling patterns in research practices within shelter medicine. A focal point of her investigation is Dr. Kate Hurley, director of the Koret Shelter Medicine Program at UC Davis—a program heavily funded by Maddie’s Fund. Hurley has been one of the most prominent advocates for community cat programs but has faced allegations of selectively interpreting data to support her positions.
During testimony in a San Diego trial, Hurley claimed that socialization levels—whether a cat is feral or friendly—do not significantly impact its ability to thrive outdoors. However, Paolisso found that studies cited by Hurley either fail to support this assertion or highlight significant risks for free-roaming cats, such as predation and traffic accidents.
For example:
The Johnson & Cicirelli study (2014) which focused exclusively on feral cats, cannot be generalized to include friendly or socialized cats.
The Edinboro study (2016) contained significant data gaps, including missing vaccination dates for over 62% of cats studied.
“Dr. Hurley’s conclusions often elevate opinion to the status of fact,” Paolisso said. “It’s a pattern that undermines trust and skews how these programs are perceived.”
Paolisso also noted that many studies cited by Hurley were funded by Maddie’s Fund or affiliated organizations, raising questions about conflicts of interest. Despite this, Hurley and Levy’s 2022 paper (Rethinking the Animal Shelter's Role in Free-Roaming Cat Management) declared no financial conflicts—a claim Paolisso finds difficult to reconcile with their extensive ties to Maddie’s-funded initiatives.
Community Cats: A Controversial Solution
Community cat programs are at the center of this debate. TNR and SNR programs aim to manage free-roaming cat populations by sterilizing them and returning them to their original locations rather than euthanizing or sheltering them indefinitely. Proponents argue that these programs reduce shelter crowding and allow cats to live out their lives in familiar environments.
However, critics like Paolisso highlight significant ethical and ecological concerns:
Free-roaming cats face numerous dangers outdoors, including predation by wildlife, traffic accidents, and human cruelty.
The programs often fail to distinguish between feral cats, stray cats, and owned outdoor cats, complicating efforts to reunite lost pets with their owners.
The ecological toll on wildlife—particularly birds and small mammals—remains a contentious issue among conservationists.
“We have scant data on what happens to cats post-release,” Paolisso said. “Without comprehensive research, it’s impossible to know whether these programs truly benefit all stakeholders—or if they simply shift the problem elsewhere.”
Follow the Money
Perhaps most troubling is how Maddie’s Fund uses its financial clout to shape policy and research priorities across the sector. The organization funds not only academic institutions but also advocacy groups like Best Friends Animal Society and professional associations such as the Association of Shelter Veterinarians (ASV). These entities then produce guidelines that often reinforce Maddie’s preferred approaches.
For example:
Data from Shelter Animals Count—a database created with funding from Maddie’s Fund—is frequently cited to bolster claims about community cat programs’ success.
The National Animal Care & Control Association (NACA), another recipient of Maddie’s funding, issued position statements supporting community cat initiatives.
“Maddie’s Fund has essentially built a closed loop,” Paolisso said. “They fund the research, they fund the promotion, and they control the narrative. It’s a powerful system but one that raises important questions about objectivity and accountability.”
A Call for Accountability
Paolisso believes that greater transparency and impartiality are urgently needed in animal welfare research and policy-making. She advocates for:
Independent studies free from financial conflicts of interest.
Comprehensive research on long-term outcomes for free-roaming cats.
Clearer distinctions between different categories of free-roaming cats (e.g., feral vs. owned).
“We need unbiased studies that examine all aspects of these programs—the successes, the failures, and everything in between,” she said. “Only with full transparency can we make informed decisions about the future of animal welfare.”
Conclusion
Kelly Paolisso’s investigation has shed light on critical questions about transparency, accountability, and ethics in animal welfare. While Maddie’s Fund has undeniably achieved significant milestones—reducing shelter euthanasia rates chief among them—its influence raises legitimate concerns about whether objectivity is being sacrificed in pursuit of its goals.
As debates over community cat programs continue, one thing remains clear: rigorous research and open dialogue are essential if we are to ensure humane outcomes for animals while addressing broader ecological and public health concerns.
Addendum: The Spay/Neuter Backtrack
As previously reported, several Maddie’s Fund-supported organizations have controversially deprioritized spay/neuter initiatives, a proven method for reducing shelter intake. This shift, recommended by the Maddie’s-funded Koret Shelter Medicine Program and adopted by groups like Best Friends Animal Society and the ASPCA, risks exacerbating pet overpopulation, potentially leading to an estimated half a million additional litters annually.
Critics argue that this decision aligns with the patterns Kelly Paolisso uncovered—prioritizing financial sustainability over effective, long-term solutions. By sidelining spay/neuter efforts, these organizations ensure that shelters remain full, keeping fundraising appeals urgent. For more on this ongoing issue, see my previous analyses on the implications of this policy shift.
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.
"Critics argue that this decision aligns with the patterns Kelly Paolisso uncovered—prioritizing financial sustainability over effective, long-term solutions. By sidelining spay/neuter efforts, these organizations ensure that shelters remain full, keeping fundraising appeals urgent." As a colleague of mine long ago stated, "why would they want to work themselves out of a job." We see the larger organizations focusing heavily on adoptions, but not as much on preventive measures. Common sense would dictate that we focus on minimizing the problem at the source, if we're serious about truly wanting to help animals.
I agree that there seems to be a conflict of interest, but I wonder who would fund any of those studies except MF or another similar large animal advocacy organization. Studying it just to sort out fact from fiction and improve our shelters doesn't seem to be a powerful enough motivator for federal or state money.
If all this money was instead redirected to fund spay/neuter, we would have a much smaller challenge to worry about. To me, it seems like rearranging chairs on the Titanic - let's instead fund spay/neuter and provide animal services in every municipality.
Maybe we need a study on the outcomes for stray animals and pet owners in municipalities that do not have animal services (a common situation all over the southern and rural areas).