Safer Outside: A Qualitative Exploration of Homeless People's Resistance to Homeless Shelters

Donley, Amy M.; Wright, James

doi:10.1080/15228932.2012.695645

Cited by 49 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Non-pet-friendly policies force people to choose between their pets and the services they need. Given the strong attachments to their pets, it is not uncommon for people experiencing homelessness to forgo accessing shelter or healthcare to stay with their animals [ 25 , 36 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Similarly, people experiencing homelessness commonly encounter barriers to obtaining housing due to non-pet-friendly policies in rental markets, which can prolong homeless episodes [ 22 , 28 , 43 , 46 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multilevel Intervention Framework for Supporting People Experiencing Homelessness with Pets

Kerman

Lem

Witte

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approximately one in 10 people experiencing homelessness have pets. Despite the psychosocial benefits derived from pet ownership, systemic and structural barriers can prevent this group from meeting their basic needs and exiting homelessness. A multilevel framework is proposed for improving the health and well-being of pet owners experiencing homelessness. Informed by a One Health approach, the framework identifies interventions at the policy, public, and direct service delivery levels. Policy interventions are proposed to increase the supply of pet-friendly emergency shelters, access to market rental housing and veterinary medicine, and the use of a Housing First approach. At the public level, educational interventions are needed to improve knowledge and reduce stigma about the relationship between homelessness and pet ownership. Direct service providers can support pet owners experiencing homelessness by recognizing their strengths, connecting them to community services, being aware of the risks associated with pet loss, providing harm reduction strategies, documenting animals as emotional support animals, and engaging in advocacy. By targeting policies and service approaches that exacerbate the hardships faced by pet owners experiencing homelessness, the framework is a set of deliberate actions to better support a group that is often overlooked or unaccommodated in efforts to end homelessness.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multilevel Intervention Framework for Supporting People Experiencing Homelessness with Pets

Kerman

Lem

Witte

et al. 2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given that homeless people are identified as some of the most socially excluded (Sanders & Brown, 2015) it is reasonable to hypothesize that keeping pets and owners together will offer benefits. Indeed, reduction of isolation and provision of companionship has been repeatedly identified as key self-reported benefits of pet ownership by homeless people (Donley & Wright, 2012;Howe & Easterbrook, 2018;Rew, 2000) (Donley & Wright, 2012;Howe & Easterbrook, 2018;Rew, 2000). One homeless focus group participant summed up the importance these animals can have, with the simple comment "I mean my dog is my home" (Thompson et al, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can result in many preferring to remain homeless rather than relinquish their pet (Singer et al, 1995;Taylor et al, 2004). Pets may fulfill other needs too, including personal safety, giving a sense of motivation and responsibility, and physical warmth (Donley & Wright, 2012;Labrecque & Walsh, 2011;Rew, 2000;Rhoades et al, 2015). For some individuals, pet ownership may be linked with reducing criminal activity, improving self-care and reducing drug and alcohol misuse (Bender et al, 2007;Irvine et al, 2012;Thompson et al, 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Scanlon

McBride

Stavisky

2020

Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…For our evaluation, we grouped people experiencing homelessness into a different framework for typologies, which was defined by the intensity of homeless services provided—including no homeless services, a group that may be identified during health system encounters [ 9 ]. People experiencing homelessness do not uniformly access services for reasons that include accessibility (location), perceived limitations on freedom, prior experiences, or self-reliance and pride [ 10 , 11 ]. Our evaluation compared individuals who do not access homeless services to those with varying intensities of service receipt.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability in comorbidites and health services use across homeless typologies: multicenter data linkage between healthcare and homeless systems

Trick

Rachman²,

Hinami

et al. 2021

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Homelessness is associated with substantial morbidity. Data linkages between homeless and health systems are important to understand unique needs across homeless populations, identify homeless individuals not registered in homeless databases, quantify the impact of housing services on health-system use, and motivate health systems and payers to contribute to housing solutions. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey including six health systems and two Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS) in Cook County, Illinois. We performed privacy-preserving record linkage to identify homelessness through HMIS or ICD-10 codes captured in electronic medical records. We measured the prevalence of health conditions and health-services use across the following typologies: housing-service utilizers stratified by service provided (stable, stable plus unstable, unstable) and non-utilizers (i.e., homelessness identified through diagnosis codes—without receipt of housing services). Results Among 11,447 homeless recipients of healthcare, nearly 1 in 5 were identified by ICD10 code alone without recorded homeless services (n = 2177; 19%). Almost half received homeless services that did not include stable housing (n = 5444; 48%), followed by stable housing (n = 3017; 26%), then receipt of both stable and unstable services (n = 809; 7%). Setting stable housing recipients as the referent group, we found a stepwise increase in behavioral-health conditions from stable housing to those known as homeless solely by health systems. Compared to those in stable housing, prevalence rate ratios (PRR) for those without homeless services were as follows: depression (PRR = 2.2; 95% CI 1.9 to 2.5), anxiety (PRR = 2.5; 95% CI 2.1 to 3.0), schizophrenia (PRR = 3.3; 95% CI 2.7 to 4.0), and alcohol-use disorder (PRR = 4.4; 95% CI 3.6 to 5.3). Homeless individuals who had not received housing services relied on emergency departments for healthcare—nearly 3 of 4 visited at least one and many (24%) visited multiple. Conclusions Differences in behavioral-health conditions and health-system use across homeless typologies highlight the particularly high burden among homeless who are disconnected from homeless services. Fragmented and high use of emergency departments for care should motivate health systems and payers to promote housing solutions, especially those that incorporate substance use and mental health treatment.

show abstract

Safer Outside: A Qualitative Exploration of Homeless People's Resistance to Homeless Shelters

Cited by 49 publications

References 15 publications

A Multilevel Intervention Framework for Supporting People Experiencing Homelessness with Pets

A Multilevel Intervention Framework for Supporting People Experiencing Homelessness with Pets

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

Variability in comorbidites and health services use across homeless typologies: multicenter data linkage between healthcare and homeless systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About