banner



Home  ›  Why Is Animal Homelessness An Increasing Issue?

Why Is Animal Homelessness An Increasing Issue?

Written By Saturday, May 28, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Homelessness in the UK is a serious social trouble. The most visible group of homeless are the "rough sleepers" who alive out of doors, especially those living on the streets of towns and cities (Shelter, 2018; UK_Government, 2018). Information technology has been reported that around 5000 people sleep crude in the U.k. every dark (Homeless_Link, 2018). This likely represents an under-estimate equally crude sleepers may try to avoid street counts. This notwithstanding, the estimated tendency is that crude sleeping has increased past 165% since 2010 (Homeless_Link, 2018). Yet, true homelessness figures are much college when the number of people in hostels, squats and temporary accommodation are included. Contempo UK statistics gauge that over 320,000 people in the Uk, equivalent to 0.5% of the population, is estimated to be homeless. This figure includes 130,000 children (Reynolds, 2018; Shelter, 2019).

Pet ownership is thought to be common among homeless people. Although the actual prevalence in the Great britain is not known, studies around the world suggest that betwixt 5% and 25% of homeless people ain pets (Cronley et al., 2009; Kerman et al., 2019; Rhoades et al., 2015).

Pet ownership has been shown to have several benefits for homeless people, who are amidst the virtually socially isolated within our gild (Sanders & Brown, 2015). Having a pet has been demonstrated to provide companionship and unconditional acceptance (Labrecque & Walsh, 2011; Rew, 2000; Rhoades et al., 2015). It is maybe this acceptance, potentially in the absenteeism of many other potent ties with people, which has led some researchers to observe that homeless pet owners share an unusually intense bond with their animal. 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 safe, 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 buying may be linked with reducing criminal action, improving self-care and reducing drug and alcohol misuse (Bender et al., 2007; Irvine et al., 2012; Thompson et al., 2006).

On the other hand, pet ownership has potentially negative impacts. It has been identified every bit a bulwark to accessing services such as food provision, walk-in centers, medical intendance and crucially, accommodation (Howe & Easterbrook, 2018; Kidd & Kidd, 1994; Taylor et al., 2004). Thus, pet ownership is interwoven in many of the issues which underlie and promote homelessness. For instance, where people are forced to cull between giving upwards a pet and remaining homeless many will reject to surrender their pets (Cronley et al., 2009; Rhoades et al., 2015). Thus, pet ownership can perpetuate homelessness by forming an boosted obstruction to accessing housing and other sources of support.

Whilst a number of homelessness service providers choose to conform pets, the bulk do not. The primary aim of this written report was to estimate the prevalence of provision for pets among UK services providing accommodation for homeless people. A secondary aim was to explore the reasons why services chose whether or not to arrange pets.

Materials and methods

A database of homeless accommodation service providers throughout England was assembled using information provided by the website Homeless Link (https://www.homeless.org.uk/). A customized questionnaire was designed using Google Forms. Multiple choice questions provided information about the organization's activities, pet policies and reasons for pet policies. All had the option to select "other," and costless text boxes were provided to allow boosted comment or where the respondent wished to add to the pre-defined choices available. The questionnaire was piloted past a homelessness accommodation provider and by a member of the outreach project development squad at Dogs Trust. Suggested amendments were and then incorporated. The terminal survey was launched via electronic mail in July 2016 and was open for viii weeks. Ii email reminders were sent at 10–xiv twenty-four hour period intervals, with follow up telephone calls made to encourage not-responders to participate before the survey was closed.

Responses were downloaded into Excel 2013 (Microsoft Corporation) and descriptive statistics compiled. Where an "other" response was selected and free text responses were provided, these were cross-checked and, where appropriate, assigned to existing categories. Postcodes of responding organizations were converted into geodata and mapped using BatchGeo (https://batchgeo.com/). Categorical data were compared in SPSS version 24 (IBM Corporation) using Pearson'southward chi-squared test with Yates's correction. Significance was set at p = 0.05 throughout.

Results

The initial database compiled comprised 1288 listed service providers across the United Kingdom. When duplicates were removed, this resulted in 679 individual service providers being identified, 523 of which had valid contact details. Of these 523, 117 responded (response rate 22.4%).

Virtually respondents provided more than than ane blazon of accommodation service, with a median of two and a maximum of seven reported (Figure 1). Most (99/117, 84.6%) provided services additional to accommodation. These were varied and included support services, education, communication, nutrient and clothing. The geographical spread of respondents can exist seen in Figure 2.

Figure i. Range of accommodation services provided past respondents (north = 117).

Effigy 2. Geographical spread of respondents who provided postcode data (north = 101).

Of the respondents, 36.viii% (43/117) provided services to pets, whilst the remaining 61.two% did not. In contrast, 76.9% (90/117) reported having requests to take in pets, whilst only 24 (twenty.5%) reported no requests, with three respondents unsure. Respondents were asked to estimate the proportion of service seekers presenting with a pet. Most reported nether ten% of service seekers presenting with a pet. However, 18/117 organizations (xv.3%) 10–25%, and i arrangement reported 25–50% of service seekers presenting with a pet. Organizations which allowed pets were significantly more probable to be approached for accommodation by homeless pet owners (p = 0.0006).

Of the 43 organizations accepting pets, the most common animals housed were mammals, including dogs (39/43, xc.7%), pocket-size prey species such as rabbits or rats (xviii/43, 41.9%) and cats (sixteen/43, 37.2%). Other taxa housed were reptiles (13/43, 30.2%), fish (thirteen/43, 30.2%), birds (7/43, 16.three%) and amphibia (6/43, 14%).

When asked why they chose to have pets, most organizations responded that it benefitted the owner (36/43, 83.7%) or the animal (25/43, 58.ane%). A number also stated that it benefitted other residents (10/43, 23.3%) or staff (two/43, 4.7%). A minor number provided commentary on other aspects, such as the difficulty in helping the owners without helping their pets. Such comments included it can be traumatic enough for a young person finding themselves homeless without having to part with a loved pet and Often Rough Sleepers will not come up in to our projects without their pets and we are unable to work with them while on the street. I respondent commented

Nosotros find the relationship between someone who has been rough sleeping and their pet (invariably a dog) a strong bail that should be encouraged. Also appropriate direction of the pet can be advised on and help the pet become healthier too as the individual we see.

Respondents were asked to select factors which were of importance when because whether to accommodate owners with their pets. The nigh common considerations included the number of animals owned (36/43, 83.7%), the behavior of the animals (34/43, 79.1%) and how long they had been in the owner's possession (25/43, 58.1%) (Figure 3).

Figure three. Factors considered when deciding whether to conform owners with their pets (n = 43).

Of the 43 organizations allowing pets, 35 (81.4%) reported specific policies for residents with pets. All of these stated that the pet was the sole responsibility of the owner. A variety of other stipulations were described, mainly concerning the animal's wellbeing but also designed to limit any damage or nuisance (Table 1).

Tabular array ane. Pet policies of the 35 organizations which reported having them.

70-four organizations did non allow pets. A diversity of reasons were given for this choice of policy, with health and safety of staff and other residents being the most common (Table 2). Other reasons included logistical constraints, such every bit running out of volunteers' homes or restrictions set by landlords, the lack of pet-friendly "motion-on" accommodation, concerns or experience of maltreatment, neglect or abandonment, or fear that if they prepare a precedent they would exist "over-run."

Table ii. Reasons for not assuasive pets at 74 organizations.

Give-and-take

The prevalence of pet buying among homeless people in the United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland is unknown, but has been reported to vary widely effectually the world (Kerman et al., 2019). It is clear from the results of the current study that the demand to accommodate pets with their owners in homelessness provision far outstrips supply. Although 76.ix% of the 117 participating organizations experienced demand for accommodation provison to include pets, simply 38.6% provided such accommodation. This broadly agrees with existing data showing scant pet provision for homeless accommodation seekers in the Great britain (Howe & Easterbrook, 2018). The proportion of pet owners amongst homeless people seeking accommodation in those services was typically under ten%, but in some cases much higher.

In this study, the pet-friendly service providers were significantly more than probable to receive requests to accommodate pets, suggesting an sensation of pet services among homeless people. This awareness may be facilitated past pet orientated outreach services such equally the Promise Project (Dogs Trust) that signpost users to pet-friendly accommodation providers. It is possible that other, non-pet orientated service and outreach providers do not know where to straight owners. There is a lack of noesis on how information is currently disseminated beyond both clients and service providers. Such knowledge could both heighten information transfer and, potentially, provide contacts for service providers who may wish to explore the potential for accommodating pet owners.

Respondents from accommodation providers serving owners ordinarily referred to perceived benefits to both the owners and the pets. Additionally, a number commented on potential benefits to other residents and staff. This reflects previous research showing that pets tin can deed as social facilitators by encouraging conversation (Wells, 2004) including between homed and homeless persons. As Irvine (2012) stated "Strangers volition initiate a conversation with a person accompanied by a dog where they would non do and so with a person alone." Likewise, Labrecque and Walsh (2011) interviewed homeless women living in Canadian shelters, not all pet owners. They found that 86% felt that shelters should allow companion animals (Labrecque & Walsh, 2011). This reinforces the suggestion that even if not pet owners themselves, people accessing homelessness services may appreciate the benefits of accommodating pets.

Benefits of owning pets in full general, and dogs especially, to both concrete and mental wellness accept been widely documented, peculiarly amongst the lonely and socially excluded (Pikhartova et al., 2014 Siegel, 1990; Zasloff & Kidd, 1994). Given that homeless people are identified equally some of the virtually socially excluded (Sanders & Brownish, 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; Kidd & Kidd, 1994; Rew, 2000) (Donley & Wright, 2012; Howe & Easterbrook, 2018; Kidd & Kidd, 1994; Rew, 2000). One homeless focus group participant summed up the importance these animals can have, with the elementary comment "I mean my canis familiaris is my abode" (Thompson et al., 2006).

Most of the pet-positive service providers had a pet policy in place. All of the policies stated that the pet was the responsibleness of the owner. Other provisions included safeguards for the welfare of the pet and measures to limit nuisance or harm to the adaptation. Both private and public accommodation providers need to take clear and advisable pet policies if misunderstandings and mishaps are to be avoided (McBride, 2005).

The organizations which did non take pets reported diverse reasons as to why they chose this arroyo. Health and prophylactic and hygiene concerns were the most prominent, but nigh organizations reported several reasons. A modest number cited previous bug with poor welfare of pets. Whilst limited data available suggests that overall homeless people'due south pets are at to the lowest degree every bit good for you as the full general population (Scanlon et al in review) (Williams & Hogg, 2015), conspicuously at that place will nonetheless exist exceptional cases. Information technology is also not clear what was meant by poor welfare in the comments from these respondents. For example, it may take related to concerns for distress the animals may display. Notably, separation-related issues tin can develop in dogs belonging to homeless people because these dogs may rarely or never have experienced beingness left lone whilst their owner was non in accommodation. However, these and other stress-related issues can exist helped (come across for example (Appleby & Pluijmakers, 2016)). Service providers should therefore be directed to appropriate veterinary and behavior modification that can help these pet owners and their pets, which may include charitable provision (McBride & Montgomery, 2018).

This study has highlighted the difficulties homeless pet owners confront whilst trying to access accommodation. Both previous (Labreque & Walsh, 2011; Lem et al., 2016; Sanders & Chocolate-brown, 2015; Vocalizer et al., 1995; Thompson et al., 2006) and upcoming (Scanlon et al, in review) enquiry emphasizes the importance of preserving the bond between homeless people and their pets as a way of supporting the wellness and wellbeing of these vulnerable people. Such positive benefits may have consequent benefits to lodge and society economics in terms of reduced costs from poor health and anti-social behavior (Scanlon et al., in review). Improving access to adaptation and appropriate behavioral support for the dog will as well help the transition of the individual owner into the workplace and thus into an independently supported lifestyle.

This suggests that policymakers should be encouraged to recognize pet ownership amidst homeless people as a i wellness issue. Further research into the logistics of how pet ownership among homeless people can be incorporated and utilized equally an efficacious component of their support system and transition out of homelessness is to exist welcomed.

Limitations

This written report has a number of limitations. Whilst within the expected range for a survey of this kind, conspicuously the response rate limits the extent to which results may be generalized. Since the survey header described the topic every bit being around accommodating of pets with owners, it is possible that this could have generated response bias, with respondents with strong views or pertinent experiences around this effect, either positive or negative, being more likely to respond. Finally, although the pre-divers categories were developed and piloted with the assist of homelessness service providers and a representative from a long-established outreach initiative, information technology is possible that they may have not fully captured the remit and services of all respondents. Follow-up interviews and focus groups of accommodation provider organizational determination makers, managers and staff were not performed due to the express resource bachelor for this project, simply would be a desirable extension to this enquiry expanse.

Determination

Among the homelessness accommodation providers responding to this survey, need for accommodation for pets along with their owners far outstripped supply. Those respondents allowing pets largely managed this by a series of pro-agile policies to ensure the pets' welfare and minimize harm and nuisance. Benefits to the pet owner and, in some cases, other residents and staff were perceived as important reasons to allow pets, in addition to concerns for the welfare of the animal itself. Those services prohibiting pets had a variety of concerns, frequently centered around logistical problems such as health and rubber and hygiene. The importance of keeping homeless people together with their pets is both emphasized in previous literature and reinforced in some of the observations past respondents in the present study. Provision of logistical support to these services may facilitate increased provision for homeless people and their pets to be accommodated together, to the do good of both possessor and pet and potentially to the wider guild.

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10530789.2020.1754602

Posted by: elkinsextur1962.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Why Is Animal Homelessness An Increasing Issue?"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel