The Transparency Gap: What the 2024 Shelter Animals Count Report Doesn’t Reveal

How Aggregated Data Masks Trends and Why Per Capita Reporting Could Be the Key to Saving Lives

If you’ve ever adopted a pet, volunteered at a shelter, or cared about a homeless animal, you know that every life matters. Behind every wagging tail or purring kitten is a story—and the data we rely on to tell these stories is crucial. But what happens when the numbers we rely on to save lives become harder to access and less transparent? For anyone who loves animals, transparency in data isn’t just academic—it’s essential to saving lives.

A Shift in Data Practices

For over a decade, Shelter Animals Count (SAC) has been a cornerstone of accountability, offering open access to shelter-specific data that empowered communities to track progress and demand change. Since its founding in 2012, SAC’s granular reporting allowed advocates to identify high-risk shelters and direct life-saving resources where they were needed most.

However, SAC’s 2024 Year End Report marks a stark departure from this tradition. The report now emphasizes aggregated data and employs machine-learning models that, while enhancing broad analytical capabilities, obscure the detailed metrics crucial for local accountability. Crucially, the report does not provide sufficient detail to draw actionable insights.

This lack of clarity matters: without knowing the data’s source, we cannot assess regional disparities or pinpoint localized challenges. The report presents itself as a “national overview” by aggregating data from 13,527 organizations, yet its failure to provide organizational specificity or geographic distribution means that its high-level trends may mask critical local differences. It also makes it difficult to assess whether the trends reflect nationwide conditions or are skewed by data from certain types of organizations or regions.

One key metric—euthanasia—has been particularly affected by this shift.

What the Report Reveals About Euthanasia

Euthanasia is not merely a statistic; it reflects the ultimate failure of our commitment to saving lives. Yet the term itself masks an important distinction. In some cases, euthanasia is a compassionate, last-resort measure—mercy killing performed when an animal suffers irremediably or poses a genuine danger to public safety. In other instances, however, it is applied to healthy or treatable animals as a cost-saving or managerial expedient measure.

Although the SAC 2024 report offers a snapshot of national euthanasia trends it falls short of providing the detailed, shelter-level data needed to understand these nuances and drive meaningful reform:

1. Non-Live Outcomes Overview:

• Non-live outcomes (euthanasia, died in care, or lost in care) comprised 10.5% of all outcomes in 2024, down slightly from 11% in 2023.

• Shelter euthanasia accounted for 9.4% of total intakes—up from 8% in 2023.

2. Species-Specific Trends:

• Dogs experienced a notable increase in non-live outcomes, largely due to overcrowding and reduced transfer rates, while cats showed a decrease across various shelter types.

3. Vulnerable Populations:

• Among kittens under five months old, neonates (under four weeks old) represented a disproportionately high share of non-live outcomes, highlighting the challenges of caring for our most vulnerable animals.

The Limitations of Aggregated Data

The report’s reliance on aggregated data simplifies national reporting but comes at a steep cost. By failing to disclose the number and distribution of shelters contributing data, it is impossible to verify the representativeness of the trends. As a result:

• Assessing Representation: We don’t know if the trends reflect nationwide conditions or are skewed by data from a limited number of shelters.

• Identifying Regional Disparities: Local successes or failures are obscured, as the unique performance of individual shelters is lost in national averages.

• Directing Targeted Interventions: Without granular data, advocates and policymakers cannot identify high-risk areas or design interventions tailored to local needs.

In short, while SAC’s aggregated approach may offer a broad view, it sacrifices the depth and nuance essential for true accountability—rendering the data largely useless for addressing the unique needs of any individual community, including yours.

Systemic Consequences: Beyond the Numbers

Aggregated reporting risks misdirecting resources and policy efforts. When raw euthanasia rates are aggregated nationally rather than adjusted for the size of the community, high-impact areas can be overlooked—communities with high per capita euthanasia rates might go unnoticed, while innovative shelters lose the recognition they deserve.

Per capita reporting*, which normalizes data relative to a community's population, provides a clearer picture of local performance; however, SAC does not provide this crucial detail. Similar to other fields where data manipulation has led to policy missteps, the animal welfare sector now faces the risk of enacting solutions based on incomplete information.

The transition to aggregated reporting appears symptomatic of a broader trend. National organizations under pressure to project success through favorable statistics, may prefer high-level trends over the granular details that reveal persistent, localized challenges. In doing so, they sidestep the uncomfortable reality that significant progress in reducing euthanasia remains uneven and, in some cases, stagnant. Critics allege this is why Best Friends launched their own data collection program, Shelter Pet Data Alliance (SPDA), - to increase control over the data narrative.

The Hidden Impacts of Machine-Learning Models

While the incorporation of machine-learning models promise sophisticated trend analysis, they can also smooth over critical anomalies and hide the underperformance of specific shelters. Without safeguards, these models may further erode public trust by masking the detailed data required for targeted, evidence-based interventions.

A Call for Transparent, Community-Driven Metrics

One promising solution to bridge this transparency gap is per capita reporting (as explained in previous articles; listed below*). By contextualizing data to the population each shelter serves, per capita metrics offer a more nuanced understanding of local performance:

• Contextualized Data: Adjusting for community size and demographics allows for fairer comparisons and more targeted interventions.

• Enhanced Accountability: Linking outcomes to local populations makes it easier to pinpoint where support is most needed.

• Actionable Insights: Policymakers can design interventions that address specific regional challenges, ultimately reducing euthanasia rates.

For example, a shelter with a high euthanasia rate may appear underperforming when viewed in isolation but could be operating in an area with limited resources and high intake rates relative to its population size. Per capita reporting would provide this critical context, enabling fairer evaluations and more effective resource allocation.

The Case for Independent Oversight

The reluctance to report detailed euthanasia data is not merely a technical issue—it reflects a systemic challenge in our profession. National organizations, driven by pressures to secure donations and political favor, may downplay the harsh realities of euthanasia.

For example, consider Best Friends Animal Society. In their recent annual report, they highlight improvements in adoptions and transfers and tout a reduction in overall euthanasia rates. However, instead of breaking down the numbers by individual shelters or regions, they presented aggregated data that obfuscates local disparities and national progress.

This means that while some shelters may be achieving impressive results, others with alarmingly high euthanasia rates can be hidden (or omitted, as some allege) in the averages. By emphasizing a national trend of improvement rather than exposing the specific challenges faced by certain communities, Best Friends effectively downplays the need for effective, targeted solutions.

This focus may explain the organization’s recent pivot toward working with easier-to-manage rural shelters rather than tackling the more complex challenges of large urban shelters. It also sheds light on their launch of SPDA, a move that grants them tighter control over the data narrative. Their strategies appear designed not only to protect their public image but also to suppress dissent regarding their policies—an effort reinforced by a chilling admission from one insider to Animal Politics: “It’s like the mafia—we’re all afraid to speak up.”

An independent watchdog organization is urgently needed—a neutral body that can conduct thorough, shelter-level assessments free from financial or political entanglements. Such an organization would not only monitor data practices across platforms like SAC and Best Friends’ SPDA but also advocate for industry-wide standards. Its mission would be to ensure that every policy, program, and decision in animal welfare is driven by transparency and a genuine commitment to reducing animal suffering.

The Future of Accountability

Imagine a future where animal welfare is measured not by manipulated statistics or fleeting headlines, but by genuine, measurable humane impact. A future where every shelter is evaluated on its ability to save lives in a transparent and accountable manner. To achieve this, we must confront systemic failures head-on, using detailed, community-specific data to drive reform - anything less is just a marketing strategy built on illusion.

The SAC 2024 report, with all its promising yet flawed advances, underscores a critical turning point. It is a call to action for every stakeholder—from policymakers to shelter workers—to demand a system where transparency is paramount. By adopting per capita reporting*, standardizing euthanasia metrics, and establishing independent oversight, we can rebuild trust and ensure that the welfare of animals is never sacrificed for the sake of optics.

In an era where every animal counts, transparency isn’t just a virtue—it is essential to saving lives.

* Previous Articles on the Per Capita Metric:

The Web They Weave: How Obfuscation in Animal Welfare Language Undermines Accountability

Position Statements on Regressive Animal Welfare Policies

The Asilomar Accords: How Shelters Game the System and Why We Need a Better Metric

Harnessing the Power of the Per Capita Rate

The No-Kill Gold Standard

In Defense of the No-Kill Ethic

Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, City of 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.