Background Pets play a critical role in family well-being, yet poverty, housing instability, domestic violence, or other crises often form barriers to accessing services, while pets face parallel risks, including inadequate nutrition, loss of veterinary care, or surrender. Despite growing recognition of One Health frameworks, little is known about how social service agencies (SSAs) recognize or serve the needs of families with pets. This study examines how SSAs address clients’ pet-related needs, what facilitates or hinders collaboration with animal welfare organizations, and what resources agencies need to integrate pets into service delivery. Methods A cross-sectional online convenience sample survey was administered to representatives of SSAs across the United States (N = 209). Results Nearly half (46.9%) of agencies asked about pets at intake; those that asked were significantly more likely to offer pet-related services (p < .001). Pet food and supplies were the most common assistance (72.2%), followed by housing advocacy or pet deposits (47.6%) and veterinary assistance (45.1%). The most cited barriers were housing or shelter restrictions (68.8%), funding eligibility restrictions (54.1%), liability concerns (52.9%), and limited staff capacity (52.4%). Top resource needs were funding (83.9%), animal welfare partnerships (67.3%), and pet supplies (59.5%). Nearly 59% of agencies rated themselves as “very ready” or “somewhat ready” to include pets in their mission. Conclusions Among responding SSAs, recognition of the importance of pets was common, yet funding, infrastructure, partnerships, and policy guidance to address pet-related needs systematically remained largely absent. Findings support cross-sector partnerships, pet-inclusive policies, and dedicated funding to advance One Health approaches within social service systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schuch et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: