Sanctuaries Rating Methodology
Sanctuaries Rating Methodology
Use this page to see how Animal Souls Beacon will compare sanctuary-policy coverage on paper before public jurisdiction scorecards are published.
This methodology explains the site’s own rubric for sanctuary policy. It is designed to make the scoring reproducible, readable, and easy to question rather than hiding judgments behind an unexplained number.
Read it together with the Policy & Legislation page. The methodology explains the scoring rules; the policy page shows the selected jurisdiction, the current coverage state, and any federal or state records already published.
What this page covers
Published scoring rules: the disclosed index, scale definitions, weighting rule, and tier bands used on the Sanctuaries Policy & Legislation page.
Evidence standards: what sources count, how uncertainty is handled, and why unverified criteria remain unverified instead of being inferred.
Versioning and score interpretability: how methodology changes stay visible so future sanctuary-policy scorecards remain interpretable over time.
Published methodology
Sanctuary Policy Accountability Index v1.0
This index rates sanctuary-policy coverage on paper. It compares the legal and regulatory framework a jurisdiction has enacted or published, not the live quality of every sanctuary operating within that jurisdiction.
Version
1.0
Last updated
Jun 22, 2026
Scoring rules
Each dimension is normalized as (points earned ÷ points possible) × 100, and the overall index is the mean of the published dimension scores.
Equal weighting across the seven published dimensions.
Changelog: Initial public sanctuary methodology published with seven dimensions and methodology-first coverage states.
0 · Absent or unverified
No official-source confirmation in the evaluated corpus, or the criterion is not present.
1 · Partial
The law or policy text partially addresses the criterion, or it does so in a limited way.
2 · Strong / explicit
The law or policy text directly and explicitly satisfies the criterion in a strong form.
Each dimension below is scored on this same 0–2 scale, criterion by criterion.
Illustrative only — no jurisdiction is scored yet
Worked example: reading one criterion across the scale
Because the matching Sanctuaries Policy & Legislation page does not yet publish a reviewed jurisdiction scorecard, this example is generic and non-attributed. It shows how the same criterion can land at 2, 1, or 0 without presenting any jurisdiction as scored.
2 · Strong / explicit
Official legal text directly satisfies the criterion in a strong form, such as an explicit possession, contact, placement, recordkeeping, or enforcement rule tied to sanctuary policy.
1 · Partial
Official legal text addresses the criterion in a limited way, but the coverage is narrower than the criterion asks the scorer to confirm.
0 · Absent or unverified
No official-source legal text in the reviewed corpus confirms the criterion, so the criterion stays unverified rather than inferred.
Seven dimensions
Possession and permitting baseline
Strong coverage restricts or permits covered-animal possession, distinguishes private ownership from qualified facility operation, and sets expectations where possession is allowed.
- Restrictions or permitting rules for private possession of covered animals
- Clear distinctions between prohibited private ownership and qualified facility operation
- Meaningful permitting or registration expectations where possession is allowed
Public contact and exhibition limits
Strong coverage limits direct public contact, distinguishes sanctuary care from entertainment models, and includes enforcement hooks for unlawful contact or exhibition.
- Restrictions on direct public contact where sanctuary standards would forbid it
- Exhibition rules that distinguish sanctuary care from entertainment models
- Enforcement hooks tied to unlawful contact or exhibition conduct
Placement, transfer, and rescue pathways
Strong coverage sets lawful transfer or placement pathways, movement rules, and authority lines after a seizure, closure, surrender, or placement event.
- Lawful transfer or placement pathways after a seizure, closure, or surrender
- Rules that affect interstate or intrastate movement into sanctuary care
- Clear authority lines for agencies and receiving facilities during placement events
Care, housing, and operational standards
Strong coverage establishes care, housing, or operational standards that reduce ambiguity about minimum lawful sanctuary operation.
- Care or housing requirements that materially affect long-term sanctuary conditions
- Operational standards tied to species-appropriate care where relevant
- Rules that reduce ambiguity about minimum lawful sanctuary operation
Transparency, recordkeeping, and disclosure
Strong coverage requires public or agency-facing records, inspection or compliance visibility, and disclosure tools that make sanctuary accountability legible.
- Public or agency-facing recordkeeping requirements
- Inspection-result, license, or compliance visibility where relevant
- Disclosure tools that make sanctuary accountability more legible
Continuity, emergency, and closure planning
Strong coverage anticipates disaster relocation, confiscation, or closure and creates obligations for continuity of care during emergency transitions.
- Rules that anticipate disaster relocation, confiscation, or facility closure
- Mechanisms that reduce placement chaos when lifetime-care facilities fail
- Structured obligations tied to continuity of care during emergency transitions
Oversight, enforcement, and accountability
Strong coverage provides inspection or enforcement authority, penalty or corrective-action tools, and clear accountability pathways for agencies and facilities.
- Inspection or enforcement authority relevant to sanctuary operations
- Penalty or corrective-action tools when standards are breached
- Clear accountability pathways for agencies and regulated facilities
Tier bands
Comprehensive · 80-100
Broad, explicit sanctuary-policy coverage across most published dimensions.
Strong · 60-79
Meaningful coverage with identifiable gaps, carveouts, or incomplete accountability tools.
Moderate · 40-59
Mixed sanctuary-policy coverage with several meaningful gaps or narrow protections.
Limited · 20-39
Only limited structural sanctuary-policy coverage across the published dimensions.
Minimal · 0-19
Little confirmed structural sanctuary-policy coverage in the published rubric.
Evidence basis for scoring
Each criterion is scored from official-source legal text such as statutes, regulations, agency rules, court orders, or equivalent government-published records, with the citing section shown on a published scorecard.
Uncertainty lowers the confirmed score
Unverified criteria remain 0 instead of being inferred, and the score reflects law on paper rather than enforcement in practice.
Versioned for later interpretation
The methodology version, last-updated date, and changelog stay visible so scorecards produced under this rubric remain interpretable after later updates.