Search

Understanding pet ownership in a community is an important factor for assessing the effectiveness of animal welfare programming. Data on pet ownership were collected from 2,327 households in two urban and two rural zip codes. The percentage of households owning pets and the species owned were calculated for the individual communities, the urban and rural pairs, and the aggregate data. Findings were compared to the 2017–2018 AVMA Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook data. The rural communities had an 11.5% higher rate of overall pet keeping and a 19% higher dog ownership rate than the urban communities, but the measured cat ownership rate was similar in all four sites at an average of 19.4% (SD = 2.1%). The community-specific rates of pet ownership were different (p <.0001) than the rates predicted fromthe AVMA-recommended formula, but at 56.8%, the aggregate pet-keeping rate was exactly the same as that calculated by the AVMA. The findings reveal community-level variability in pet-keeping rates that must be accounted for when assessing pet service, emergency planning, and animal welfare programming needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The current emphasis on enforcement and punishment in animal control policy has disproportionately negative impacts on low-income communities in the United States (US), particularly people of color. In this way, animal protection efforts are perpetuating many of the same inequities under examination in the human social justice movement. Reallocating the resources that have historically gone towards enforcement in communities to efforts that provide support in addressing the root causes of animal welfare concerns is needed to improve outcomes for pets in historically underserved communities. Due to inherent and systemic biases, animal control policies in the US are over-enforced in low-income communities and communities of color, resulting in worse health outcomes for the pets in these communities. These outcomes are exemplified by higher confiscation, relinquishment, and euthanasia rates, lower return to owner rates, and extended lengths of stay in animal shelters. The Humane Communities framework operationalizes One Health and One Welfare concepts to comprehensively address issues of inequity at both the individual and structural levels to improve animal control policy and outcomes. Person-centered and culturally competent policies and programs that focus resources on addressing root causes of pet health and welfare issues as opposed to an emphasis on code enforcement can create more positive, scalable, and sustainable improvements in human, other animal, and environmental health and welfare outcomes. This shift from punishment-oriented approaches to support-based models of animal control aligns the animal welfare field with the modern human social justice movement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrating community perceptions into One Health assessments is critical to understanding the structural barriers that create disproportionate health outcomes for community members, their pets, and the ecosystems that encompass them, particularly in historically marginalized and under-resourced communities. The validated One Health Community Assessment (OHCA) survey instrument was used to evaluate the associated impacts of The Humane Society of the United States' Pets for Life (PFL) programming on communities' perceptions of One Health. This evaluation took place across two phases, totaling four years. In phase one (May 2018 - December 2019), the PFL intervention was administered to one urban and one rural under-resourced community, while two demographically-paired communities served as comparison sites. Five OHCA subscales (human health, pet health, environmental health, community health, perceived links) were employed to measure changes in perceptions of One Health and fourteen OHCA items were used to measure perceptions of access to human healthcare, pet care, and the environment. Initiation of the confirmatory second phase of the study (May 2020-October 2021), in which all four communities received the intervention, coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic and its resulting public health mandates hindered both PFL programming and data collection. Generalized Estimating Equations were employed in both the first and second phase analyses to model changes in perceptions of One Health associated with the PFL intervention. In the study's first phase, PFL in the urban community was associated with significant increases in perceptions of community health and environmental health, and perceived access to human health care, pet care, and the environment. The presence of PFL during the study's second phase was associated with increased perceptions of environmental health. The variables of PFL and the pandemic were not able to be isolated within the analyses. However, due to the severe, negative One Health implications associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, the phase two results were interpreted from the perspective of the pandemic being the largest driver of the results. The results are consistent with previous research on the effects of the pandemic on community perceptions of health. These findings offer initial support for the hypothesis that deployment of resources focused on companion animals may affect perceptions across the One Health triad and confirms previous research on effects of the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Hawes, O’Reilly, Mascitelli, Winczewski, Dazzio, Arrington and Morris.)