Prevalence of pet provision and reasons for including or excluding animals by homelessness accommodation services

Abstract

Pets provide companionship and social facilitation among excluded populations, including homeless people. However, having a pet may restrict access to services, including accommodation. The aims of this study were to assess pet provision among homelessness accommodation providers, and to assess reasons for pet provision or exclusion. An online survey consisting of multiple choice questions and free text boxes was distributed to a UKwide sampling frame of homelessness service providers in July 2016. Of 523 contacts, 117 replied (response rate 22.4%). Of the respondents, 36.8% (43/117) provided services to pets. In contrast, 76.9% (90/117) reported having requests to accommodate pets. Common reasons for choosing to accept pets included perceived benefit to the owner (36/43, 83.7%) or animal (25/43, 58.1%). Most organizations which allowed pets (35/43, 81.4%) had a policy to ensure the animals' welfare and restrict damage or nuisance. Of the 74 organizations which did not allow pets, health and safety of staff and other residents were the most common concerns. This study shows that demand for pet-friendly accommodation for homeless people far outstrips supply. In view of the important role that pets play for these vulnerable people, homelessness service providers should be encouraged and assisted to accommodate pets where feasible.

A Multilevel Intervention Framework for Supporting People Experiencing Homelessness with Pets

“…It is also critically important to address known barriers, including organizational concerns, to the development of more pet-friendly emergency shelters. In a survey of emergency shelter service providers where pets were not allowed, common reasons for why this was included: health and safety of service users and providers, hygiene, space, potential damage to facility, noise, and cost [ 42 ]. Many of these issues can be prevented or mitigated through planning and partnerships.…”

“…Most notably, many homeless sector services, including emergency shelters, have policies that forbid pets [ 25 , 41 ]. For example, in a recent U.K. study, slightly over 60% of homeless sector services were not accepting of pets [ 42 ]. Similarly, nearly half of pet owners experiencing unsheltered homelessness in Los Angeles, California, report that they had been turned away from emergency shelters due to pet-related policies [ 25 ].…”

A Notable Increase in Human Rabies Mortality After Ten Years in Iran in 2022: A Case Series Study

“…Another factor in the increase of rabies cases in the country and the human death rate is the increase in the population of stray dogs which has led to increased contact with stray dogs due to rough sleeping or feeding stray dogs. Studies have shown that owning a pet such as a dog is very common among homeless people, 11 which can increase the risk of being bitten and the occurrence of rabies. Dogs are the main reservoirs of rabies in developing countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, and account for 99% of human rabies deaths.…”

Animal welfare deserts: human and nonhuman animal inequities

“…For example, dog ownership was found to be higher in rural communities ( 81 ). Other demographic variables such as race, socio-economic status, and income have been found to be related to pet ownership with higher income and white residents more likely to have pets ( 82 , 83 ). Finally, the nature of the local community has been found to be related to the type of animal shelter or rescue it is served by, how dogs arrive at the shelter, and to shelter outcomes.…”