Inclusive Approaches by VAW Shelters: Respecting Women's Choice to be Together With Companion Animals

Abstract

Women often delay moving to VAW shelters if their companion animals’ safety is not ensured. Yet, few shelters accommodate them together. The purpose of this study is to explore what may help to promote services for women with companion animals facing violence, through learning from professionals who already provide support. Our email survey with VAW shelters in Ontario, Canada identified services and potential interviewees. Nine semi-structured telephone interviews with professionals were conducted to explore their experiences and views on human–animal relationships. All agencies that provided onsite programs, plus one about to start, participated. We utilized Critical Animal Studies as a theory to understand human–animal relationships through concepts such as intersectionality, anthropocentrism, speciesism, and feminist ethics of responsibility. The study found: (1) seven approaches shelters used to help women with companion animals; (2) programs that accept companion animals helped women move to shelters quickly but also affirmed women’s mutually respectful relationships with companion animals; (3) shelters also benefited, including expanding support from local communities and opportunities to educate them. The study suggests that by shifting ontological and theoretical approaches and including a critical examination of human–animal relationships at interpersonal and social structural levels, professional education promotes mobilizing resources for women with companion animals.

Introduction

For over a quarter-century, numerous studies on violence against women (VAW) with companion animals advocated services for both, yet there has been little progress, as shown in the literature review below. To address this impasse, this paper argues for alternative ontological and theoretical approaches to understand situations of VAW with companion animals through an original study.

Social justice is a key guiding principle for social work. One objective of this paper is to link an abstract construct, social justice, to social work practice and policy on VAW with companion animals. VAW is a serious social justice issue. Iris M. Young (2011) conceptualizes social justice in relation to dominance and oppression and suggests how to achieve it: “What makes violence a face of oppression is less the particular acts themselves … than the social context surrounding them, which makes them possible and even acceptable” (p. 61). This understanding suggests transformative practice and policy in VAW must address not only individual acts but ideologies that sustain social contexts, such as patriarchy. Indeed, studies on VAW have explored patriarchal structural issues, and intersectionality with race, class, disabilities, and gender identities, yet few extend intersectionality to include speciesism. At the same time, today, in Canada and the United States, over 60% of households have companion animals (pets) and the proportion is growing (American Pet Products Association, 2020; Growth From Knowledge, 2015); thus, having companion animals has become the norm. This means human–animal relationships must be incorporated into the ontology of social work. Also, perception of the family unit is changing to view companion animals as family members. Thus, a family may include members beyond humans and be a trans-species entity. These changes are reflected in recent legislation in various countries, for example, in January 2022, following similar decisions in France and Portugal, Spain recognized animals not as property but as sentient beings and family members (Hasco, 2022); in February 2022 Ecuador's high court extended its rights of nature laws to wild animals (Surma, 2022) while in March 2022 a new animal welfare Bill acknowledging animal sentience was in its final stages in the UK Parliament (Animal Welfare [Sentience] Bill, 2022). Such ontological changes mean social workers can no longer ignore other animals involved in violent situations.

Over two decades ago Flynn (2000b) urged us to reconsider anthropocentrism and Wolf (2000), based on an extensive search for examinations of speciesism in social work literature, critiqued such examinations as “conspicuously absent,” although “attention to marginalized groups as a defining attribute of the social work profession … [and] a core value of social work is appreciation and respect for the inherent dignity and worth of all persons” (p. 88). He further argued speciesism is problematic as it is ignored by social work but deeply connected with many of the issues and “-isms” that marginalized groups and social work strive to counter. This, and the above-noted changes in the ontology of human–animal relationships as well as the review of existing literature below, indicate the urgent need for a better understanding of human–animal relationships by adopting an approach such as Critical Animal Studies and using their key critical concepts such as intersectionality, anthropocentrism, and speciesism (institutionalized injustice, prejudice and biased attitudes that exclude all nonhuman animals from protection offered to humans). Such understanding helps social workers and other practitioners to see women's realities and knowledge clearly and would have significant implications for VAW practice and policies, especially when women do not leave violent situations without their companion animals. No studies utilized a Critical Animal Studies approach to examine to what extent women's shelters accommodate companion animals in Ontario and to explore what may help to promote services for women and their companion animals. Thus, it became the purpose of our study.

We begin with a literature review that presents important contexts of this study by identifying key themes of existing literature on the co-existence of VAW and their companion animals, current availabilities of services, and barriers faced by service providers. The review identifies alternative ontological and theoretical approaches to reflect women's experiences, which are the basis of this current study. We then present the methodology and key findings. Our discussion leads to implications for social work education, practice, and policy.

Literature Review

Although the co-existence of abuse of animals and women was recognized from the mid-1990s, (Adams, 1994, 1995; Ascione et al., 1997), Flynn's review (2000a) of the literature in 2000 found “virtually no scholarly attention” was given to violence against companion animals in the context of abusive domestic relationships (p. 99). Since then, the co-existence of domestic violence directed at humans and other animals in the home is well documented (e.g., Allen et al., 2006; Ascione et al., 2007; Barrett et al., 2020; Collins et al., 2018; Faver & Strand, 2003a; Flynn, 2000a, 2000b; Hardesty et al., 2013; Newberry, 2017; Simmons & Lehmann, 2007; Strand & Faver, 2005; Volant et al., 2008). Studies also reported that women in abusive situations commonly have pets. In the United States from 40% (Flynn, 2000a) to 92% (Ascione et al., 1997) of women in abusive situations owned pets. Rates reported by others fell in between; for example, 84% in Strand and Faver’s (2005) U.S. study and 89% in Barrett et al.’s (2020) Canadian study. These suggest co-existence of abuse of women and their companion animals is not uncommon. This provides justification for extending support for women with their companion animals.

Ascione et al. (2007) in the United States and Volant et al. (2008) in Australia further demonstrated the significance of the co-existence of animal abuse among women who experienced domestic violence by employing a comparison group of women living with pets in the community without domestic violence. They found a statistically significant difference between them in the rates of animal abuse and the killing of pets. Further analyses found animal abuse as a predictor of abuse of women (Volant et al., 2008). Statistically significant differences found in these studies demonstrate that animal abuse not only co-exists with abuse of women but does not happen by chance and is an intentional act by the perpetrator.

Another well-documented experience is that perpetrators intimidate women by threatening to hurt or kill their pets if they counter perpetrators (Adams, 1994, 1995; Allen et al., 2006; Carlisle-Frank et al., 2004; Faver & Cavazos, 2007; Faver & Strand, 2003a; Flynn, 2000a; Hardesty et al., 2013). Literature also showed that women were isolated and relationships with pets provided support and were significant (Ascione et al., 2007; Faver & Cavazos, 2007; Fitzgerald, 2007; Flynn, 2000a, 2000b; Hardesty et al., 2013; Newberry, 2017); this was especially so for women without children (Flynn, 2000a; Strand & Faver, 2005). When children are involved, studies emphasized the importance of services for women and children with companion animals because of the adverse effects on children who witnessed abuse of their pets, for example, conduct disorders and abusing animals themselves (Ascione et al., 2007; Flynn, 2000c; Krienert et al., 2012; Volant et al., 2008). Studies also urge such services because some children consider companion animals vital (e.g., McDonald et al., 2019). These must be incorporated to understand further key findings.

First, women who faced their own abuse and animal abuse at home delayed moving to shelters (Ascione et al., 1997, 2007; Barrett et al., 2020; Carlisle-Frank et al., 2004; Faver & Strand, 2003a; Flynn, 2000a; Newberry, 2017; Wuerch et al., 2021). Second, few VAW shelters accept both women and pets. For example, Krienert et al. (2012) reported that 6% of their national survey of domestic violence shelters in the United States provides onsite help. In Canada, one of 17 shelters (6%) in Stevenson et al., (2018) survey and only 1% (four websites) of first-stage shelter websites (Gray et al., 2019) indicated the availability of such services. While many shelters do what they can, very few accommodate both or provide formal alternative services (Krienert et al., 2012; Stevenson et al., 2018; Wuerch et al., 2021). Furthermore, in Canada, VAW emergency shelters did not provide information about support for pets on their websites, even when they had some (Gray et al., 2019) or did not advise about off-site services available (Barrett et al., 2020). Thus, women experiencing coercive control and isolation found significant support from pets at home but few outside resources recognize this.

VAW shelter workers and administrators identified key barriers to provide services: health and safety concerns such as allergies of staff and residents, hygiene and potential aggression and conflicts among companion animals, lack of resources including space in the women's shelters, funding to support programs, lack of animal welfare organizations to collaborate to shelter companion animals for long-term, and legal liabilities (Komorosky et al., 2015; Krienert et al., 2012; Stevenson et al., 2018; Wuerch et al., 2021).

Perhaps, these barriers reflect how animal abuse is understood in the VAW literature. Although both women and companion animals are victims of co-existing abuse and their abuse is intertwined, animal abuse is widely conceptualized as an indicator of abuse of humans, not as a serious issue itself (Adams, 1994, 1995; Flynn, 2012; Solot, 1997). Solot (1997) found that animal abuse was considered merely a sign of a “more ‘important’ kind of violence” (p. 262). Flynn (2012) noted, “published research on animal abuse has been motivated almost entirely by its association with violence against people” (p. 27). Thus, critiques of speciesist and anthropocentric views of violence have been made, yet analysis of intersectionality with human–animal relationships (i.e., the intersectionality of sexism and speciesism) remained unexamined.

Meanwhile, the field of studies on human–animal relationships where animals are taken seriously as sentient beings is growing. Critical Animal Studies scholars examine human–animal relationships not only at an interpersonal level but in relation to social, political, economic, and cultural structural processes by employing concepts of speciesism and anthropocentrism in intersectional analyses (e.g., Adams, 2000; Matsuoka & Sorenson, 2018; Nibert, 2002, 2017; Nocella et al., 2014a, 2014b; Sorenson, 2014; Sorenson & Matsuoka, 2019a, 2019b). Although Carlisle-Frank et al. (2004) did not use the terms, their results captured the manifestation of speciesism and anthropocentrism. They examined differences in perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors between animal abusers and nonanimal abusers among perpetrators of domestic violence. They found highly statistically significant differences between animal abusers and nonanimal abusers. Statistically speaking, perpetrators who abuse animals saw pets as property, not as sentient beings, and they used pets to release daily frustrations/family problems; animal abusers never told their pets that they loved them daily; 90% never showed affection to them, communicated with pets only by commands and threats; they had unrealistic expectations (e.g., pets’ ability to control behaviors such as barking and excreting and to respect perpetrators and their authority) and failure to meet these resulted in punishment. These animal abusers were “regularly set off by their pets’ behaviors” (p. 38). Considering nonhuman animals as objects or property, using them as such, and exerting domination and superiority over them exemplify speciesism and anthropocentrism. The study showed that abusers objectified and considered other animals (pets) as lesser than themselves and used pets for their own ends.

Carlisle-Frank et al. (2004) also asked what other studies did not. They compared views toward companion animals between women who fled violence but left animals with animal abusers and those who fled but took them to public animal shelters for safety. They reported statistically significant results that women who left animals behind with animal abusers more likely considered animals property rather than sentient beings. These results need to be placed in the context where scholars urge us not to consider an abuse of animals as an indicator for abuse of humans but as violence against other sentient victims who need protection (Adams, 1994, 1995; Faver & Strand, 2003b, 2007; Fitzgerald, 2007; Flynn, 2000a, 2000b, 2012; Solot, 1997). This suggests another layer of analysis is meaningful: that is, analyzing women's delayed flight from abusive relationships with speciesism and anthropocentrism. The first step is to understand taken-for-granted normative standards.

Choo and Ferree (2010) assert that intersectional analysis unveils how normative standards are set. When women delay leaving abusive situations where companion animals are also abused and used as coercive control (i.e., intersectional oppression of women and companion animals), some may interpret companion animals as deterrents for women leaving abusive situations. Here the assumed normative standard is women without companion animals, although the majority of households in North America have companion animals and women in abusive situations commonly have companion animals, as noted above. Thus, the standard disregards the reality which has been documented at least since1997 by Ascione, Wood, and Weber. Another normative standard is that safe spaces (shelters) are for humans, not for other animals.

Normative ethical standards focus on humans’ safety and consider other animals as obstacles to women's safety. Such standards place human safety above that of other animals, based on the devaluation of other sentient beings as lesser than humans and prejudice against other species, i.e., anthropocentrism and speciesism. As Carlisle-Frank et al. (2004) noted, those who left pets with animal abusers considered them as property (i.e., objects). In contrast, women who delayed departure considered them family members, that is, sentient beings; for example, “I feared for the safety of my dog. He was my child's best friend” (Newberry, 2017, p. 276). “I wasn’t going to leave unless I could take the pets with me. So I had to find a place for all of us. I’d be worried he would take violence out on the dog” (Collins et al., 2018, p. 465). These quotes suggest that women valued their relationships with other sentient beings and from their perspective their delayed flight was based on taking ethical responsibility. This is what feminist ethicist Carol Gilligan (1982) called ethics of responsibility: “sustaining connection, seeing the consequences of action by keeping the web of relationships intact” (p. 59), and exercising ethics of care. Viewed in this light, women are not indecisive victims and their companion animals are not obstacles; rather, they are delayed by exercising agency and taking moral responsibility for family members of different species in violent situations. They do not see nonhuman family members as deterrents. Instead, the real deterrent is a lack of resources to help women exercise their agency and moral responsibilities. Thus, understanding speciesism in intersectional analyses reveals unproblematized normative standards, which in fact maintain and are complicit in the dominant ideology that devalues other animals and women's ethical decisions but sustains abusive relationships.

Power and control are at the core of analyses of VAW. As such, studies found that abuse of companion animals is a coercive tactic that perpetrators used to control their partners (Adams, 1995; Allen et al., 2006; Barrett et al., 2020; Collins et al., 2018; Faver & Strand, 2003b, 2007; Flynn, 2000a, 2000c; Simmons & Lehmann, 2007). Ecofeminist and Critical Animal Studies scholar Carol Adams (1995) theorized this, which later was supported by social work scholars, Faver and Strand (2007). Adams emphasizes the importance of viewing abuse of companion animals as male perpetrators’ intentional acts to control female partners by referring to Biderman's Chart of Coercion. Although violence as coercive control is clearly shown in many studies, there is limited integration of the concept of coercive control with theories of human–animal relationships.

Where human–animal relationships are considered, a common approach is to understand these in terms of human–animal bonds (HABs). This approach, however, has limitations for analyzing the co-existence of abuse situations. For example, although HAB may exist between women who consider companion animals as sentient beings rather than objects and where they share mutual affection and trust, such bonds do not exist between abusers and other animals. Furthermore, as Carlisle-Frank et al. (2004) found, not all women considered pets as sentient beings, but, rather, perceived them as property or objects, demonstrating that not all these relations are aptly described as HAB. Moreover, HAB focuses on interpersonal connections and is not applicable for examining the broader social structural context where examinations of VAW must be situated. Thus, the co-existence of animal and human abuse requires a theoretical approach that allows us to examine both interpersonal and structural levels of human–animal relationships.

Even after a quarter-century of research efforts to demonstrate the need for support of abused women with companion animals so that both can access secure, safe shelters (Adams, 1995; Allen et al., 2006; Ascione et al., 1997; Krienert et al., 2012; Stevenson et al., 2018; Wuerch et al., 2021), the growth of available services, especially for sheltering them together, remains limited. Strand and Faver (2005), warned that failing to address important relationships between women and nonhuman animals misses a critical aspect of the help-seeking behavior of women in violent situations. It is assumed that if professionals are well-informed on women's experiences, service provision will increase to address their needs. Studies found that individuals who work in shelters are well-aware of co-existing abuse situations (Ascione et al., 2007; Krienert et al., 2012; Stevenson et al., 2018; Wuerch et al., 2021). This is also the case for social workers in general. Survey studies with social workers found a high level of knowledge on the link between women's abuse and animal abuse among 70% of respondents in the United States (Risley-Curtiss, 2010) and 80% in Ontario, Canada (Ferreira et al., 2018). Thus, knowledge alone does not seem to mobilize the resources needed to address this serious injustice. In order to explore what may help to promote services for women with companion animals, alternative ontological, theoretical, and methodological approaches are required. No study has examined to what extent women's shelters accommodate companion animals in Ontario to meet women's views of human–animal relations from a Critical Animal Studies (CAS) perspective. For this, we sought to learn from people who already provide services in Ontario. This paper reports professionals’ experiences in providing support and their views on human–animal relationships, utilizing a CAS approach that includes feminist ethics of responsibility.

Methodology

Theoretical Orientation—Critical Animal Studies

There is a long history of discussion and, now, extensive literature in various disciplines on ethical relations with nonhuman animals, calling for an extension of concepts previously viewed as exclusively human, such as inherent worth, equal consideration of interests, and legal rights. Critical Animal Studies is an interdisciplinary field of study with a strong influence from ecofeminism. Thus, CAS emphasizes the intersecting nature of various forms of oppression and sees no convincing argument against extending fundamental principles of social justice to nonhuman animals, particularly when there is strong evidence of intersecting oppression in key areas of concern to social work. It maintains not only that animals should be protected from suffering but that they have fundamental rights and should not be regarded as property to be used for humans’ convenience; thus, it takes a different ontological view of human–animal relationships (Nocella et al., 2014a, 2014b).

This perspective illuminates the intersectionality of oppression of humans and that of other animals; consequently, it values relational knowledge gained through human–animal relationships. Ontologically, it takes a social constructionist approach as do other critical theories. CAS considers nonhuman animals not as property but as having agency. From this ontological point of view, we must understand the relationships women develop with their companion animals to grasp the reality they experience. Thus, a CAS approach desettles anthropocentric and speciesist ontological and epistemological assumptions and is useful to analyze human–animal relationships at an individual level but also at a social structural level which is essential in efforts to eradicate violence (Nibert, 2017). Importantly, this ontological and epistemological grounding of CAS helps us to acknowledge that nonhuman animals are themselves targets of abuse and victims who must be protected (Adams, 1994, 1995). We use CAS to understand how professionals provide support for women and animals experiencing violence and those women's views on human–animal relationships.

Design and Methods

Building on our ontological and epistemological standpoints, we chose a qualitative research methodology using an interview method to understand the experiences of professionals in decisions to support both women and their companion animals. When we began our study, professionals in the field told us that very few agencies provided services to accommodate companion animals with official policies, and they were not easy to locate as there was no reliable list at that time. Thus, we designed the study including two stages. First, we compiled a list of shelter organizations in Ontario by using community information and referral source websites of Ontario such as “211,” Healthline, and ShelterSafe, which are potential sources if women try to find VAW/IPV shelters in Ontario. In Ontario, two types of VAW/IPV housing exist emergency shelters (i.e., first stage shelters) and transition houses (i.e., second stage shelters). This study included only emergency shelters (after this, shelters) and excluded transition houses and mixed shelters (function as both emergency shelters and transition houses) as they come under different government policies. Our list consisted of 81 first stage VAW/IPV shelters and we invited them to respond to an email survey to address two research questions for the first stage of this study: “What services do shelters in Ontario provide to women with companion animals (pets)?” and “Do they ask about companion animals at the intake?” The survey asked seven questions: (1) do shelters accept nonhuman animals?; (2) how long have you had the policy?; (3) for agencies that do not accept animals, do you have alternative arrangements for women with pets?; (4) if you have alternatives, where do pets go?; (5) do you ask about pets at the intake assessment?; (6) if so, do you ask women if they are concerned about pets’ well-being?; (7) since when have you asked such questions?

After two reminder emails, we obtained responses from 20 organizations out of 81 VAW/IPV shelters (response rate of 25%). Recognizing that many organizations did not have official arrangements for women with companion animals and that the purpose of this part of the study was not to gain generalizable knowledge but to identify potential interviewees, we considered the responses would be sufficient to address the research questions for the first stage and allowed us to locate potential interviewees.

We chose information-rich sampling and snowball sampling methods to identify potential interviewees from agencies that provided services for women with companion animals to participate in the second stage of the study which consisted of semi-structured telephone interviews. Nine most knowledgeable individuals were identified: Two were identified through snowball sampling and seven were from the survey. Five were involved in shelters that accommodated companion animals on their premises (one was about to start such a program), and four worked where they use other arrangements or combined services (e.g., working with animal shelters, foster care, or women's families/friends). All are females. Half had worked in the field for over 20 years and all for at least 10 years. Age ranged from their thirties to over fifties, education ranged from college to graduate levels.

Before the interviews, we emailed a study description and informed consent form and at the beginning of the interview, we explained the study again and addressed any questions. We obtained signed consent. Research questions for the second stage are: (1) what are their experiences in providing services to women with pets? and (2) what are their views on human–animal relationships? Interviews lasted on average 54 minutes, were transcribed verbatim without identifying information, and analyzed using CAS. First, both authors analyzed the data independently to ensure the credibility of our analysis. For coding and categorization, we paid particular attention to human–animal relationships viewed by the interviewees and from CAS perspectives. We began what Strauss and Corbin (1990, p. 61) called open coding, “The process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing data.” In this process, we used various coding methods, for example, In Vivo coding (e.g., “get affection from their animals”) and value coding (e.g., animals need to be protected) (Saldaña, 2013). We used a constant comparison method to identify overall themes and unique themes. Both came to very similar themes. We then merged independently identified codes and categorized them to pin down emerging themes once again. The main themes appeared consistently in these repeated iterative analyses and their relationships with subthemes surfaced. Then we conducted what methodologists call “second cycle coding” (Saldaña, 2013) or axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). It is “advanced ways of reorganizing and reanalyzing data coded” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 207) “by making connections between categories” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, p. 96). The findings below present the results of such iterative processes of analyses: pros and cons related to the support professionals provide with thick descriptions. In the discussion section, we will discuss the findings by more explicitly bringing in CAS analysis. The study obtained ethics approval from Research Ethics Review Boards from two universities, Brock University and York University, to which the researchers belong.

Findings

First, we will report the findings to respond to two research questions for the first stage of the study: “What services do shelters in Ontario provide to women with companion animals (pets)?” and “Do they ask about companion animals at the intake?” These provide contexts of the interview results. Second, the themes from the interviews will be presented to address research questions for the second stage of the study: (1) what are their experiences in providing services to women with pets? and (2) what are their views on human–animal relationships?

Women's and Companion Animals’ Safety and Shelter: Seven Approaches

Among 20 who responded to email questions, six (30%) did not provide any services, two (10%) accommodated companion animals in their shelters, had official policies regarding companion animals’ safety, and started in 2013 or 2014. Twelve other agencies (60%) combined various arrangements. Two common arrangements are a cross-sectoral approach with local animal protection organizations such as the Humane Society or Society for Prevention of Cruelty of Animals (n  =  4, 20%) and foster care for companion animals (n  =  4, 20%). In 2003 SafePet Program, a combination of a foster program and a cross-sectoral approach was started by Ontario Veterinary Association to work with VAW shelters to help women in transition to a safe environment by providing foster options. Three agencies had this arrangement. Another agency made arrangements with kennels, paid by the shelter or women. Three others made unofficial arrangements with family, friends, or shelter staff. Through word of mouth, two other agencies on our list were identified as accommodating women with pets. One started in 2014 and the other was about to start the program in 2018. Thus, three shelters (excluding one about to begin) in Ontario accommodated companion animals on their premises. At a similar time to this study, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses found from their survey of member organizations that three shelters accommodated women with companion animals (Lui, 2018). Thus, it is safe to assume that at the time of the study the number of shelters in Ontario which accommodated women with companion animals on-premises was three (4%) of 81 organizations and all started between 2013 and 2014. Only one was located in a rural area. Interview data thus includes all known agencies that provided onsite programs plus one which was about to begin.

Sixty-five percent of 20 responding shelters indicated that they asked if women had pets at the time of intake assessment. Those who asked about pets also asked about animals’ well-being, except for one organization. Interestingly, almost half the organizations had been asking these questions for over 10 years. Eighty-one percent were doing so before 2014 and 45% had asked about pets for over 10 years. These organizations were not concentrated in any area of Ontario. This indicates that knowledge of the co-existence of VAW with animal abuse has been used for some time among responding agencies regardless of their locations. However, there was limited availability to accommodate pets together with women (from here on, HAT [humans and animals together] programs). Through the survey and interviews, we identified seven approaches to help women with companion animals in Ontario. Many agencies that do not provide on-site shelters combined arrangements from four to seven. The seven approaches are:

Community collaborative approach with other shelters—accommodate companion animals with women in the same room [Collaborative HAT].

Accommodate companion animals in their own shelters with women in the same room [Same Room HAT].

Accommodate companion animals in their own shelters, not with women but in separate quarters where women can visit them [Same Premises HAT].

Fostering animals.

Work with animal shelters, animal rescue, or welfare organizations (cross-sectoral approach).

Find kennels paid for by women or shelter.

Help women find families or friends to take companion animals.

Professionals’ Experiences in Helping and Views on Human–Animal Relationships

Two dominant themes emerged from interviews: first, the professionals identified that women characterized companion animals as their family members, and second, shelters with HAT programs found that women moved to shelters immediately, were happier, grateful, and relieved to know animals were safe and were enabled to focus on planning their future. We organized themes and subthemes to highlight the pros and cons of the above seven approaches with rich, thick descriptions.

Impact on women

Two shelters fit the Same Room HAT program, where women and companion animals stayed together in their rooms as they did before moving to shelters. Two others correspond to the Same Premises HAT program. One had companion animals in the same building but in a separate space; another placed companion animals in a separate building on their premises. All interviewees acknowledged that the VAW sector is well-aware that fear of, and control by, abusers has long-lasting impacts on women and children, although these are invisible to others. Even when they leave abusers, women continue to suffer trauma. For example, one interviewee (Same Room HAT) described a woman who had left her abuser but was contemplating suicide to escape continuing abuse even though she no longer lived with him. This woman told the interviewee:

I would’ve killed myself if I hadn’t had my dog and my cat because they needed me to look after them … These animals saved my life and allowed me to live … I wouldn’t have come into shelter without them because they have saved my life. Because they’ve given me so much and they trust me. I trusted them to bring me through the hard times and they needed to trust me that I would keep them with me.

The interviewee identified this as a feeling of trust from companion animals, which helps women face long-lasting traumatic impacts and get through difficult periods. This was possible because they were together facing and countering intersectional oppression. Interviewees noted that HAT programs enabled women to focus on planning their future. Professionals with HAT programs valued relational knowledge gained through human–animal relationships. The quote below captures the overwhelming positive impacts on women of HAT programs:

[Women] find an opportunity … to pet, cuddle or sleep with or whatever, has decreased their stress and made it more possible to deal with the real stresses in their lives, their partners, court, child custody battles, physical injuries …

Interviewees highlighted the significance for women of being with companion animals and being able to continue mutually caring and trusting relationships. These professionals acknowledged the reality of women that cannot be separated from intertwined human–animal relationships. One witnessed that women without HAT programs experienced severe trauma when something happened to their companion animals.

Impact on children

Additional benefits of allowing companion animals in the shelter are effects on children. Companion animals are often confidants for children, who share their emotions and secrets with animals, which they do not/cannot do with others. One interviewee observed that, although the father is abusive, children feel: “that's still their parent, and they still miss them. The last thing you want to do is add to that trauma by also having that child miss their pet at the same time. That's just cruel.” This illustrates the complexity of VAW and another aspect of traumatic experiences of VAW for children. Thus, under HAT programs, children maintained important emotional connections.

Impact on shelters, workers, and communities

Shelters and workers also benefitted. Some interviewees maintained that contrary to common assumptions of animals as being a liability or a drain on resources, HAT programs not only enhanced the organization's reputation in the community but worked as a benefit in terms of fundraising, as those programs appealed to new groups of supporters and served as a means to create partnerships with new organizations: “it creates a lot of support from the community and when we do fundraising, this is often a piece that motivates people to support our shelter.” As for staff, witnessing the positive outcomes of accommodating animals in their shelters was gratifying, thus adding meaning to their VAW work—they help the whole family, including pets. One added: “when you’ve got happier clients, it makes their job a little easier too.” Shifting the professional understanding of family from an anthropocentric view to the one in line with those families that are inclusive of human–animal relationships made their work more effective. This is a good example of intersectionality in VAW practice: addressing sexism and speciesism in VAW.

Another important discovery of this study is a new model for accommodating women with companion animals. We named it a community collaborative approach, that is, Collaborative HAT. Normally, accommodating companion animals depends on a shelter that women access. However, under the Collaborative HAT, they contacted sister shelters in the region and created a shelter community. Shelters that were willing to collaborate to improve access for women with companion animals formed a committee and established networks of support. One shelter provides space where women, children, and companion animals can stay in the same room, although women can choose other arrangements (four to seven in the above list) if they wish. If other shelters cannot accommodate women with companion animals, they contact this shelter. If women have allergies, or for other reasons do not wish to be in a shelter with nonhuman animals, the shelter will contact its sister shelters and have the person stay there. Shelters work together. The Collaborative HAT policy obtained further support from the community. Some animals may be dirty and need to be cleaned before moving to a room. Thus, agencies teamed up with volunteer groomers who clean the animals. They also had veterinarians who provided pro bono assessments. The VAW shelters invited animal protection groups to work together. The shelters created an opportunity for others to work together so that people who did not work in the VAW sector in the communities also supported these women and fought VAW.

A shelter with Same Premises HAT also worked with local animal hospitals pro bono or reduced rate services and collaborated with animal welfare organizations and media to promote the idea and educate the public. Such collaboration with other non-VAW organizations, particularly media attention, helped to raise $60,000 for their HAT program. Another interviewee (Same Premises HAT) remarked “it highly motivates people to make donations or be involved … It brings people out because they’re aware of the extra services that we provide.” This is significant not only because of the donation but it raised understanding of the interconnection of violence against women and other animals in the community: “Absolutely and almost always the response is, ‘Oh, that's right. I would never leave if I couldn’t bring my pet either.’” All three HAT programs found the inclusion of companion animals opened up more opportunities for the VAW sector to educate communities, which is their crucial work.

Challenges

Importantly, all interviewees acknowledged VAW and against animals are intertwined and animals were used as abusers’ means to control, manipulate, and oppress women. However, the level of understanding differed: for example, one interviewee from a shelter without a HAT program stated: “her leaving the relationship [is] a priority … we leave it up to the woman … we’re all about women's choice … so sometimes she won’t do that [leaving pet]. She’d rather stay in the home.” Interviewees from shelters with HAT programs understood intersectionality differently, contending that to help women, companion animals should be protected too: “I don’t think you can fully support a woman if you’re asking her to give up something precious in order to become safe. You’re not fully supporting her. That's a hell of a choice.” Thus, they acknowledged not leaving is not a real choice.

Interviewees reported mixed reactions to efforts to help women stay with companion animals, indicating that helping nonhuman animals in VAW work is a challenge both outside and within agencies. Outside, they must educate the community and funders to gain support. Some stated that they could not appear to be too political or radical, even though their work is transformative and is indeed political. For example, interviewees with HAT programs personally expressed anti-speciesist and anti-anthropocentric perspectives in line with animal rights but noted they must maneuver within a dominant anthropocentric discourse to support women's perspectives on human–animal relations, that is, trans-species families. Thus, they refer to human–animal bonds, a more widely accepted concept for now.

Challenges exist within organizations themselves. Interviewees without HAT programs identified challenges such as allergies, hygiene, fear of other animals, increasing workload, and lack of funding and space, as reasons for not adopting such programs. They considered using animals and differential treatment (e.g., pets vs. farmed animals) acceptable. Interviewees with HAT programs acknowledged that such concerns were expressed by some workers during the planning stages and transition to the new program; they addressed these concerns and observed that they receded as staff members accepted values and practices reflecting different human–animal relations and expectations of shelters: that is, not allowing women to bring animals with them would be to overlook essential aspects of their lives and the fact that all beings should be respected and protected, regardless of species. Namely, with an understanding of the intersectionality of speciesism and sexism in women's experiences of violence and recovery, they transformed VAW practice. The only incident mentioned was that of a child with fear of other animals, leading to a dog being placed in a kennel. When new staff joined, few challenges emerged. One noted that institutional support, such as from their board, and established policy helped to address internal resistance.

Significantly, shelters with HAT programs exercised evidence-informed practice by consulting published work and by having tried other arrangements as listed above. They still use some other arrangements, such as fostering or kenneling, if required. They went through similar experiences to those shelters that typically use such arrangements. One agency that adopted a cross-sectoral arrangement with a humane society noted that women had a negative image of the latter, as they keep animals for only a few weeks. Because of this, they arranged for a longer stay but administrative changes at the humane society voided it. Thus, this cross-sectoral arrangement lacked stability and flexibility. In other cases where the foster or shelter location was known or families or friends kept the companion animals, interviewees shared upsetting incidents where abusers harassed them. As one interviewee expressed: “I would never, never involve myself in something like that again.” As for the SafePet Program, pets are taken to foster homes that are not known to the women, who will not see them again until women find permanent housing. Considering Ontario's housing situation, this can involve prolonged separation. In such cases, not only do women and children miss nonhuman family member(s) but pets, too, probably have negative experiences. One interviewee talked about a woman who came with a very old dog whose best option then was the SafePet Program, but ended up requiring eight months’ separation. During that time “[she] wondered if he’d pass away … she thought he must be struggling with the abandonment. He did not pass but SafePet is good, it's just not ideal.” This is one of many experiences that led the agency to adopt a HAT program. However, keeping options available is important; for example, when women brought several pets, foster care was helpful.

Finally, interviewees, regardless of arrangements for women with companion animals, uniformly asserted it is “vital,” “crucially,” or “absolutely” important to include human–animal relations in social work education and training. This unanimous support is not surprising as addressing human–animal relations in education and training is the first step toward the transformative practice noted above that defies intersectional oppression in VAW.

Discussion

This study demonstrates why consideration of nonhuman animals is important for social work by examining intersectional oppression of sexism and speciesism in VAW. We found that interviewees observed that women with companion animals considered them family members and sentient beings, and wished to stay together to ensure their safety. Those involved in HAT programs acknowledged that asking women to choose between pets’ safety or their own does not support women fully. Accepting women's views, they created programs that reflect them, thus, treating other animals’ lives with respect. They personally acknowledged animal rights perspectives (or comparable) but felt it necessary to keep this to themselves. In contrast, some at shelters without HAT programs considered the use and differential treatment of animals, depending on classification as pets or livestock, acceptable and that allergies, etc. justify excluding pets. One confided that she never questioned normative views of animals, while others with HAT programs reflected on and were open to non-normative views.

Interviewees understood abusers used companion animals as a means for coercive control. This means that leaving companion animals behind allows abusers to continue such control. HAT policies, on the other hand, enabled women to exercise the choice to be together and to continue mutually caring and trusting relationships with companion animals. Consequently, women practiced ethics of responsibility (Gilligan, 1982) to sustain connections and kept precious relationships intact. Women upheld their human–animal relationships and their ethical values against abusers; thus, we may say they countered abuse and shifted power relationships with abusers. Shelters empowered women by endorsing women's agency through HAT policies. Shelters provided not only physical space to be together but also space to exercise women's power and combat abuse that may be invisible to others. The existence of HAT policies affirms women's reality, understanding of human–animal relationships, and ethical decisions. These women's realities involve intertwining their experiences of violence and oppression with those of nonhuman animals who are significant to them. Four other arrangements without HAT could not facilitate women to exercise ethics of responsibility or affirm their views. This suggests the importance of formal HAT policies supported by the board of the shelters. From the Critical Animal Studies perspectives, interviewees who supported HAT policies took anti-speciesist and anti-anthropocentric positions that challenged abusers who objectified pets, considered them their property, and used them to control women. Based on such positions, they understood the intersectional oppression of women and companion animals and developed practices and policies to counter it. Abusers exerted intersectional hierarchical relations with women and companion animals, while women sought to maintain mutually respectful reciprocal relationships. If we hope to sever the root relationships of VAW, we must stop abusers from establishing such intersectional hierarchical relationships. One way of severing the roots is to support mutually respectful perspectives of human–animal relationships by valuing nonhuman animals’ lives and relations with women.

This study found professionals with HAT programs were not only aware of the co-existence of abuse of humans and other animals in VAW, but they incorporated such knowledge into practice and policies. When they did, they incorporated published knowledge with experiential knowledge that they gained through relationships with women with companion animals. In other words, their work is grounded in both empiricist epistemology and relational epistemology. Simply put, their work, HAT, is evidence-informed with relational knowledge. They recognized women's views of human–animal relationships as families, that is, trans-species families, and created a way to overcome normative values and expectations (e.g., allergies, funding, etc.) by collaborating with other organizations, professionals, and people in the community. This study also found that by developing relationships with people in the community they educated them, passing on both empirical and relational knowledge. Moreover, today most Canadians have companion animals and their human–animal relationships help them understand the needs of women in abusive relationships to be together with their companion animals, as exemplified in this study.

All interviewees considered including human–animal relationships in social work education and training for VAW vital; however, the above discussion suggests that examination of human–animal relationships must incorporate an understanding of anti-speciesism and anti-anthropocentrism and intersectional analysis that includes speciesism. Importantly, women's ontology, epistemology, and ethics (i.e., women's view of human–animal relationships, relational knowledge, and ethics of responsibility) should be appreciated and reflected in VAW programs and social work education.

Limitations

The first stage of this study consisted of a convenient sample, thus, the percentages reported provide a rough idea only and are not intended for generalization. Rather the purpose was to locate emergency shelters that provide support for women with companion animals. For this, we were confident that we located all known shelters which accommodated women's companion animals on their premises at the time of the study, plus one starting as this was verified by the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses’ study (Lui, 2018).

Implications and Conclusion

The important learning from this study is that social work education and training need to incorporate human–animal relationships and foster understanding of relational knowledge to develop policies and practice. Violence, abuse, and trauma experienced by women with companion animals happen not only within human relationships but also in human–animal relationships. However, analysis of human–animal relationships is rather limited in studies on the co-existence of VAW and animal abuse. Thus, to explore how interview participants and women facing violence viewed human–animal relationships, we utilized concepts of speciesism and anthropocentrism as essential tools for analyzing these relationships. We found that willingness to include women's perspectives which differ from normative views of human–animal relationships enables service providers to avoid unwittingly maintaining gender oppression, that is, male abusers’ (in this case) dominance, power, and control. Although intersectionality is typically considered in terms of race, class, disabilities, age, and gender identities, this study suggests that species must be considered when human–animal relationships are at the core of the issue, as is the case here.

For some, the HAB idea is the basis for understanding these relationships. However, considering the limitations of HAB discussed above, our analysis suggests that social work education should include a broader and more critical examination of human–animal relationships, both positives and negatives, at interpersonal and social structural levels through incorporating concepts of anti-speciesism and anti-anthropocentrism. By doing so, social workers and students will have opportunities to reflect not only on illegal violence such as VAW but legalized violence such as factory farms, hunting, and animal experimentation, which form the social context that normalizes violence (Nibert, 2017; Nocella et al., 2014a). A Critical Animal Studies approach means incorporating other animals in ontology, relational knowledge in epistemology, ethics of responsibility, and intersectionality with anti-speciesism. Such critical education should be reflected in not only programs for women but court-mandated counseling for domestic violence offenders (e.g., Partner Assault Response program in Ontario) by including discussion of animal abuse and respect for other animals.

In 2021, we found seven more shelters that allow pets onsite listed on the ShelterSafe website. This is one of the main sites we used to compile the study sample frame. Conveniently now, it notes if shelters allow pets onsite, offsite, or not at all. This is a welcome change. We hope that this study will contribute toward increasing acceptance of HAT programs and as the number of shelters accommodating companion animals grows, future studies may be able to examine intersectionality including race, class, age, abilities along with gender and species, and efficacy of HAT programs including both first- and second-stage shelters in rural and urban areas. Expansion of services in rural areas may provide opportunities to examine issues concerning larger animals, like horses.

VAW is serious social injustice. The opening quote from Iris M. Young points out that for social justice we need to confront particular acts of violence but importantly address the social context which enables and normalizes them. We examined the situation of women with companion animals delaying the move to shelters by using alternative ontological and theoretical approaches. This study suggests that examination of human–animal relationships in social programs, like VAW services, is necessary as it helps to unveil the social context which is often taken for granted. Critical reflections on human–animal relationships, speciesism, anthropocentrism, and intersectionality help us realize that injustice cannot be contested by limiting our efforts to human relationships alone but that we need to aim for social justice beyond humans, trans-species social justice (Matsuoka & Sorenson, 2014).