Article Disclaimer:
The information presented in this article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It reflects interpretive analysis and discussion of publicly available information and industry practices. Nothing contained in this article should be construed as legal advice, insurance advice, risk management advice, or professional consultation.
The author is not acting as an attorney, insurance professional, or licensed advisor, and the material presented here does not constitute professional services of any kind. The content is intended solely to provide conceptual discussion and analysis of issues affecting animal welfare organizations and related systems. The terminology used throughout this article—particularly terms related to risk, behavior, and operational practices—is conceptual and explanatory in nature and should not be interpreted as formal legal, insurance, or regulatory terminology.
Laws, insurance policies, and liability standards vary significantly by jurisdiction and by the specific facts of any situation. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on the information contained in this article without first seeking advice from appropriately qualified professionals, such as licensed attorneys, insurance brokers, risk management professionals, or other relevant experts in their jurisdiction. No reader’s use of this article, nor any communication arising from it, creates any attorney-client, consultant-client, or professional advisory relationship between the author and the reader. While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the information presented is accurate and current, no guarantee is made regarding the completeness, accuracy, or applicability of the material to any particular situation. Readers are responsible for obtaining independent professional advice appropriate to their specific circumstances before making decisions related to insurance coverage, legal liability, organizational governance, or operational policy. Some of this article was drafted with the assistance of AI.
INTRODUCTION
Over the last few years, rescue leaders have been pulled into a conversation they never asked to specialize in: insurance contract mechanics. Not “do we have insurance,” but exactly what is and isn’t covered, how fast defense costs erode limits, and what happens to leadership exposure when a single incident crosses a policy threshold.
That shift isn’t happening in a vacuum. As animal welfare has become more networked—distributed across fosters, rescue partners, transport, and volunteer capacity—the liability footprint has also become more distributed and harder to price cleanly. My recent blog about “distributed care networks” framing is the right backdrop for this: modern animal welfare is no longer a single institution managing a contained set of risks; it’s a network operating under variable conditions, uneven standards, and rising case complexity.
At the same time, shelters and rescues are widely reporting that dogs coming through the system are more behaviorally and medically complex, which increases both incident probability and the uncertainty insurers dislike.
This is the exact pattern that has triggered alternative insurance structures in other sectors (municipal governments, healthcare, trucking): when commercial markets tighten, the industry either shrinks, self-insures informally (dangerous), or builds a formal collective risk mechanism.
This article lays out three structures that can exist for rescue—risk pools, group captives, and risk retention groups (RRGs)—and explains why the “risk pool” model is often the closest fit for nonprofit rescue networks.
The practical problem rescues are describing (without naming anyone)
In a recent leadership discussion, the concerns clustered around a few technical—but operationally brutal—features:
- Skin-breaking bites as a trigger event: coverage can be sublimited, excluded, or the individual animal may become “non-covered” after any incident that draws blood (even if context suggests a situational fear bite rather than an ongoing dangerousness pattern). This is a known tension between underwriting proxies and behavioral reality.
- Defense costs eroding limits: when legal fees come “inside” the limit (often called defense-within-limits or eroding/wasting limits), the policy can be consumed rapidly before damages are paid.
- Leadership anxiety about personal exposure: rescues often assume waivers and releases solve the problem; brokers and coverage counsel frequently caution that waivers may not overcome policy terms, statutory duties, or negligence theories—especially if the placement is argued to be “knowing.” (The common refrain is: waivers help, but they aren’t a magic shield.)
- A widening mismatch between “minor” bites and “binary” insurance rules: rescues distinguish situational, management-linked incidents from persistent dangerousness; policies often treat the event as the category shift.
- Why this is tightening now: claim severity has been rising. Homeowners industry data is not a perfect proxy for nonprofit rescue liability, but it’s a useful signal: dog-related injury claims and total payouts have increased substantially, with average claim costs rising and jury awards trending upward.
- High-profile verdicts change underwriting posture: recent shelter-related litigation has produced multi-million dollar outcomes and shared-liability allocations, reinforcing the insurer view that “known history + placement/transfer” can be a catastrophic exposure category.
This is not a moral failing by any one rescue. It’s a systems problem: distributed operations + rising complexity + litigation economics + blunt underwriting thresholds.
Option 1: The Nonprofit Risk Pool (the closest match for rescue)
A risk pool is a collectively funded liability mechanism formed by multiple organizations that agree to share losses, usually with professional administration and reinsurance layered above an internal retention.
This is the same basic logic used by many public-entity pools (cities, counties, law enforcement). Estimates commonly place municipal participation in pools as very high, and the structure is widely documented as a standard risk-financing approach for public entities.
What the structure looks like
Member organizations pay contributions (“premiums”) → the pool pays claims up to an internal threshold → the pool buys reinsurance above that threshold to protect against catastrophic losses.
A simplified layer example:
- Pool retention layer: first $250k–$500k per occurrence (or similar)
- Reinsurance layer: $500k–$5M+ (depending on pool size, capital, and risk appetite)
Why reinsurance matters: reinsurers effectively become the pool’s “catastrophe backstop,” but they will require underwriting discipline, credible data, and governance.
Why this model fits rescue better than most people think
Risk pools are especially compatible with sectors that have:
- many small operators (lots of rescues)
- shared mission and shared exposures
- uneven commercial market appetite
- willingness to adopt standard operating requirements
Rescue meets all four.
The hard truth: a rescue pool only works if membership standards are real
A pool is not just cheaper insurance. It’s insurance + governance.
Public-entity pools succeed largely because members agree to baseline standards and loss-control practices, and the pool can enforce them (or price deviations).
For rescue, that would likely require membership conditions such as:
- standardized incident documentation
- minimum foster screening and training elements
- defined bite incident protocol (including escalation pathways)
- placement disclosure rules and documentation
- minimum medical/behavior triage standards for certain case categories
- audit rights (even if light-touch)
If a pool can’t enforce minimum standards, one high-loss member can destabilize the entire group.
Option 2: A Group Captive (more control, more capital)
A group captive is a member-owned insurance company that writes coverage for its owners and typically purchases reinsurance for higher layers. Captives are common in sectors that want tailored language or can’t buy what they need in the market.
Captives can be structured in multiple ways under state law, and capitalization requirements vary by domicile. Arizona’s captive guidance, for example, describes categories and minimum capital/surplus requirements (useful as a reference point even if the captive is domiciled elsewhere).
Why rescues might want this
- Control over coverage language (what counts as an exclusion, how endorsements are written)
- Ability to design nuanced underwriting aligned with real operational context
- Potential long-run stabilization once mature and well-governed
Why it’s hard for rescue
- Capitalization and startup costs: feasibility studies, actuarial work, legal formation, fronting arrangements (if needed), governance, audits—this is real infrastructure. Even “small” captives require serious commitment.
- Risk heterogeneity: rescue risk profiles vary dramatically (small foster rescue vs. large behavior-rehab program vs. municipal shelter partner)
- Need for insurance operations expertise: underwriting, claims management, reserving discipline
Captives can work, but they are usually a “Phase 2” move after a coalition is already stable and has proven loss-control discipline.
Option 3: Risk Retention Groups (RRGs) under federal law
Risk Retention Groups were enabled under the Liability Risk Retention Act (LRRA) and allow businesses with similar liability exposures to form a liability insurance company owned by its members. A key feature is that an RRG is licensed in one state (domicile) and can operate across state lines with a different regulatory posture than traditional insurers.
Why RRGs are interesting for rescue
- multi-state operation is often essential (transport networks, regional rescues)
- member-owned structure aligns incentives around risk reduction
- potential to build specialized liability forms for rescue operations
The constraint that matters
RRGs are liability-focused and still require:
- credible capitalization
- actuarial justification
- governance and regulatory compliance
- disciplined underwriting
They’re real insurance companies, not informal co-ops.
Why rescue doesn’t have this widely (yet): the three barriers
The three barriers show up in every sector before pooling takes off.
1) Capitalization
Even a modest pool needs startup reserves and a plan for adverse years. The “100 rescues × $10,000 = $1,000,000” illustration is directionally right as a conceptual example, and it’s often the first wall groups hit: liquidity.
2) Governance capacity
Pools/captives/RRGs require someone to handle:
- underwriting and membership standards
- claims administration
- reserving, audits, compliance
- reinsurance negotiations
This is why many successful pools use professional administrators and operate like financial institutions, not volunteer committees.
3) Risk variation
Rescue risk is not uniform. If membership includes widely divergent practices and case mixes, the pool becomes a subsidy mechanism and can destabilize quickly.
This risk-variation problem is amplified by the reality you’ve described elsewhere: shelters and rescues are facing more complex cases, and complexity is not evenly distributed across organizations.
A professional “rescue pool” blueprint: what would make it viable
If a coalition of rescues wanted to explore a pool seriously, the most realistic design is a tiered membership + layered risk model:
A. Membership tiers (not everyone buys the same product)
- Tier 1: low-to-moderate risk rescues (standard operations)
- Tier 2: rescues taking higher complexity (additional requirements + pricing)
- Tier 3: specialized programs (behavior rehab, high-risk placements) with either:
- higher contributions,
- higher deductibles/retentions,
- or separate coverage cells
This is how many mature pooling systems avoid “one member sinks the ship.”
B. Standardized loss data and incident taxonomy
If the pool cannot measure its own exposures, reinsurers will price defensively or walk away. Reinsurance markets expect credible underwriting information.
At minimum, a rescue pool would need consistent reporting of:
- incident type and severity
- context variables (handling, restraint, pain, environmental stressors)
- prior known history and what was disclosed
- management actions taken post-incident
- placement decisions and documentation trail
This directly addresses the rescue complaint that “the context matters,” while also producing the data structure insurers require.
C. A clear stance on defense-cost erosion
Given how often defense within limits becomes the hidden crisis, the pool’s policy form should make this explicit and, where possible, design around worst-case erosion dynamics (or build a defense cost strategy).
D. Legal defensibility as a design constraint
High-severity verdicts increasingly hinge on allegations like failure to warn, failure to disclose, negligent placement/transfer, and breakdowns in internal communication. Recent shelter litigation illustrates how costly those failures can become.
A viable pool would treat “documentation and disclosure discipline” as loss control, not bureaucracy.
Where this sits in the larger animal welfare infrastructure story
This is the connective tissue to your earlier work:
- Animal welfare is increasingly a distributed network, not a single facility.
- As networks scale, they outgrow their original structure, and failures become structural rather than personal.
- Complexity is increasing, and complexity drives both risk and insurer uncertainty.
- Insurance markets respond to rising severity by tightening thresholds and exclusions—often using blunt proxies (e.g., “break of skin”).
In other words: pooled risk mechanisms are not just a finance trick. They are becoming an infrastructure layer that the distributed-care model may require in order to remain operational.
Practical next steps (if a rescue coalition actually wants to explore this)
For a professional audience, the “next steps” should be realistic and staged:
- Feasibility scan (not formation yet)
- number of prospective members
- geographic scope
- rough premium volume that could be committed
- loss history (even if imperfect)
- risk tiers (who belongs where)
- Choose the structure intentionally
- Pool (often best starting point)
- Captive (Phase 2 for mature coalition)
- RRG (if multi-state standardization is central)
- Engage the right experts early
- captive/pool attorney
- actuary with pool/captive experience
- reinsurance intermediary
- claims administrator / TPA options
- Design membership standards before pricing
- underwriting rules first, or the pool becomes unsustainable
- decide how bite history is categorized (and what documentation is required)
- Build the minimum viable data system
- standardized incident reporting
- standardized placement/disclosure documentation
- audit trail (lightweight but consistent)
Closing: why this is likely to become a national conversation
When leaders start publicly comparing endorsement language and reporting that no carriers will cover any bite history, that’s not just “shopping insurance.” That’s a market signal that the sector is entering a hardening cycle.
Other industries responded to this exact pattern by building their own structures.
Animal welfare may be next—not because rescues want to become insurers, but because the work may become impossible to sustain otherwise.
Glossary of Insurance and Risk Governance Terms in Animal Rescue Operations
Actuarial Analysis
A statistical method used to estimate the probability and financial cost of future claims based on historical loss data. Actuaries analyze incident frequency, severity, exposure levels, and trends to determine appropriate insurance premiums, reserves, and risk thresholds.
In pooled insurance structures, actuarial analysis is essential for determining:
- member contributions
- reserve requirements
- loss projections
- reinsurance thresholds
Aggregate Limit
The maximum amount an insurance policy will pay during a policy period, typically one year, regardless of the number of claims.
Example:
If a policy has a $250,000 aggregate limit, the insurer will not pay more than $250,000 total across all claims during that policy period.
Bite Incident Threshold
An underwriting trigger used in many animal liability policies where certain events—commonly any bite that breaks skin—change the coverage status of the animal or the organization’s liability exposure.
Depending on policy language, this threshold may:
- trigger a sublimit
- exclude the animal from future coverage
- increase the organization’s liability exposure if placement occurs afterward
Captive Insurance Company
An insurance company owned by the organizations it insures.
Members of a captive:
- provide the initial capital
- share financial risk
- control underwriting policies
- purchase reinsurance to cover catastrophic losses
Captives are common in industries where commercial insurers restrict coverage or price risk prohibitively.
Claims Severity
The financial magnitude of individual claims once they occur.
Insurance markets often respond more strongly to increasing claim severity than claim frequency. In liability cases involving injury, severity is influenced by:
- medical costs
- jury verdicts
- legal fees
- long-term damages
Defense Costs
Legal expenses associated with responding to a claim or lawsuit, including:
- attorney fees
- investigation costs
- expert witnesses
- court expenses
Some policies treat defense costs as separate from coverage limits, while others place them inside the limit.
Defense-Within-Limits (Eroding Limits)
A policy structure in which legal defense costs reduce the total coverage available for damages.
Example:
Policy limit: $250,000
Legal defense costs: $150,000
Remaining funds available for damages: $100,000
This structure can significantly reduce effective coverage during complex litigation.
Exposure
The degree of risk an organization faces, based on its operations and activities.
In rescue organizations, exposure may include:
- animal handling
- foster placement
- transport operations
- behavioral rehabilitation programs
- adoption counseling
- volunteer management
Higher exposure typically results in higher insurance premiums.
Indemnification
A contractual obligation requiring one party to compensate another for losses or damages.
In rescue operations, indemnification clauses may appear in:
- foster agreements
- transport contracts
- transfer agreements between organizations
However, indemnification does not necessarily override insurance policy exclusions.
Liability Insurance
Insurance coverage designed to protect an organization from financial losses if it is legally responsible for injury, property damage, or other harm caused to another party.
For animal welfare organizations, liability policies typically cover claims related to:
- dog bites
- volunteer injuries
- property damage
- negligence claims
Loss Control
Preventive measures implemented to reduce the likelihood or severity of claims.
Loss control strategies in animal welfare operations may include:
- standardized behavioral assessment procedures
- incident documentation protocols
- volunteer safety training
- placement disclosure practices
Insurance pools often require members to follow specific loss control standards.
Loss Ratio
A financial metric comparing total claims paid to total premiums collected.
Example:
Premiums collected: $1,000,000
Claims paid: $700,000
Loss ratio = 70%
High loss ratios often lead insurers to increase premiums or restrict coverage.
Nonprofit Risk Pool
A cooperative insurance structure where multiple organizations contribute funds into a shared pool used to pay claims.
Risk pools typically:
- set internal claim thresholds
- purchase reinsurance for catastrophic losses
- enforce underwriting standards among members
This model is widely used by municipalities and public agencies.
Occurrence Limit
The maximum amount an insurance policy will pay for a single claim or incident.
Example:
$250,000 per-occurrence limit
$1,000,000 aggregate limit
The policy would cover up to $250,000 for any single incident but no more than $1,000,000 total in a policy year.
Placement Liability
Potential legal exposure arising from the transfer or adoption of an animal.
Claims may arise if a plaintiff alleges that an organization:
- failed to disclose behavioral history
- negligently placed a dangerous animal
- inadequately assessed risk prior to placement
Premium
The amount paid for insurance coverage.
Premiums are determined based on factors such as:
- organizational size
- exposure level
- historical claims
- coverage limits
- underwriting risk factors
Reinsurance
Insurance purchased by insurers or risk pools to protect against large or catastrophic claims.
Reinsurance functions as a secondary safety layer that activates after the primary insurer or pool reaches a defined financial threshold.
Reserve Funds
Financial resources set aside to pay future claims that have occurred but may not yet be fully resolved.
Proper reserve management is essential for the stability of risk pools and captive insurers.
Risk Retention Group (RRG)
A specialized insurance entity formed under the Liability Risk Retention Act that allows organizations within the same industry to collectively insure their liability risks.
RRGs are:
- member-owned
- licensed in one state
- permitted to operate across multiple states
Self-Insurance
A strategy where an organization assumes responsibility for its own risk rather than transferring it to a commercial insurer.
Self-insurance can range from informal risk retention to structured financial reserves combined with reinsurance.
Sublimit
A lower limit within a broader insurance policy that applies to specific categories of risk.
Example:
General liability limit: $1,000,000
Dog bite sublimit: $250,000
Underwriting
The process insurers use to evaluate risk and determine:
- whether to offer coverage
- what conditions apply
- the cost of the policy
Underwriting decisions are based on risk profiles, historical losses, and exposure levels.
Waiver of Liability
A legal agreement in which one party agrees not to hold another party responsible for certain risks.
Rescue organizations frequently use waivers in foster and volunteer agreements, although their legal effectiveness can vary depending on jurisdiction and circumstances.
Wasting Policy (Eroding Policy)
Another term for defense-within-limits coverage, where legal defense costs reduce the available coverage for damages.
Written Incident Protocol
A documented procedure outlining how an organization responds to incidents such as bites or injuries.
Such protocols often include:
- incident reporting requirements
- documentation standards
- internal review procedures
- decision-making authority
Consistent protocols help organizations demonstrate responsible governance and risk management.
Glossary of Animal Behavior and Operational Risk Terms in Shelter and Rescue Systems
Behavioral Assessment
A structured evaluation used to observe and interpret a dog’s responses to environmental stimuli, handling, and social interaction. Behavioral assessments are commonly used in shelters and rescues to inform decisions about adoption placement, management strategies, and safety considerations.
However, research in shelter medicine and applied behavior indicates that single-point assessments have limited predictive validity, particularly when animals are experiencing acute stress in unfamiliar environments.
Behavioral History
A documented record of a dog’s known or reported behavior across prior environments, including:
- previous homes
- shelters
- foster placements
- veterinary settings
- training environments
Behavioral history is often considered more informative than a single assessment because it reflects behavior across multiple contexts and time periods.
Behavioral Rehabilitation
A structured intervention process designed to modify problematic behavior patterns through training, environmental management, and behavior modification techniques.
In rescue settings, rehabilitation may address behaviors such as:
- fear responses
- reactivity
- resource guarding
- handling sensitivity
- frustration tolerance deficits
Programs vary widely in structure and intensity, which contributes to variability in risk profiles among rescue organizations.
Behavioral Triage
An operational decision-making process used by shelters and rescues to categorize animals based on behavioral risk, treatability, and placement feasibility.
Behavioral triage may involve evaluating:
- bite history
- stress tolerance
- response to handling
- social behavior
- safety risks
The process helps organizations determine appropriate pathways such as adoption, foster placement, behavioral intervention, or in some cases behavioral euthanasia.
Contextual Risk
The degree of risk associated with a behavior based on the environmental conditions in which it occurs.
For example, a bite that occurs during:
- painful veterinary restraint
- chaotic intake handling
- aggressive dog-to-dog conflict
may carry different predictive implications than a bite occurring in a stable home environment without identifiable triggers.
Contextual risk analysis attempts to differentiate situational responses from stable behavioral patterns.
Defensive Aggression
A behavioral response in which an animal uses threatening or biting behavior to increase distance from a perceived threat.
Defensive aggression is commonly associated with:
- fear
- stress
- pain
- restraint
- cornering or escape restriction
This category differs from offensive aggression, where the animal actively seeks confrontation rather than distance.
Environmental Stress Load
The cumulative psychological and physiological stress experienced by an animal due to environmental conditions.
In shelters and rescues, stress load may be influenced by:
- noise
- confinement
- unfamiliar people or animals
- frequent handling
- disruption of routine
High environmental stress can significantly alter behavior, which complicates interpretation of incident events.
Fear-Based Response
A defensive behavioral reaction triggered when an animal perceives threat or danger. Fear responses may include:
- avoidance
- freezing
- growling
- snapping
- biting
Fear-based bites are often classified differently from predatory or offensive aggression in behavioral analysis.
Foster Placement
A temporary housing arrangement in which an animal is cared for in a private home rather than a shelter facility.
Foster systems are a critical component of modern rescue networks because they:
- expand capacity
- reduce shelter stress
- provide behavioral observation in home environments
However, foster systems also introduce distributed operational risk, as volunteers may have varying levels of training and supervision.
Handling Sensitivity
A behavioral pattern in which an animal shows discomfort, avoidance, or defensive reactions to physical handling.
Handling sensitivity may arise from:
- pain
- prior trauma
- insufficient socialization
- restraint anxiety
These reactions may escalate to biting if the animal perceives no escape from handling pressure.
Human Management Error
An incident factor referring to situations in which a bite or aggressive event occurs due to human actions or procedural failures, rather than a stable aggressive temperament.
Examples include:
- improper introductions between dogs
- failure to read stress signals
- forcing physical restraint
- resource conflicts caused by management decisions
Management error is widely acknowledged in animal behavior literature as a frequent contributor to incident events.
Incident Documentation
The structured recording of behavioral events, including:
- time and location
- environmental context
- individuals involved
- sequence of events
- injury severity
Accurate incident documentation is critical for both behavioral analysis and liability management.
Management Strategy
Operational procedures designed to reduce risk and prevent incidents by controlling environmental variables.
Examples include:
- leash protocols
- introduction procedures
- crate and feeding management
- separation of incompatible animals
Management strategies can significantly reduce risk even when behavioral modification is ongoing.
Predictive Validity
The degree to which a behavioral test or observation can accurately predict future behavior in different contexts.
Shelter behavior research has repeatedly shown that many assessment protocols have limited predictive reliability, particularly when animals are evaluated during periods of acute stress.
Situational Bite
A bite that occurs in response to a specific environmental or management trigger, rather than as part of a stable aggressive behavioral pattern.
Examples may include:
- grabbing a frightened dog
- interrupting a dog fight
- stepping on a sleeping dog
- painful medical procedures
Situational bites are often distinguished from patterned aggression, where similar incidents occur repeatedly across contexts.
Stress Recovery
The speed at which an animal returns to baseline behavior after a stressful stimulus.
Animals with strong recovery ability may display intense reactions during stress but regain normal behavior quickly once the stimulus is removed.
Recovery patterns are often considered more informative than the initial reaction alone.
Threshold
The level of stimulus intensity required to trigger a behavioral response.
A dog with a low threshold for defensive response may react quickly to stress or perceived threat, while a dog with a higher threshold may tolerate more pressure before reacting.
Trigger
A specific environmental event or stimulus that precedes a behavioral reaction.
Common triggers in rescue environments include:
- food competition
- restraint
- unfamiliar handling
- proximity of other dogs
- sudden movements
Understanding triggers is essential for both behavior management and risk mitigation.
Behavioral Euthanasia (BE)
The humane euthanasia of an animal due to behavior that poses a significant and unmanageable safety risk to people or other animals.
Behavioral euthanasia decisions typically involve consideration of:
- severity of incidents
- predictability of triggers
- ability to safely manage the animal
- placement feasibility
These decisions are among the most difficult faced by shelter and rescue organizations.
Transfer Risk
The potential liability or safety risk associated with moving an animal from one organization or environment to another, particularly if behavioral concerns are present.
Transfer risk has become a major legal and operational issue as rescue networks increasingly move animals across jurisdictions.
Distributed Care Network
A system in which animals are managed across multiple locations and organizations, including shelters, rescues, foster homes, and transport partners.
Distributed networks expand capacity but also increase operational complexity and risk coordination challenges.
Behavioral Transparency
The practice of providing accurate and complete behavioral information during adoption or transfer processes.
Transparency helps adopters make informed decisions and may reduce both incident risk and liability exposure.
Behavioral Risk Profile
An integrated description of an animal’s known behavioral tendencies, incident history, triggers, and management requirements.
Risk profiles help organizations determine appropriate placement environments and supervision levels.
References
Abraham, K. S. (2021). Police liability insurance after repeal of qualified immunity. Journal of Tort Law, 14(1), 1–22.
American Veterinary Medical Association. (2022). Dog bite prevention and animal-related injury statistics. AVMA.
Brady, K., Cracknell, N., Zulch, H., & Mills, D. (2018). A systematic review of the reliability and validity of behavioural tests used to assess behavioural characteristics important in working dogs. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 5, 103.
Bradley, J., & Rajendran, S. (2021). Increasing adoption rates at animal shelters: A two-phase intervention study. BMC Veterinary Research, 17, 33.
Clay, L., Paterson, M., Bennett, P., & Howell, T. (2020). Comparison of canine behaviour scored using a shelter behaviour assessment and owner-reported behaviour post-adoption. Animals, 10(10), 1797.
Clay, L., et al. (2020). Do behaviour assessments in a shelter predict the behaviour of dogs post-adoption? Animals, 10(9), 1514.
Cummins, J. D., & Weiss, M. A. (2014). Captive insurance companies: An overview and recent developments. Journal of Insurance Regulation, 33(2), 1–36.
Feldman, R. D. (1986). Captive insurance companies and the management of risk. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 53(1), 141–155.
Griffin, K. E., et al. (2022). What will happen to this dog? A qualitative analysis of pre-adoption screening practices in animal rehoming organizations. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9.
Hartwig, R. P., & Wilkinson, C. (2019). Insurance and the U.S. economy: Risk transfer, litigation trends, and cost drivers.Insurance Information Institute.
International Risk Management Institute. (2021). Alternative risk transfer and captive insurance structures. IRMI Publications.
McDonald, J., & Ewert, A. (2018). Public entity risk pools: Structure, governance, and financial management. Public Risk Management Association Journal.
Mendoza, M. A. (2015). Reinsurance as governance: Governmental risk pools and the regulation of public entity liability. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal.
Mornement, K. M., Coleman, G. J., Toukhsati, S. R., & Bennett, P. C. (2015). Evaluation of the predictive validity of the Behavioural Assessment for Re-homing K9’s (B.A.R.K.) protocol and owner satisfaction with adopted dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 167, 35–42.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners. (2023). Risk retention and purchasing group handbook. NAIC.
Patronek, G. J., Bradley, J., & Arps, E. (2016). Canine behavior evaluations in animal shelters: A review of validity and reliability. Journal of Veterinary Behavior.
Patronek, G. J. (2019). What is the evidence for reliability and validity of behavior evaluations for shelter dogs? Journal of Veterinary Behavior.
Poulsen, A. H., Lisle, A. T., & Phillips, C. J. C. (2010). An evaluation of a behaviour assessment to determine the suitability of shelter dogs for rehoming. Applied Animal Behaviour Science.
Rappaport, J. (2016). How private insurers regulate public police. University of Chicago Law Review.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Risk retention groups: Common regulatory standards and greater member protections are needed. GAO-05-536.
United States Congress. (1986). Liability Risk Retention Act of 1986, 15 U.S.C. §§ 3901–3906.
Weiss, M. A., & Phillips, R. D. (2015). Captive insurance and alternative risk financing. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 18(1), 1–30.
Wilson, F., & Hines, J. (2020). Animal control liability and municipal risk management. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 642–653.
ASPCA. (2021). Position statement on shelter dog behavior assessments. American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
McGuire, B., et al. (2021). Behavioral evaluations predict shelter dog length of stay. Animals, 11(11), 3272.
