Frequently asked questions about the pet lifesaving dashboard

How many animals still need saving? What type of animals are most at risk? Where in the country is the problem the worst and why? How many animal shelters exist in the U.S.? What support do shelters need to save all the savable animals in their care? For far too long, we relied on best guesses and one-size-fits-all programs that might or might not yield desired results. Today, that guesswork is over.

In 2019, Best Friends created a new digital tool called the pet lifesaving dashboard that helped modernize the 150-year-old field of animal welfare. The pet lifesaving dashboard is the culmination of continuous outreach to gather data, as well as extensive research, data analysis, and technology development. We collected data directly from shelters, government websites, and any public sources where shelter data is available.

Below, you will find answers to frequently asked questions about this tool and our data collection process.

A total save rate of 90% for all animals in a shelter system is a simple, effective method for measuring a shelter's progress toward no-kill. It's an important metric, and it's used in service of a core goal: saving the life of every animal who can be saved.

Overall, the number of pets who are suffering from irremediable medical or behavioral issues 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.

Any shelter operating at or above a 90% save rate deserves the designation of no-kill. However, 90% is not the end goal. Experience shows that many shelters go on to save an even higher percentage of animals because the impact of no-kill policies and programs creates a general culture of lifesaving and responsible pet ownership in the community.

While the 90% benchmark offers a meaningful measurement by which to gauge progress, we recognize that there may be special circumstances in which a shelter could be successfully implementing no-kill principles and practices but not reach a 90% save rate.

In these rare cases, shelters that don't meet the statistical benchmark can obtain a no-kill designation in the pet lifesaving dashboard following an evaluation and displaying the following statement on their website and/or giving Best Friends permission to display the information on the shelter's page of the pet lifesaving dashboard:

• A veterinarian has assessed that there is no chance of recovering an acceptable quality of life, or
   
• It would be clearly inhumane or unsafe not to do so immediately, or
   
• In cases of irremediable canine aggression when (1) a veterinarian has eliminated medical treatment as a solution; (2) rehabilitation by a specialist in canine behavior has failed; and (3) staff and public safety cannot be reasonably assured, or other management protocols seriously compromise quality of life
   

The goal is for every shelter to make a clear commitment to lifesaving and transparency (being honest and open about their data and operations) while striving for no-kill rather than simply working to obtain a no-kill designation.

Any shelter seeking an exception will need to complete a form provided by Best Friends explaining special circumstances surrounding data related to animals who died in their care or were euthanized (e.g., shelters that provide hospice or sanctuary-style care or shelters that accept unusually high numbers of at-risk animals, such as neonatal kittens).

No-kill means healing the animals who can be healed, treating behaviors that can be treated, and prioritizing the safety of both pets and people in our communities. When we value those objectives, humane euthanasia is used as a last resort in instances when an animal is deemed too ill or too dangerous for rehabilitation. Community safety and quality of life for the animals are guiding principles of the no-kill philosophy and are made possible through animal welfare professionals engaging in best practices and protocols.

Euthanasia is appropriate when a veterinarian has assessed that there is no chance of recovering an acceptable quality of life for that animal. We understand that there may be rare times when forgoing a veterinary assessment is appropriate. For instance, when it would be clearly inhumane not to do so immediately (for example, when an animal services officer encounters an animal hit by a vehicle and the animal is clearly suffering and death is imminent) or clearly unsafe (for example, when a dog is in the process of attacking and seriously injuring a person physically and law enforcement intervenes to protect the person).

The no-kill philosophy does also acknowledge that euthanasia may be an appropriate choice in rare cases of irremediable canine aggression in which (1) a veterinarian has eliminated medical treatment as a solution; (2) rehabilitation by a specialist in canine behavior has failed; and (3) staff and public safety cannot be reasonably assured, or other management protocols would seriously compromise the pet's quality of life.

Back to top

Owner-requested euthanasia (ORE) is included in the save rate formula. We know that this is a complex issue in animal sheltering with many variables to consider, some of which are discussed below.

ORE is an important service in many communities that shelters use to assist people who cannot afford veterinary services for end-of-life care for their pets and when no other low-cost services are available.

This fact is one of the reasons why the no-kill benchmark is set at 90% rather than 100%. Animals who are suffering irremediably from conditions related to age, injury, or disease, or dogs suffering from irremediable aggression that would prevent their safe rehoming, typically do not comprise more than 10% of all pets entering the shelter system. Euthanasia in these situations is justifiable and therefore should be accounted for in a no-kill benchmark.

We advocate for shelters providing owner-requested euthanasia services only for pets who meet the euthanasia standard that is described below. We do recognize that this standard has not been universally applied within our movement, and while many shelters do adhere to this or a similar standard, we have seen a number of shelters that do not.

For instance, some shelters will honor an owner's request because of the historical view that an owner has the right to determine the fate of a pet (who, under the eyes of the law, is considered property). Many shelters have changed their policy in recent years to require that pet owners surrender healthy or treatable animals (rather than honoring a euthanasia request) so that the shelter can determine the best outcome for that animal.

The standard for qualifying an ORE as true euthanasia is as follows. Each pet, regardless of whether he/she was surrendered as an ORE, is only euthanized if:

• A veterinarian or trained medical staff under guidelines set by a veterinarian has deemed the prognosis to be poor or grave, there is no chance of recovering an acceptable quality of life, or
   
• It would be clearly inhumane or unsafe not to do so immediately, or
   
• In cases of irremediable canine aggression, (1) a veterinarian has eliminated medical treatment as a solution; (2) rehabilitation by a specialist in canine behavior has failed; and (3) staff and public safety cannot be reasonably assured, or other management protocols seriously compromise quality of life.

This issue is further complicated by different shelter operating models across the country. Some shelters that operate both public clinics and animal shelters ask how we distinguish between owner-requested euthanasia in a clinic setting versus a shelter setting and how that affects the data. While individual shelters operate differently, the recommended standard for not counting a euthanasia as part of the shelter's admissions data should be the following: a shelter operating a clinic where a veterinarian meets with a human client with a pet and the veterinarian determines that the pet is suffering irremediably with no chance of recovering an acceptable quality of life.

If the veterinarian deems that the pet is treatable, but the pet's person still requests euthanasia, that pet should then be referred to the shelter to be relinquished and would then be considered part of the shelter's data. If a shelter doesn't have a clinic where a veterinary/client relationship is established, then the pet would be taken in by the shelter. And while a pet's person may request euthanasia, the recommendation is that the shelter take full legal possession of that pet and only then determine (on the advice of veterinary staff) what the best course or outcome is for that individual pet.

This is a complex issue and Best Friends is committed to continuing this sensitive conversation with shelters around the country.

Back to top

The best approach is to become a positive part of the solution. Many shelters began their journey to no-kill because a few residents took it upon themselves to collaborate with local government, area shelters and the general public on developing positive approaches to increase lifesaving.

Some people may feel upset when they learn that their local shelter isn't no-kill. While this emotion is understandable, the solution almost always lies in providing more help and support to our local shelters. Shelters can only provide lifesaving programs if people participate in them and communities actively support them.

Shelters that have not yet achieved no-kill should be viewed as community partners. It's important to remember that the people who work in shelters want to help the animals in their care and that it's our collective responsibility to help them as much as it is our responsibility to help the pets in the shelter. We can't support one without supporting the other.

On the pet lifesaving dashboard, you can read a brief message about the shelter(s) serving your community and click through to their website to learn how to get involved.

Back to top

An open-admission shelter admits every stray and/or surrendered animal from within its jurisdiction. This type of shelter may be legally obligated by a municipal mandate or contract to admit every animal, or it may choose to be open admission according to its own organizational mission and policies.

A limited-admission shelter is not required to accept every animal and can select which animals it admits, according to its mission, policies, and resource limitations.

Both open-admission and limited-admission shelters often incorporate what is referred to as "managed admission" policies. These policies are designed to explore alternatives to admission that may benefit the pet owner and the pet and increase the chance for a positive result for that animal.

Open-admission and limited-admission shelters often establish collaborative partnerships in which resources are shared and the differences in operating models are applied in a complementary fashion to maximize the number of pets being saved. Similarly, because rescue groups have limited admission by definition, they also play critical supporting roles for open-admission shelters.

Back to top

Best Friends tracks brick-and-mortar shelters in the pet lifesaving dashboard because those are the agencies and organizations that are officially held accountable for pets in their communities. However, rescue groups are key stakeholders and essential partners in the no-kill movement. Collaborative partnerships between brick-and-mortar shelters and rescue groups are often vital to that community's lifesaving status.

Foster-based rescue groups are not included if they do not have a government contract to provide animal services. There may be times when a rescue group represents a significant portion of the pets in need of rehoming in a given community, and in such rare cases, they may be included.

Foster-based organizations should be transparent and publicly publish their data, including the number of animals admitted to and leaving their care.

Back to top

Best Friends invests heavily in collecting data from as many shelters as possible, as quickly as possible. As a result, we have current or historical data for over 93% of all shelters in the United States. However, we don’t have recent data from every shelter, and we know that shelter and community dynamics change over time. So we lean on data science to help us better estimate whether a shelter is currently no-kill when the data we have for a shelter is more than 24 months old, rather than using data that is from two or more years ago.  

To do this, we developed a machine learning model, or algorithm, using any historical data we have about a shelter, as well as community characteristics at the state and county levels available through the CDC, U.S. Census Bureau, and other publicly available sources. We have been working with these estimations for over a year at Best Friends, and found that our algorithm is highly accurate.  

We even asked two external, independent, uncompensated university professors who are experts in statistical modeling techniques to review and critique our model to ensure we could trust this information:

Evaluation of Best Friends Animal Society’s Predictive Models for No-Kill Shelters in the United States by Dr. Adam Feltz, Uyen Hoang, and Jenna Holt, The University of Oklahoma

Best Friends Animal Society: Report on Estimation Validity of Regression Modeling by Courtney Paulson, Ph.D., University of New Hampshire

The model was found to be over 85% accurate and highly reliable at predicting whether a shelter is no-kill and nearly 100% accurate at predicting the number of shelters across the nation that are no-kill.

This designation happens when we cannot gain access to its data.

If you notice a discrepancy between information that appears on the pet lifesaving dashboard and information on a shelter's site, one or more of the following may be true:

• Your local shelter(s) may use a different formula for calculating their lifesaving progress.
   
• Your local shelter(s) may define no-kill differently than the 90% benchmark.
   
• Our data may be inaccurate or outdated, despite due diligence during our validation process.
   
• It's possible that, unbeknownst to us, a shelter meets the philosophical definition of no-kill but does not meet the benchmark.
   
• We are missing data for the shelter.

Best Friends chose to use a consistent method for representing this data so that people viewing the information will have an "apples to apples" view across different shelters and communities. This is one of the reasons why Best Friends invested in national data collection. Similar to how policymakers rely on standardized U.S. census data to make informed choices for their communities, this dashboard provides a more complete picture of lifesaving progress and needs, and it gives communities the tools required to create positive change.

We would love to receive any additional information that can support and improve our data collection efforts. If staff at a shelter feel that they meet the philosophical definition of no-kill, but the shelter does not meet the 90% benchmark, we encourage them to contact us at lifesavingdashboard@bestfriends.org.

There are a number of ways in which shelters measure the admissions and outcomes of pets in their care, and each method has pros and cons. The save rate formula below has been used for consistency across the nation.

An alternative metric called the live release rate is used by many shelters, and we encourage shelters to consider transitioning to the use of save rate as their own internal standard, particularly because live release rate formulas may vary from shelter to shelter.
 

Here's an explanation of each rate and the formulas often associated with the rates:
 

Save rate:

Live release rate:

If your shelter isn't listed, visit the dashboard methodology page for information on how we define a shelter.

The Best Friends Network, comprising thousands of shelters, rescue groups, and other animal welfare organizations around the country, is committed to saving the lives of homeless pets through collaboration and implementation of effective lifesaving programs. Participation is free and open to all organizations that meet the application criteria. To learn more, visit our network partner page.