Audit Reveals 26,000 Shelter Record Changes After Animal Exit in Riverside County
Date: June 13th, 2025
Data analyzed by the Animal Welfare Data Center (AWDC) of records from the Riverside County Department of Animal Services (RCDAS) reveals multiple discrepancies in disposition dates and types, animal IDs, and other date fields.
Puppies jump near the glass enclosure at the Western Riverside County Animal Shelter in Jurupa Valley on Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2024. (Photo by Anjali Sharif-Paul, The Sun/SCNG)
A Data-Driven Approach to Transparency in Animal Shelter Services
Data is central to AWDC’s mission: promoting transparency, ensuring integrity, and driving accountability in the ongoing improvement of animal shelter services in alignment with the Association of Shelter Veterinarians’ Guidelines for Standards of Care.
The AWDC is conducting a focused, data-driven research project to assess California’s animal shelters and the broader animal welfare crisis. AWDC routinely makes California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests to animal shelters, as part of this effort.
Discrepancies discovered in two files received from the Riverside County Department of Animal Services (RCDAS) between August 2024 and January 2025 prompted AWDC to launch a complete internal audit to understand the source and scope of the changes.
Data Integrity in Question: What AWDC Found in Riverside County Shelter Reports
In 2024 and 2025, the AWDC submitted several formal CPRA requests to the RCDAS to obtain intake and population data.
The AWDC received an initial file in August 2024, covering records from January through July. Subsequent requests for the remaining months of 2024 went unanswered, until April 2025, when AWDC received a second file encompassing year-end data for all of 2024.
After comparing the two files received in August and April, AWDC’s data science team found significant inconsistencies, which should not exist when both files are supposed to reflect the same set of animals and outcomes.
The chart below shows how many times animal exit dates were changed. For example, 9 animals originally listed as leaving on January 1, 2024 had their exit dates changed. Meanwhile, 173 animals who were shown as leaving on January 24, 2024 also had their exit dates updated to something different.
MOBILE USERS – Select the “Fit to page” icon in the bottom right corner of the graph to fit the graph on your screen
Key Findings
Key findings of AWDC’s internal audit analysis focus on five areas:
1. Disposition Dates Changes– In over 25,000 cases, the date an animal left the shelter (e.g., adoption or euthanasia) changed between files.
2. Disposition Types or Subtype Changes – Shelter records changed the outcome type for nearly 400 animals. For example, one file lists an animal as “Adopted,” while the later file records the same animal as “Euthanized” – or vice versa.
3. Missing Animal IDs – Four animal IDs appeared in one file but not the other.
4. Date Field Changes – Over 26,000 records had mismatched dates for intake, disposition, or other key events, between the two files.
5. All Field Differences – Multiple field changes made for some animals without a clear explanation.
| Issue Type | Description | Number of Animal IDs |
|---|---|---|
|
Intake Date Changes |
Different shelter entry dates between files |
29,237 |
|
Disposition Date Changes |
Different shelter exit dates between files |
29,237 |
|
Disposition Type Changes |
Different outcome types (e.g., Adopted vs Euthanized)* |
434 |
|
Missing Animal IDs |
Records present in ORIGINAL but missing in NEW FILE |
4 |
|
Date Field Mismatches |
Any date fields different between files |
58,474 |
|
Total Outcome Difference |
Fewer outcomes in NEW vs ORIGINAL |
384 |
These discrepancies raise serious questions: Why would an animal’s outcome be changed from adoption to euthanasia – or vice versa? Why are some animals missing from one dataset but present in another? Does RCDAS have clear protocols for editing data and tracking changes?
The identified inconsistencies present challenges not only for AWDC’s reporting tools, but for the public and policymakers who rely on accurate data to assess shelter performance. Public data shapes important decisions about funding, operations, and community trust. However, inaccurate and unstable records undermine efforts to improve animal welfare.
Acting on the Findings: AWDC’s Commitment to Shelter Data Reform
AWDC is taking proactive steps, including reaching out to RCDAS leadership to understand the causes of these changes and whether they reflect technical issues, human error, or something else.
The AWDC also recommends that RCDAS shelter staff:
- Receive standardized training in data entry.
- Preserve version histories of all records.
- Implement procedures to review data before publishing it to the public.
Transparency matters. When data shifts without explanation, it doesn’t just impact spreadsheets – it affects how vulnerable animals in our community are understood and cared for. The AWDC is committed to working with shelters, the public, and local government to ensure data integrity remains a priority.
View the complete reports
Please follow this blog as we release details of our findings at RCDAS. In the meantime, you can learn more about our investigation, and download the full research findings:
Click here to download the Data Findings Summary Report (.pdf)
Click here to download the Complete Analysis Report (.xlsx)
For questions or additional information, please contact us at info@animalwelfaredatacenter.org.