How Many Animals Are Killed In Animal Shelters Each Year

Despite the hard work being done to revamp outdated methods, healthy cats and dogs have been dying in our communities' animal shelters due to large data gaps and inconsistent data. Several years ago, All-time Friends Animal Guild began compiling a database of all U.S. shelters and collecting data from them. The 2019 dataset is the nearly comprehensive national dataset to date, and accounts for an estimated 92% of the animals inbound U.South. shelters. In this written report nosotros share detailed findings from the 2019 dataset and the short term trends impacting shelter beast populations beyond the nation.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

• Key Findings

Introduction

• Background
• The growing no-impale movement and the importance of transparency

Findings: 2019 Details

• National progress indicators
• Findings by land
• Findings by region
• Findings by species

Findings: Trend Analysis (2016-2019)

• The sample used for trend analysis
• Intake
• Live Outcomes
• Non-live Outcomes
• Species

Conclusions

Research Methods and Assay

Contributors

Appendix

• What it means for a shelter, customs, state or the county to be no-kill
• Data sources in All-time Friends' 2019 dataset
• The deviation betwixt gross and net intake
• How save rates are calculated
• How the number of animals killed is calculated
• Gaps in the data

Download the PDF

The State of U.S. Brute Sheltering, 2020

---

Executive Summary

For generations, salubrious cats and dogs have been dying in our communities' creature shelters, with millions of animals losing their lives annually until the last couple of years. For the by 35 years, the animal welfare industry has been working to overhaul outmoded systems and antiquated means of relating to companion animals. Yet, until recently, no one really knew exactly how many animals were being killed in U.Due south. brute shelters. For a whole host of reasons, the manufacture has been left to grapple with large data gaps, inconsistent information, disputes over definitions of terms and a lack of clarity surrounding the number of animals beingness killed each year. Indeed, even the precise number of animate being shelters in the country has remained a matter of considerable speculation.

Several years ago, Best Friends Animate being Society began to compile a database of all U.South. shelters. We know at present that in 2019, there were 4,850 brick-and-mortar animal shelters^one in the country. In addition to building this main shelter list, Best Friends collects data near how many animals are entering these shelters, the array of outcomes for each animal, and how many animals need to be saved each year for that shelter and community to reach "no-kill" status (i.e., achieving positive outcomes for at least ninety% of the animals entering a shelter). The 2019 dataset — the most comprehensive national dataset to date — includes data from 3,608 (74%) of these brick-and-mortar shelters, and accounts for an estimated 92% of the animals entering U.S. shelters.

The data provided by these shelters has improved considerably — in terms of both quantity and quality — in recent years. This progress is the event of numerous efforts undertaken past various coalitions of brute welfare organizations, funders and other fundamental stakeholders. Today, we tin can run into the results of these ambitious initiatives: With an increased emphasis on data-driven decisions comes increased lifesaving.

In this written report, we share the top-line results of Best Friends' 2019 information analysis across four areas of interest: outcomes by species (cat and dog), per-capita findings, state and regional differences, and brute sheltering trends in recent years.

By understanding national, state and regional trends, creature welfare professionals can have a benchmark by which to compare their local progress toward no-kill and can also amend understand the data tools that Best Friends has developed and made publicly available. In today's environment of limited resources and many competing social causes, it is imperative to spend every dollar every bit wisely every bit possible. Strategic plans, resources allocation and lifesaving programs all benefit from a information-driven approach.

NOTE: Overall, the number of pets who are suffering from irremediable medical or behavioral problems that compromise their quality of life and prevent them from being rehomed typically does not make up more than 10% of all pets entering the shelter system. Best Friends uses the discussion "killed" to statistically represent progress toward that ninety% save rate benchmark. We also use the give-and-take as a way to distinguish between individual animals who lose their lives because of preventable factors, such as lack of shelter space or other resource, and animals who are euthanized, which is an act of true mercy for individual animals who are ill or suffering irremediably.

As a leader in the no-kill movement, Best Friends is very careful with its terminology. We refrain from referring to shelters as "kill shelters" when they have not yet achieved no-kill considering this insinuates that the responsibility falls on i entity and the caring people within it, rather than on the customs as a whole and on the demand for everyone to work together to end the killing of homeless pets.

---

Key Findings

Shelter intake increased slightly during 2019.
Total shelter intake during 2019 increased 0.23% compared to 2018, from five.345 meg to 5.360 meg animals (ii.474 million dogs, 2.252 million cats and 634,000 undesignated or estimated). Despite this increase, the 2019 intake full represents a 6.8% reduction from the total in 2016, the get-go year Best Friends began tracking this metric.

The bulk of animals existence killed in U.S. shelters are cats.
Cats now incorporate more than 69% of the number of animals killed in U.S. shelters (where species was reported). Despite dog intake being 10% higher than cat intake, more than two cats are now beingness killed for every domestic dog.

A handful of states account for the majority of animals being killed in U.S. shelters.
Of the iv,850 brick-and-mortar shelters in the country, 100 (two%) collectively business relationship for 41% of dogs and cats being killed in U.S. shelters. The five states in which the almost animals are being killed are California (100,239), Texas (96,707), North Carolina (47,652), Florida (45,503) and Louisiana (32,150). Collectively, these states account for 52% of the animals killed in U.South. shelters during 2019.

Increases in positive outcomes reveal continued progress.
Total deaths in shelters during 2019 decreased 10% compared to 2018, from 1.251 million to 1.124 million animals. The number of animals estimated to be healthy and treatable decreased 15% compared to 2018, from 732,797 to 625,400 animals. Live outcomes accept increased 10.9% since 2016, the first year that Best Friends began tracking this metric. The relieve rate for all U.Southward. shelters increased two.four percent points during 2019 compared to 2018, to 79%.

The numbers of no-impale shelters and communities go on to increase.
The number of shelters achieving no-kill status increased by xv% compared to 2018, from 1,844 to ii,126 shelters (now 44% of U.Due south. shelters). The number of communities achieving no-kill status increased 27% compared to 2018, from 4,297 to five,460 (now 35% of all communities with sheltering services).

---

Introduction

For generations, healthy cats and dogs have been dying in our communities' fauna shelters, with millions of animals losing their lives annually until the terminal couple of years. For the past 35 years, the animal welfare industry has been working to overhaul outmoded systems and antiquated ways of relating to companion animals. Even so, until recently, no i really knew exactly how many animals were being killed in U.S. fauna shelters.

Because in that location is no mandated federal reporting of animal shelter performance, information technology is left to states and municipalities to decide if and how they desire to runway this data. Very few states require land-level reporting and those that do oftentimes collect different data. And in states that don't crave reporting, it has been left to the municipalities or the shelters themselves to define, record and runway their performance metrics.

The industry equally a whole has been left to grapple with large data gaps, inconsistent information, disputes over definitions of terms and a lack of clarity surrounding the number of animals being killed each yr. Indeed, even the precise number of animal shelters in the country has remained a matter of considerable speculation.

Several years ago, All-time Friends Beast Society began to compile a database of all U.Due south. shelters. We know now that in 2019, there were 4,850 brick-and-mortar beast shelters in the land. In improver to building and maintaining this main shelter list, Best Friends collects data about how many animals are entering these shelters, the array of outcomes for each animal, and how many animals demand to be saved each yr for that shelter and customs to reach "no-kill" status (i.due east., achieving positive outcomes for at least 90% of the animals entering a shelter).

In this report, nosotros share the top-line results of Best Friends' 2019 data analysis beyond iv areas of interest: outcomes by species (cat and domestic dog), per-capita findings, country and regional differences, and animal sheltering trends in recent years.

By understanding national, regional and state trends, animal welfare professionals tin can have a benchmark past which to compare their local progress toward no-kill and can too meliorate empathize the information tools that Best Friends has developed and made publicly available. In today's environment of limited resources and many competing social causes, it is imperative to spend every dollar as wisely every bit possible. Strategic plans, resource allocation and lifesaving programs all benefit from a data-driven approach.

Background

Historically, animal welfare has lacked comprehensive information regarding sheltered cats and dogs. A variety of efforts have been undertaken in the past to bridge this long-continuing industry gap. Some are all the same in progress while others accept not been maintained or accept been limited in their efficacy because of lack of consistency, completeness or noesis of how all-time to utilise the information.

A number of regional efforts were conducted in the 1990s, including the California Sheltering Agencies Survey, the Iowa Federation of Humane Societies Animal Shelter Survey and the Progressive Creature Welfare Society Report on Washington State Animal Shelter Statistics.

A national effort was initiated in 1993 with the formation of the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy to gather and analyze data on the number, origin and disposition of companion animals (dogs and cats) in the United states. Unfortunately, only about i,100 of the estimated 4,700 shelters responded, making it difficult to depict conclusions about intake, outcomes or national trends.²

In 2004, xx leaders, representing national organizations and funders in the industry, gathered to find mutual ground in an otherwise divided animal welfare field. The result was the Asilomar Accords. But this effort, also, proved to exist problematic in delivering consequent, not-subjective reporting standards that would let for accurate comparative analyses. In add-on, adoption of the Asilomar Accords was insufficient to provide a representative view of sheltering data nationally.

By 2010 — afterwards more than than a century of animal sheltering in the U.South. — it was considered unacceptable that the best we could do as an manufacture was to estimate that millions of animals enter the nation's shelters every year and that some large percent of these animals practice not exit live. Every bit a result of this widespread dissatisfaction, many of the same organizations that collaborated on the Asilomar Accords and others worked together to create the Basic Data Matrix,³  which currently serves equally the industry standard regarding the minimum corporeality of data that shelters should be collecting and reporting annually.

In 2012, Best Friends joined with these same organizations, collaborating in the cosmos of Shelter Animals Count (SAC), a national database of self-reported data to serve every bit the most credible and complete source of information on sheltered animals for the industry — a disquisitional dependency for our mission advocacy and assessment.

By 2016, however, All-time Friends was narrowing its strategic focus with the ambitious goal of leading the country to no-kill by 2025. This goal required more complete and representative shelter information than SAC had accumulated through its voluntary information reporting.

So, in late 2016, All-time Friends began its first information collection attempt to augment the bachelor industry information and apply an estimation methodology for missing data, thereby creating the most comprehensive national dataset to appointment. We have connected this procedure annually, increasing the number of shelters deemed for with each year's dataset. In July 2019, we introduced our public-facing pet lifesaving dashboard⁴ for publishing national-, state-, community- and shelter-level data for agenda yr 2018.

In June 2020, the pet lifesaving dashboard was updated with the 2019 dataset, expanding on earlier efforts and making information technology the most complete compilation of sheltering data in the manufacture, including calendar-yr data from more than than iii,600 brick-and-mortar shelters. This latest dataset represents 74% of the 4,850 shelters in the country and accounts for an estimated 92% of the animals entering U.S. shelters in 2019.

The growing no-kill movement and the importance of transparency

A decade agone, there were fewer than x communities known to have accomplished the recognized no-impale benchmark of a 90% salve rate.^five Today, thanks to considerable lifesaving progress and improved data collection, we know that the number of no-impale communities now exceeds 5,400, and the land has its first no-kill country, Delaware, with Rhode Island extremely shut (92% of communities have reached the no-impale criterion).

Reporting on what has been accomplished is encouraging, to be certain, but the impetus backside our data collection efforts has less to exercise with looking back than with looking ahead. The comprehensive dataset now bachelor allows usa to draw an increasingly detailed map of the work that needs to be done to accomplish no-kill past 2025 at the community and shelter levels. With a improve understanding of where the remaining "hot spots" are, we can better deploy our collective resources for the greatest lifesaving impact past targeting programs more than precisely. And our ongoing collection and analysis allows us to sympathize the efficacy of these programs, appraise overall progress, and identify areas of further need and focus.

Transparency is primal to the no-kill philosophy and to the constructive implementation of no-kill programs. Like whatever industry, the animal welfare field is ill-equipped to solve a trouble if we can't ascertain the nature of that problem. And community members — whose engagement is essential for lifesaving progress — cannot help solve a problem they don't know exists.

Animal shelter transparency begins with the reporting of elementary numbers: the number of dogs and cats who entered a shelter in a given time flow, the number of animals with positive outcomes (e.m., animals who were adopted, animals returned to their owners, community cats returned to the field⁶) and the number of animals with negative outcomes (e.yard., animals who died, were lost in care or were euthanized). The more detailed the data, the more accurately programs tin can be targeted to particular needs, evaluated for efficacy and refined.

In Oct 2018, All-time Friends was proud to co-author a landmark position argument jointly issued by eight of the nation'southward leading animate being welfare organizations and foundations. Calling upon every organization in the country that takes companion animals into their intendance to share their data, Best Friends — along with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Michelson Found Animals Foundation, the Humane Society of the United States, Maddie'due south Fund, PetSmart Charities, Petco Foundation and the WaterShed Animal Fund — issued the post-obit joint statement of shared commitment to transparency:

"Equally national leaders and funders of brute welfare in Northward America, we believe that organizations should exist transparent about the number of animals that come under their care, and the outcome for all of those animals. That is why nosotros back up the public availability of fundamental information (the bones information matrix as defined by Shelter Animals Count), from all animal welfare agencies and nonprofits, both publicly and privately funded and whether or not they provide government animal control services or humane law enforcement."⁷

---

Findings: 2019 Details

The results of our 2019 dataset analysis reveal several signs of improvement in lifesaving also as specific areas in need of additional endeavour. The insights gleaned from this analysis are intended to help shelter leadership, policymakers, animal welfare advocates and other stakeholders target lifesaving programs to save the animals being killed in U.S. shelters.

National progress indicators

The 2019 dataset reveals a slight increase (0.23%) in intake compared to 2018, from five.345 million to 5.360 million animals (two.474 meg dogs, 2.252 million cats and 634,000 undesignated or estimated). Still, there are also several important improvements in key metrics when compared to the 2018 dataset:

• Full deaths decreased ten%, from 1.251 meg to one.124 million dogs and cats.
• The total number of dogs and cats killed (unnecessary deaths of animals estimated to be healthy and treatable) decreased 15%, from 732,797 to 625,400.
• The national save rate increased 2.4 percentage points, to 79%.
• The number of no-kill shelters rose 15% (compared to a v% increase in 2018), to 2,126 (now 44% of all U.S. shelters).
• The number of no-impale communities rose 27% (compared to an viii% increase in 2018), to 5,460 (at present 35% of all communities with sheltering services).

Since 2016, when Best Friends alleged the goal to lead the country to no-kill by 2025, the number of cats and dogs being killed in U.South. shelters has decreased by 58% (Figure 1). That's 2.iii 1000000 more than animals who take been saved through targeted programming in shelters.

Figure 1: Progress in national relieve rate and number of animals killed, 2014-2019

Findings by state

In 2018, ane of the most noteworthy findings was that five states accounted for more than half of the nation's killing of animals in shelters. That led to a focus on and prioritization of programming and shelter partnerships. In 2019, some important shifts occurred equally a effect of significant lifesaving improvements. While five states go on to make up more half of the nation'south lifesaving gap, tremendous progress in Texas moved it to the number two spot, shifting California to number one. And Georgia cutting its lifesaving gap by nearly a tertiary in a single year, moving it out of the top v to number six, making Louisiana the new number five state for programming focus (Table 1).

The new top 5 (California, Texas, Due north Carolina, Florida and Louisiana) have a combined lifesaving gap of 322,251 dogs and cats killed annually (52% of the nation's full). These five states, together with the ix states shown in yellow, account for 75% of the dogs and cats killed nationwide (Figure ii).

Figure two: Priority states for 2019, based on the number of animals killed

Other country-level highlights from the 2019 dataset include:

• Delaware remains the only no-impale state.
• Rhode Isle is inching closer to becoming no-kill, with 92% of its communities now no-kill and merely 86 dogs and cats killed statewide.
• In xviii states, more half of the shelters achieved no-kill status.
• Viii states (Delaware, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont and Montana) have aggregated save rates greater than ninety%. (Except for Delaware, all the same, these states still accept animals being killed, with i or more shelters falling below the xc% no-impale benchmark.)
• Simply two states have save rates that are less than 70%: Hawaii at 52% and Louisiana at 60%.
• Hawaii's per-capita number of animals killed is by far the highest, at 10.iv per 1,000 residents, more than than 5 times the national aggregate of 2.0.
• In 35 states, per-capita rates of animals killed are less than 2.0 per 1,000 residents.

A tabular array of state-level statistics for all states can exist establish in the appendix.

Findings by region

Best Friends defines eight regions of the country for programming and strategy implementation (Effigy iii).

Effigy 3: Best Friends' 8 regions

Of the iv,850 brick-and-mortar shelters in the country, 100 (2%) together account for 41% of the nation's dogs and cats killed. The 2019 dataset reveals several important regional differences (Figure 4), including:

• The S Key region accounts for both the largest intake and the largest share of animals killed (18.ii% and 25.4%, respectively).
• The per-capita rate of animals killed in the Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, South Central and Pacific regions are all higher than the nation as a whole (2.0 per 1,000 residents), with South Central about 50% higher than the second highest region (Southeast).
• The Mountain Due west region leads the nation in the proportion of no-kill shelters and communities.
• More than than half of the shelters in the Mountain West, Neat Plains and Midwest regions are no-impale.
• The Southeast had the greatest reduction in the number of animals killed, at 41,165 (25.8% fewer than in 2018), and also the greatest save charge per unit increase (more 5 percentage points).
• While data abyss is strong across the board, the Northeast and Peachy Plains have the largest data gaps and should be a priority for ongoing data collection.

Figure 4: Net intake and number of animals killed by region

Table 2: Cardinal shelter metrics past region

Findings past species

The 2019 dataset reveals some of import differences between the outcomes for dogs and cats, including:

• There is an increasing gap for cats vs. dogs, even compared to 2018, with cats at present comprising more than than 69% of the animals killed in U.S. shelters (where species was reported in nerveless information).
• Despite canis familiaris intake continuing to be higher than cat intake, more than 2 cats are now existence killed for every dog (Figure 5).
• Cats make up the highest percentage of animals killed in 36 states. Dogs and cats are dying unnecessarily in equal proportion in 12 states, and only 2 states, plus the District of Columbia, testify dogs existence killed at a higher charge per unit.

Figure five: Intake percentage and percentage killed past species, 2019

---

Findings: Trend Analysis (2016-2019)

The sample used for trend analysis

The basis for analyzing sheltering trends was the subset of data collected from 1,178 brick-and-mortar shelters that reported data consistently over the past iv publication years (2016–2019) to isolate truthful trend (from changes that resulted from growth in data drove). The resulting trends could then be used to provide overall insight and differences observed by organization blazon, region and species.

It is of import to annotation that regime creature services agencies and the S Central and Midwest regions are slightly underrepresented in this sample. The sample sizes are sufficient, yet, to segment by organization type (creature rescue with authorities contract, animal shelter with government contract, government animal services, or shelter without a government contract) and regional differences. A total of ane,072 organizations within this sample had year-over-year species-specific reporting, and serve as the basis for species findings (Tables iii and iv).

Table 3: Trends in key shelter metrics past shelter type, 2016–2019

Table iv: Trends in key shelter metrics by region, 2016-2019

Intake

Between 2016 and 2019, gross intakes decreased half dozen.8% (9.5% net), with the largest decrease occurring from 2016 to 2017 (5.8% gross, 8.half-dozen% internet). A slight increase was experienced in 2019, reversing the previous downward tendency (Figure half-dozen).⁸  Some additional details:

• The greatest subtract in intakes was seen in authorities brute services, with a ten.3% subtract in gross intake, the majority of which occurred from 2016 to 2017 (Table iii).
• Shelters without a regime contract experienced yr-over-yr intake increases, totaling 7% from 2016 to 2019.
• With the exception of the Groovy Plains region (which had a 6.ane% increment in gross intakes from 2016 to 2019), gross intakes have decreased across all regions. The most pregnant decreases were in the South Central region, with a fourteen.one% decrease from 2016 to 2019. The largest decreases were seen from 2016 to 2017.
• Dog intakes have decreased yr-over-year every reporting year, with an overall subtract of nine.2% from 2016 to 2019. Cat intakes decreased from 2016 to 2017 (i.3%) and 2017 to 2018 (0.v%), simply increased iii.half-dozen% from 2018 to 2019, for an overall increase of i.viii% from 2016 to 2019.

Figure 6: Trends in total animal intake (gross and cyberspace) nationally, 2016-2019

Alive outcomes

Live outcomes testify yr-over-year increases for each reporting year, with an overall increase of 10.nine% from 2016 to 2019 (Figure 7). Comparing each live event blazon as a percentage of the total over fourth dimension, there was a shift in the mix of various outcomes, with render-to-field (for customs cats) playing an increasing role (Figures 8 and nine). Some boosted details:

• The greatest increases were seen in government animal services (13.7%) and shelters without government contracts (xi.2%).
• With the exception of the Northeast (which had a 0.iv% decrease in alive outcomes from 2016 to 2019), live outcomes increased across all regions. The nigh significant increases were in the Southward Central region (23.1%) from 2016 to 2019.
• Live outcomes for dogs decreased 1.two% from 2016 to 2019. Live outcomes for cats take increased every reporting year (4.4% from 2016 to 2017, 6.ane% from 2017 to 2018, and 7.7% from 2018 to 2019), with an overall increment of xix.4%.

Effigy seven: Trends in full alive outcomes nationally, 2016-2019

Figure viii: Modify in live outcomes past type, 2016-2019

Figure nine: Live outcomes every bit a percentage of gross intake past outcome type, 2016-2019

Non-live outcomes

Non-alive outcomes have seen a steady year-over-year decrease, with an overall subtract of 36.9% from 2016 to 2019 (Effigy 10). In that location is an upward trend, however, in the number of animals who died in intendance (driven past cats), with an overall increase of 20.9%. This is likely a reflection of increased efforts to relieve neonatal kittens (Effigy 11).
Some boosted details:

• Government animal services (40.1%) and shelters with a government contract (37.1%) had significant decreases in deaths from 2016 to 2019, compared to shelters without a government contract (6.1%)
• Steady decreases were experienced across all regions, with the exception of the Great Plains, which had a lower number of deaths in 2016 than in subsequent years (and an overall 2016–2019 increase of 2%). All other regions showed decreases, ranging from 31.5% in the Pacific to 46.5% in South Fundamental.
• Canine deaths have decreased significantly every reporting yr, with a full decrease of 35.viii% from 2016 to 2019. Feline deaths take also decreased significantly every reporting year, with a full decrease of 34.5% from 2016 to 2019.

Effigy 10: Trends of deaths and killed nationally, 2016-2019

Figure 11: Change in not-live outcomes by type, 2016-2019

Species

Of the species sample, 614 shelters reported dog intake and outcomes, and 634 shelters reported true cat intake and outcomes. That data was used to further analyze intake and event subtype differences and mix changes over fourth dimension. Progress is being made with both species, only differently. Canines have seen a significant subtract in intake during the past four years, while felines have seen the largest growth in live outcomes and save rate (Figures 12 and xiii).

Intake (as a percentage of all intakes)

Figure 12: Trends in intake categories as a percentage of all intakes nationally and by species, 2016-2019

Live outcome trends (as a per centum of all live outcomes)

Effigy 13: Trends in alive outcome categories every bit a percentage of all live outcomes nationally and past species, 2016-2019

Non-live outcome categories (equally a per centum of all not-live outcomes)

All categories of not-live outcomes have seen decreases for both species since 2017, with the exception of the Died in Care category for cats, which may exist due to a college number of shelters putting more accent on saving vulnerable populations such as neonatal kittens. Euthanasia is past far the most common type of negative outcome for both species (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Trends in non-live outcome categories as a percentage of all non-live outcomes nationally and by species, 2016-2019

---

Conclusions

Analysis of the 2019 dataset reveals several signs of improvement in U.Southward. shelters. The number of dogs and cats dying is down 10% from the previous year, for example, and the number killed is downwards 15%. Nevertheless, this progress has been uneven. Just two% of shelters account for 41% of the dogs and cats existence killed. And, although more dogs are inbound our shelters, almost 70% of the animals beingness killed are cats. The findings outlined in this report should aid shelters, policymakers, animal welfare advocates and other stakeholders identify and implement lifesaving programs to relieve more of the animals in their communities.

---

Research Methods and Assay

To better understand the implications of the 2019 dataset for creature shelters, the larger animate being welfare community and public policy, information technology'southward important to understand how the data was obtained and analyzed. The descriptions and definitions provided here are likewise in keeping with Best Friends' commitment to transparency.

What it means for a shelter, community, state or the country to exist no-kill ⁹

A no-kill community acts on the conventionalities that every domestic dog and cat deserves to live — and focuses on saving lives through pet adoption, transfer and transport, trap-neuter-render, return-to-field and other community back up programs. While achieving a certain percentage of lives saved is not the goal, a quantitative benchmark can help guide lifesaving efforts. Saving 90% or more of the animals who enter shelters is the current benchmark for no-impale.

For a community to be considered no-kill, each of its brick-and-mortar animate being shelters must be at a ninety% save charge per unit (divers below) or higher for the animals in their care (i.east., dogs and cats combined). "Community," in this case, is mostly a city, town, hamlet, borough or other surface area designated as a "identify" past the U.S. Census Agency. In some cases, government structures, unincorporated communities and other census-designated places are included in gild to be consequent with census bureau data.

Information is compiled from all brick-and-mortar shelters for which calendar year 2019 data was available (or CY 2018 where CY 2019 wasn't provided, and likewise using CY 2017 data where more contempo information wasn't available). Information fields are collected consequent with the Basic Information Matrix manufacture standard,¹⁰ and include the post-obit for dogs and cats (data for other species is not collected at this fourth dimension):

• Live intake: devious/at-big, relinquished by owner, owner-intended euthanasia, transferred in from agency or other intakes
• Outcomes: adoption, returned to owner, transferred to some other agency, returned to field (for community cats), other live outcome, died in care, lost in care, shelter euthanasia or owner-intended euthanasia

To support our shelter data drove, we developed and maintain a chief shelter list. This is a "living document," since shelters open and close, and the jurisdictions they serve also change as animal services contracts change. It was compiled and is maintained, through manual research, state by state and county by county, to place all organizations with a physical location that admit and house companion animals. Next, research was conducted to place the service area coverage for all organizations.

Sources for shelter data include Shelter Animals Count (self-reported), public websites, government-provided data and voluntary data submissions. Where information is sourced from Shelter Animals Count data, Shelter Animals Count specifically disclaims all responsibility for whatever analysis, interpretations, conclusions and opinions contained in the information presented.¹¹ And while Best Friends attempts to validate information sources, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of these sources. A customs is recognized as no-kill when information technology meets the following criteria:

1. Best Friends has admission to data for all known brick-and-mortar shelters located in, or providing municipal shelter services to, the community; and
2. All shelters providing services to the community have accomplished a 90% relieve rate or higher for the animals in their care (i.eastward., dogs and cats combined).

Data sources in All-time Friends' 2019 dataset

Each data record represents a geographical area, usually an area confining by the canton/FIPS code, the unique official lawmaking given to each county past the U.S. Census Agency. This information was collected through the sources listed above, and may or may non have included all shelters in that geographical expanse. Statewide datasets were compiled from these county-level records.

Data from counties for which all shelter data could be nerveless was used to develop a regional per-capita rate for animal intake, number of shelter deaths and number of animals killed. To account for counties where information was incomplete or missing entirely, a conservative estimation gene was and so applied to the known data, thereby minimizing the likelihood of underestimating the national death rate. The estimation methodology was formulated by the Best Friends business intelligence team in consultation with an exterior research counselor and economist. Using the master shelter list, this rate was applied to areas defective complete shelter information as follows:

• If in that location are no brick-and-mortar shelters in the master shelter list, the county was considered a non-service surface area and no estimation factor was applied;
• If none of the shelters in a county have verified information, the estimation factor was used for the entire county; and
• If some (but not all) shelter data is known for a county, a fifteen% estimation factor was added to the known data.

The departure between gross and net intake

Gross intake is the total number of live intakes at the shelter. Cyberspace intake (live intakes minus transfers) is used for any level of aggregation beyond the shelter level, thereby avoiding the double-counting of these animals.

How salvage rates are calculated ¹²

For all individual shelters, a gross save-rate calculation is used:

• (Live Intakes – Died in Care – Lost in Care – Shelter Euthanasia – Owner-Intended Euthanasia) / (Live Intakes)

At the state and national levels, a internet save-charge per unit calculation is used considering it's important to remove transfers between agencies, thereby avoiding the double-counting of these animals:

• (Live Intakes – Transfers In – Died in Care – Lost in Intendance – Shelter Euthanasia – Owner-Intended Euthanasia) / (Live Intakes – Transfers In)

How the number of animals killed is calculated

Shelter outcomes in which animals are not leaving the shelter alive include Died in Care, Lost in Care, Shelter Euthanasia and Owner-Intended Euthanasia. In recognition of the no-impale benchmark of 90%, Best Friends uses the following adding to make up one's mind the number of animals killed in a shelter in addition to these non-alive outcomes:

• (Died in Intendance + Lost in Care + Shelter Euthanasia + Owner-Intended Euthanasia) – (0.10 × Live Intake)

Gaps in the information

For 2019, we have information from 3,608 brick-and-mortar shelters nationwide, 74% of the total number of those identified in our main shelter list. Because our data drove process focuses on high-volume and municipal shelters, the combined intake of nerveless information is much college — estimated to account for 92% of total nationwide shelter intake. The estimation process described above was used for the remaining shelters and jurisdictions where data was unavailable, representing an estimated 8% of nationwide shelter intake.

---

Contributors

Jon Davis, director of analytics, business intelligence and strategy
Bethany Heins, director of operations and strategic projects, Best Friends Network
Samantha Colina, data analytics specialist, business intelligence and strategy
Vicki Kilmer, director of business intelligence and strategy
Stephanie Macgill, manager of foundation partnerships
Joani Ross, research coordinator, business intelligence and strategy
Brent Toellner, senior director of national programs
Peter Wolf, analyst, cat initiatives

---

Appendix

---

¹ This includes any organization with a facility that has open hours, including municipal shelters, private nonprofit shelters with or without a government contract, and some rescue groups.
² Zawistowski S, Morris J, Salman MD, Ruch-Gallie R. Population dynamics, overpopulation, and the welfare of companion animals: New insights on quondam and new information. Periodical of Applied Beast Welfare Science (1998) i:193–206.
ⁱⁱⁱ More data is bachelor on the Shelter Animals Count website: shelteranimalscount.org/about-the-data
⁴ More data is available on the Best Friends website: bestfriends.org/2025-goal
⁵ See the "Research Methods and Analysis" section for the save rate formula.
⁶ Similar to trap-neuter-return (TNR), return-to-field (RTF) programs focus on cats brought into a shelter (either by community residents or a shelter's field services staff) as strays who lack identification (i.eastward., a collar with tags or a  traceable microchip). Rather than house these cats only to kill most of them following the designated stray-hold period, shelters sterilize, vaccinate and return them to the outdoor location where the cats were living. RTF is sometimes chosen shelter-neuter-render (SNR).
⁷ More data is available on the Best Friends website: bestfriends.org/blogs/2018/x/04/speaking-with-ane-voice-a-call-for-transparency-in-sheltering
^viii Come across the "Research Methods and Assay" section for definitions of gross and cyberspace intake.
⁹ More than data is available on the Best Friends website: bestfriends.org/no-kill-2025/what-does-no-kill-mean.
¹⁰ More information is available on the Shelter Animals Count website: shelteranimalscount.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/BasicDataMatrix_SAC.pdf.
^eleven More information is bachelor on the Shelter Animals Count website: shelteranimalscount.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/BasicDataMatrix_SAC.pdf
¹² While a consequent standard does not yet exist in the industry for the treatment of Owner-Intended Euthanasia (also referred to as Owner-Requested Euthanasia or ORE) in shelter functioning rates/calculations, Best Friends has opted for a true "noses in, noses out" approach that does not exclude OREs, instead considering OREs deemed for in the 10% of commanded humane euthanasia established past the no-impale benchmark of ninety%.

Source: https://network.bestfriends.org/research-data/research/state-us-animal-sheltering-2019

Posted by: alexanderhopil2000.blogspot.com

Share this post