Session 5: Concern for Animal Care and Safekeeping as a Barrier to Leaving Abusive Relationships: Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence and Animal Welfare Service Providers
Sub-theme
Practice
Keywords
Intimate partner violence, animal care, service providers, rural communities
Start Date
11-10-2018 4:00 PM
End Date
11-10-2018 5:00 PM
Abstract
There is a clear link between intimate partner violence (IPV) and animal abuse, with such forms of violence often co-occurring (see Monslave, Ferreira, & Garcia, 2017 for a review). There is also mounting evidence that concern for animal care and safekeeping impacts the decision of whether to leave IPV relationships and seek shelter support (e.g., Ascione et al., 2007; Barrett, Fitzgerald, Stevenson, & Cheung, 2017). Barriers to animal care and safekeeping when seeking refuge may be especially pronounced in rural and northern areas, but few studies have examined this context to date (Wuerch, Giesbrecht, Price, Knutson, & Wach, 2017).
The present study addresses this gap by examining the experiences of animal welfare and IPV service providers living in urban, rural, and northern communities in Saskatchewan, Canada. Two online surveys were distributed among animal welfare and IPV service providers across the province. Survey questions aimed to examine (a) whether concerns for the care and safety of companion animals and livestock are barriers to leaving IPV situations in Saskatchewan; and (b) existing supports and services in Saskatchewan that provide animal safekeeping services for individuals leaving IPV situations. A total of 32 animal welfare representatives and 51 IPV service representatives completed the online surveys (N = 83). Following completion of the online surveys, 12 participants were contacted to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews.
Our results support previous research suggesting that concern for animal care and safekeeping impacts IPV survivors’ decisions to remain with or return to an abusive partner, as well as whether to seek shelter support (e.g., Ascione et al., 2007; Barrett et al., 2017; Hartman et al., 2018; Wuerch et al., 2017). Most IPV service providers (95.92%) reported that the safety and safekeeping of animals impacts individuals’ ability, planning, and decision to leave abusive partners, with many (77.55%) being personally aware of situations where this was the case. Many IPV service providers reported asking survivors seeking refuge about safety of animals during the intake process (65.31%) and helping to find temporary safekeeping for animals (56.25%) if needed; however, most animal welfare providers reported that, at present, there was not adequate access to animal safekeeping supports in their area (73.08%).
Various challenges to helping find temporary safekeeping for animals were reported: IPV shelters not allowing animals, difficulty housing livestock, concern regarding anonymity of animal foster homes, animals not being up-to-date with vaccinations, certain programming only being available in urban areas, lack of transportation for animals from rural areas, and financial barriers. Suggestions for improving their ability to support individuals with animal safekeeping included: interagency collaboration, implementing a structured referral process for animal care and safekeeping, creating emergency funding for animal care and safekeeping, ensuring anonymity of animal foster homes, including a space for animals in IPV shelters, and creating facilities to house livestock. Our results have important implications for improving policies and practices related to IPV and animal care. Further research is warranted to inform and improve the development and implementation of national support services and resources.
Session 5: Concern for Animal Care and Safekeeping as a Barrier to Leaving Abusive Relationships: Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence and Animal Welfare Service Providers
There is a clear link between intimate partner violence (IPV) and animal abuse, with such forms of violence often co-occurring (see Monslave, Ferreira, & Garcia, 2017 for a review). There is also mounting evidence that concern for animal care and safekeeping impacts the decision of whether to leave IPV relationships and seek shelter support (e.g., Ascione et al., 2007; Barrett, Fitzgerald, Stevenson, & Cheung, 2017). Barriers to animal care and safekeeping when seeking refuge may be especially pronounced in rural and northern areas, but few studies have examined this context to date (Wuerch, Giesbrecht, Price, Knutson, & Wach, 2017).
The present study addresses this gap by examining the experiences of animal welfare and IPV service providers living in urban, rural, and northern communities in Saskatchewan, Canada. Two online surveys were distributed among animal welfare and IPV service providers across the province. Survey questions aimed to examine (a) whether concerns for the care and safety of companion animals and livestock are barriers to leaving IPV situations in Saskatchewan; and (b) existing supports and services in Saskatchewan that provide animal safekeeping services for individuals leaving IPV situations. A total of 32 animal welfare representatives and 51 IPV service representatives completed the online surveys (N = 83). Following completion of the online surveys, 12 participants were contacted to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews.
Our results support previous research suggesting that concern for animal care and safekeeping impacts IPV survivors’ decisions to remain with or return to an abusive partner, as well as whether to seek shelter support (e.g., Ascione et al., 2007; Barrett et al., 2017; Hartman et al., 2018; Wuerch et al., 2017). Most IPV service providers (95.92%) reported that the safety and safekeeping of animals impacts individuals’ ability, planning, and decision to leave abusive partners, with many (77.55%) being personally aware of situations where this was the case. Many IPV service providers reported asking survivors seeking refuge about safety of animals during the intake process (65.31%) and helping to find temporary safekeeping for animals (56.25%) if needed; however, most animal welfare providers reported that, at present, there was not adequate access to animal safekeeping supports in their area (73.08%).
Various challenges to helping find temporary safekeeping for animals were reported: IPV shelters not allowing animals, difficulty housing livestock, concern regarding anonymity of animal foster homes, animals not being up-to-date with vaccinations, certain programming only being available in urban areas, lack of transportation for animals from rural areas, and financial barriers. Suggestions for improving their ability to support individuals with animal safekeeping included: interagency collaboration, implementing a structured referral process for animal care and safekeeping, creating emergency funding for animal care and safekeeping, ensuring anonymity of animal foster homes, including a space for animals in IPV shelters, and creating facilities to house livestock. Our results have important implications for improving policies and practices related to IPV and animal care. Further research is warranted to inform and improve the development and implementation of national support services and resources.
