The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) is a private organization that provides voluntary accreditation programs for licensed animal facilities that meet its high standards of care and safety. To become accredited, facilities pay to undergo a detailed evaluation by AZA experts. Subsequent inspections occur every five years after achieving accreditation to make sure AZA guidelines are being followed. Fewer than 10% of facilities licensed to display animals by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are AZA-accredited. 

Public perception, often shaped by the media, suggests that animals in AZA-accredited zoos are better cared for than those in non-accredited ones. However, the actual impact of accreditation on animal welfare remains understudied. This is largely because evidence-based assessments of how well different animal species are doing in various environments is inherently challenging. This study sought to investigate whether AZA-accredited facilities offer superior animal care compared to non-accredited ones.

The U.S. Animal Welfare Act (AWA) establishes basic care requirements for most warm-blooded animals used in research, education, performance, and display settings. All licensed facilities must comply with these standards, undergoing periodic surprise inspections by the USDA. The authors of this paper hypothesized that since AZA-accredited sites are also subject to USDA inspections, AWA-compliance might serve as a surrogate indicator for the animal welfare variable of their study. 

To make their evaluation, the authors examined 2019 USDA inspection reports. They focused on facilities that housed at least five different types of animals, including at least one exotic species not commonly found in the United States. Further, they had to have a total of at least 15 animals. Using this criteria, 863 facilities were included in the study, of which 161 were AZA-accredited. The USDA reports were analyzed for non-compliance items (NCIs) — violations of the AWA law — in four key areas: veterinary care, staff qualifications, animal husbandry, and record-keeping. The authors pinpointed these areas as crucial for improving animal welfare and compared the performance of accredited versus non-accredited facilities.

Analysis of the USDA reports found that: 

• 96% of accredited zoos had no violations in their reports, compared to 85% of non-accredited facilities — a difference of less than 10%.
• Non-accredited zoos were three times more likely to have issues in veterinary care and husbandry than accredited ones.
• There was no significant difference in staff-related violations between the two groups.

The researchers also predicted how likely it is for a facility to run into NCIs. They found that the likelihood of having any violation was three times higher in non-accredited facilities. Interestingly, the variety of species kept made a slight difference in increasing this risk, but the total number of animals did not. This was interesting because the authors assumed larger facilities with more animals would have more potential for problems. Despite the high overall compliance, the study supports AZA accreditation as a positive indicator of a facility’s compliance with animal welfare standards.

Of note, one of the paper’s primary authors is a Professional Fellow in the AZA, and is employed at an AZA-accredited facility. One limitation of the study is its reliance on a single year’s data, which may not fully capture long-term trends or the dynamic nature of zoo operations. Additionally, the authors argue that the high compliance rate across the board suggests that most zoos do well in following basic animal care laws. This potentially diminishes the perceived rigor of AZA accreditation, as federal guidelines for captive animals could be too lax. This is a significant finding to highlight for animal advocates, as it indicates the bar is quite low when it comes to captive animal care.

It’s also worth noting that the USDA inspections were only looking for AWA compliance. This means the welfare of cold-blooded animals, such as birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates, remains under-explored in this context because they are not legally protected by the AWA. Since these species often make up a significant portion of zoo animal populations, this study does not give a complete picture of all animal welfare in these facilities.

This study affirms some partial value of AZA accreditation in promoting animal welfare. However, the exclusion of cold-blooded animals from this analysis highlights a significant gap in our understanding and coverage of animal welfare standards, and the generally low AWA standards set out by the USDA. Continued research in this area is essential to ensure that accreditation and compliance translate into tangible benefits for all animals in captive settings. Most animal advocates do not support animal captivity in general, but pushing for facilities to get accredited and for broader, inclusive federal standards that protect all animal species could move the industry in a better direction.