“Companion,friend,four-legged fluff ball”: The power of pets in the lives of LGBTQ+ young people experiencing homelessness

Abstract

Experiences of homelessness are challenging for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ+) young people. LGBTQ+ young adults without stable housing endure mental health struggles stemming from multiple structural disadvantages. In navigating stressors, LGBTQ+ young people may develop bonds with companion animals, or pets. Demonstrating the diverse ways LGBTQ+ young adults manage mental health challenges while homeless, we qualitatively analyzed the narratives of 17 LGBTQ+ young adults (18–25) surrounding their pet relationships. Participants emphasized the positive power of pets in their lives to help offset stressors. These findings illustrate how marginalized young people manage their mental health through informal resources. Incorporating companion animals could potentially enhance services for LGBTQ+ youth experiencing marginalization.

Keywords

LGBTQ+ young adults homelessness pets companion animals mental health

Among young people between the ages of 18 and 25 in the USA, approximately 1 in 10 endures homelessness or extreme housing instability in a single year (Chapin Hall, 2017). These elevated rates of homelessness among young people are striking considering the constrained resources and skills marginalized youth and young adults are struggling to utilize as they transition into adulthood, such as limited social supports and coping strategies (Dworsky et al., 2013; Osgood et al., 2005). While the lives of young people experiencing homelessness are rife with challenges in general, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and/or queer (LGBTQ+) young adults are more than twice as likely to become homeless and endure greater adversity while homeless compared to their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts (Morton et al., 2018). Nearly 20% of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ+, compared to around only 5%–10% of young people in the general population (Center for American Progress, 2010). In addition, as many as 40% of young people utilizing homeless services are LGBTQ+ (Durso and Gates, 2012).

Stemming from the stressful, precarious nature of homelessness, and layering with anti-LGBTQ+ stigmatizing life experiences, LGBTQ+ young adults are disproportionately faced with mental health challenges. Compared to their non-LGBTQ+ peers, LGBTQ+ homeless young people endure elevated stressors related to family conflict, suicidal ideation, substance use, and victimization (Keuroghlian et al., 2014; Van Leeuwen et al., 2006). Managing the combined mental health stressors related to homelessness as well as anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice and discrimination places an inordinate burden on LGBTQ+ young adults as they struggle to not only secure basic needs, but also engage in complex processes of identity development (Schmitz and Tyler, 2018).

The bulk of research examining mental health dynamics of homelessness experienced by youth in general, and LGBTQ+ young people more specifically, emphasizes the adverse health outcomes they endure throughout their formative developmental years (Ecker, 2016). This overarching research focus on only providing discrete descriptions of mental health challenges can eclipse understandings of how multiple marginalized young people, such as LGBTQ+ homeless young adults, navigate their mental health in the face of scarce structural supports. While more contemporary work has begun exploring coping strategies among marginalized youth that can shape resilience strategies and strengths-based perspectives (Bender et al., 2007; Kidd and Shahar, 2008; Schmitz and Tyler, 2019), there remain gaps in understanding how young people may be seeking out more individualized, diverse mental health supports.

Companion animals, or pets, are one source of emotional support among marginalized populations that have received little scholarly attention, despite emerging studies demonstrating their positive impact on homeless people of all ages (Irvine, 2013; Rhoades et al., 2015). Among young people experiencing homelessness, 23% report pet ownership and the emotional benefits they derived from these relationships, despite the elevated housing challenges they faced due to pet ownership (Rhoades et al., 2015). Considering that LGBTQ+ young adults are overrepresented among homeless youth populations and they endure elevated mental health challenges, more in-depth explorations are needed into the complex roles pets may play in the lives of LGBTQ+ homeless young people to better inform scholarship and services surrounding their mental health needs.

In addressing this gap, the present study draws from 17 in-depth qualitative interviews with LGBTQ+ young people aged 18–25 experiencing homelessness to provide a more nuanced, diverse picture of marginalized young people’s mental health functioning surrounding their relationships with pets. By moving beyond quantitative descriptions alone of young people’s mental health self-reports and their discrete pet relationship characteristics, we elevate LGBTQ+ homeless young adults’ lived experience narratives surrounding mental health coping and their views on companion animals. This research also pushes theoretical conceptions of mental health challenges and inequalities beyond the dominant paradigm of health risks and outcomes (Russell, 2005) to outline more diverse conceptions of how mental health struggles and strategies operate in the lives of multiple marginalized young people today. Based on young people’s perspectives, findings from this study can help inform support services to consider how pets may be incorporated to better meet the needs of LGBTQ+ young people experiencing homelessness.

Background

As defined by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) (2019), “companion animals,” more commonly referred to as “pets,” are “animals whose physical, emotional, behavioral and social needs can be readily met as companions in the home, or in close daily relationships with humans.” While companion animals come in a variety of shapes and forms, the most prevalent types of pets reported among U.S. households are domesticated dogs (38%) and cats (25%), with so-called specialty and exotic animals, such as fish, ferrets, rodents (i.e. hamsters, guinea pigs, gerbils), and lizards being less common (13%) (American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), 2018). Scholars have emphasized the importance of understanding human–animal relationships, particularly dog–human interactions and companionship, in promoting a more equitable, humane society (Sanders, 1999). In the general population, the impact of pet relationships on people’s mental health is widely debated, with conflicting evidence showing some pet owners with health benefits, known as the “pet effect,” and others with worse health outcomes compared to their non-pet owner counterparts (Herzog, 2011). Specifically among marginalized populations with constrained societal opportunities, human–animal relationships may foster reciprocal empathy-building interactions and reduce social isolation (Thomas and Matusitz, 2016). Therefore, additional insight is needed to disentangle the everyday potential of pets to positively impact people’s health, so that this power could be harnessed for improving health resources.

Pets and well-being

The influence of pets in shaping people’s well-being has been widely discussed within the realms of physical and mental health, with evidence highlighting the therapeutic benefits of companion animals in institutionalized health settings (i.e. therapy animals) as well as more private contexts such as through live-in household supports (i.e. service animals and emotional support animals) (Wells, 2009). For physical health benefits, pets have been shown to significantly reduce symptoms of chronic conditions such as high blood pressure (Allen, 2003; Friedmann et al., 2011) and promote healthier lifestyles among people in the form of fewer doctors’ visits stemming from greater overall physical health (Headey and Grabka, 2011). Similarly, overarching evidence suggests that companion animal interactions help to boost mental health in terms of mitigating loneliness and alleviating depressive symptoms (Brooks et al., 2018). On a broader social scale, people may also derive social network benefits from pet ownership by promoting favorable social support relationships that can bolster mental health (Hayden-Evans et al., 2018) as well as through developing social capital that enhances feelings of community connectedness (Wood et al., 2005). While this research is key in delineating the multiple, varied ways that pets can impact individual people’s well-being, there remains a lack in understanding of how wider processes, such as structural inequalities, can shape the relative importance of human–companion animal relationships.

While much research highlights the potential positive impacts of pets on people’s health, findings in this field are highly mixed, with scholars also demonstrating how pet relationships, interactions, and ownership may indicate health-related challenges (Herzog, 2011) or might not significantly impact health outcomes (Herzog, 2010; Straatman et al., 1997; Wright et al., 2007). Regarding whole body health, a Swedish population study found that pet ownership was linked to both greater mental health challenges (i.e. anxiety, insomnia) and health-promotive physical activity (Müllersdorf et al., 2010). Further, a longitudinal Finnish population study documented worse health outcomes among pet owners (i.e. hypertension, high cholesterol), but demographic factors such as lower socioeconomic status and older age also impacted this relationship (Koivusilta and Ojanlatva, 2006). Pet attachment may also link to greater depressive symptoms, as found among older rural US residents (Miltiades and Shearer, 2011). Causal relationships are difficult to discern, however, as people with more mental health struggles may seek out pets for comfort, and pet ownership may encourage both more physical activity (i.e. dog walks) and more sedentary lifestyles (i.e. cat naps) depending on the pet relationship dynamics as well as people’s social statuses. The relationship between pets and human health is arguably complex, and this study seeks to employ the lens of lived experiences to better explore processes surrounding pets and mental health among marginalized social groups.

Pets in the lives of LGBTQ+ people

People who identify as LGBTQ+ face numerous interpersonal and structural inequalities tied to the subordination of their expansive gender and sexual identities that do not align with dominant heteronormative cisgender societal expectations, or the privileging of heterosexuality and stereotypical gender norms (Hatzenbuehler, 2014). As a result, LGBTQ+ people often endure minority stress that adversely impacts their health outcomes, such as elevated rates of depression and anxiety, when they must continually navigate anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice and discrimination in their lives (Meyer, 2003). In managing these multiple sources of mental health stressors, LGBTQ+ people develop various coping strategies that can range from adaptive, such as supportive social ties (Meyer, 2015; Snapp et al., 2015), to the maladaptive, including substance use challenges (Lehavot and Simoni, 2011).

Forming relationships with pets may be an adaptive coping strategy LGBTQ+ people employ to manage anti-LGBTQ+ stigma. Among older lesbian adults, pet ownership can provide supportive emotional connections and caregiving to promote self-acceptance, positive social ties, personal development, and a sense of purpose (Putney, 2014). Similarly, pets have been shown to promote a sense of social support among older adult LGBTQ+ people, particularly those with a disability who otherwise had limited social network options (Muraco et al., 2018). Research examining the role of pets within the context of intimate partner violence (IPV) among LGBTQ+ people finds that companion animals can serve as key sources of support and prompt leaving violent relationships if the abuser victimizes the survivor’s pet (Taylor et al., 2019). On the other hand, however, pets can also be weaponized by abusers and used to control and harm marginalized individuals, such as women and LGBTQ+ people, potentially shaping more emotional distress among IPV survivors (Faver and Strand, 2007). Emerging research on how pets shape LGBTQ+ people’s mental health is foundational for explicating diverse coping strategies, but there remain questions on how further structural marginalization, such as homelessness and young adulthood, impacts these dynamics.

Homelessness and pets

Recent studies estimate that between 6% and 24% of people experiencing homelessness have a companion animal, primarily a dog or cat (Cronley et al., 2009; Irvine et al., 2012; Rhoades et al., 2015). Although many people experiencing homelessness describe their pets as valuable sources of companionship, support, and love (Irvine, 2013; Slatter et al., 2012), structural barriers to support services, including “no pets allowed” policies, often constrain homeless people’s access to shelter and other much-needed resources (Lindgren et al., 2019). Particularly for youth enduring homelessness who may be wary of utilizing services for fear of judgment, companion animals can serve as safe, affirming sources of support (Maharaj, 2016). Rew (2000) found that homeless youth conceptualized their pet relationships as significant mental health aids by alleviating loneliness and enhancing their overall health. Young people experiencing homelessness who had pets also enjoyed positive mental health effects such as decreased depression, but this benefit was tempered by the fact that animal ownership reduced youth’s likelihood of utilizing social services (Rhoades et al., 2015).

Taken together, research elucidating how pets impact the well-being of general population groups, LGBTQ+ adults, and homeless populations is important in advancing diverse conceptions of coping strategies and sources of support. Further awareness is needed, however, in understanding how people facing layered structural inequalities, such as LGBTQ+ young adults experiencing homelessness, manage their mental health through companion animal relationships. To our knowledge, the dynamics of pet relationships among the multiple marginalized group of LGBTQ+ homeless youth have not yet been examined. This study can benefit scholars and service providers alike in both expanding the dominant paradigm of primarily focusing on quantitative measures of discrete constructs like depression and anxiety and considering ways to make support services more inclusive for LGBTQ+ young people.

Data and methods

The study occurred in 2018 through 2019 in Oklahoma. Eligibility required participants to be between 18 and 25 and self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or another diverse gender and/or sexual identity (including some young adults who identified as genderqueer, asexual, and pansexual). We recruited young people experiencing homelessness through local service agencies (e.g. homeless shelters and drop-in centers) in two major metropolitan areas by posting flyers, volunteering at drop-in centers, and collaborating with service providers to share study information with their eligible clients. Promoting an inclusive definition of homelessness, young people had to currently reside in a shelter, on the street, or independently in unstable housing (i.e. “couch surfing”) because they had run away, had been pushed out, or had drifted out of their family of origin (United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, 2018). The project was advertised as a research study called “‘Building Bridges on Four Paws,’ which explores LGBTQ+ young adults’ experiences of homelessness, mental health, and pets.” To promote transparency in the study process and to provide potential participants with full information of study details in informing their decision on whether to participate, $20 was also advertised as a potential compensation for eligible participation. The university institutional review board required compensation to be openly advertised, and they approved this study’s full protocol. To ensure a wider array of experiences, young people did not have to currently own a pet to be eligible. In addition, we used snowball sampling by handing out optional referral cards with the study contact information to all participants. We utilized an informal community advisory board (CAB) to ensure the cultural competence of the study materials (i.e. recruitment materials, interview guide) by consulting with providers who served homeless youth and young adults in Oklahoma. For example, the CAB encouraged the use of the term “pet” in place of “companion animal” in the study materials to promote understanding and minimize the chances of youth’s misinterpretations of the study benefits, such as potentially erroneously believing they would receive a therapy animal by participating. Although it was not feasible to garner feedback on data analysis from the young adults interviewed for this study (i.e. no reliable contact information, variable service usage), the CAB reviewed preliminary findings and suggested revisions to promote person-centered language and young people’s distinctive contexts beyond homelessness, such as family backgrounds and future plans. The research team also plans to share a comprehensive study report with interested CAB members and agency staff to potentially mobilize the findings into substantive social change (Barnes et al., 2003).

Procedure

The first author conducted all the interviews in English. Study participants completed one tape-recorded, in-depth face-to-face interview lasting approximately one hour and a short demographic questionnaire. Participants were interviewed in private locations, such as an agency meeting room. Study procedures were explained to participants and informed consent was obtained prior to the interview. Participants received $20 in exchange for their time. All respondents were asked the same series of 15 open-ended questions surrounding their LGBTQ+ identity, mental health experiences, and their relationships with pets. Examples of primary interview questions include: When you think of the word “pet,” what comes to mind? How has a pet impacted your mental health? What role has a pet played in how you deal with stress? We utilized topical open-ended questions to encourage participants to reflectively consider their responses in-depth to promote our goal of thematic saturation in understanding the salience of pets in young people’s lives (Weller et al., 2018). Young adults were informed that their participation was entirely voluntary, and they could choose how much to share in response to questions, skip questions they did not want to answer, and end the interview at any time. Therefore, participants were free to skip questions that they perceived as inapplicable. A constructivist approach guided the development of this study (Guba and Lincoln, 1994), including recruitment materials, interview questions, and subsequent coding strategies, to ensure “inclusion-centered interpretations” surrounding LGBTQ+ young people’s distinctive understandings of their multiple identities and experiences with homelessness and pets (Choo and Ferree, 2010). Participants chose their own pseudonyms to ensure respondent confidentiality.

The first and second authors collaborated to code and analyze the data using MAXQDA 2018, with validating feedback from the third author, such as through iterative memoing of coding processes and collaborative discussions of theme construction to enhance the study’s rigor and trustworthiness (Padgett, 2017). As a gender-conforming, white woman academic whose sexual identity was unknown to participants, the interviewer and primary coder remained cognizant of how her positions of social privilege influenced the interviewing dynamics and data interpretations working with LGBTQ+ young people with histories of homelessness. For example, the first author strived to decenter her own biases and worldview during interviews and data analysis to more effectively act as a conduit for elevating marginalized youth’s voices (Levy, 2013). The second author’s identity as a gender-conforming, white man academic whose sexual identity was unknown to participants was also conscientious of how his positionality impacted his interpretation and assessment of multiple thematic elements of the interview data. The third author identifies as a gender-conforming, white woman health scholar, and strived to mitigate pathologizing or framing LGBTQ+ young adults as “at-risk.”

We adopted a phenomenological approach to more accurately capture participants’ lived experiences, and examined themes that emerged from participants’ narratives (Creswell and Poth, 2018). First, we used initial coding to determine emergent themes and categories that corresponded with concepts of interest, such as conceptions of sexual, gender, and racial/ethnic identities, and interpretations of health (Saldaña, 2015). Next, we employed focused coding to center in on the participants’ lived realities from their own perspectives to determine the most salient experiences among participants and how concepts of interest were interrelated. For example, the initial codes of “pets as supports” and “pets embodying empathy” combined together to encapsulate the more focused code surrounding participants’ perceptions of “pets as emotional health resources.” The final themes emerged inductively from the data. The combination of initial and focused coding supports a constructivist perspective, which underscores the participants’ understandings of their lived realities and the meanings they attach to their experiences (Saldaña, 2015). In cases of coding disagreement, we conferred to discuss the disjuncture, and then conducted collaborative analyses until consensus, such as through code modification or disconfirming evidence identification. We established inter-rater reliability through a 90% level of agreement in coding, which is much higher than the 70% or greater score recommended for thematic qualitative analyses (Boyatzis, 1998).

Findings

Participants’ average age was 21 years old, and young people had diverse histories of homelessness, ranging from approximately two weeks to six years. Many participants reported currently having a pet (11; 65%) even if they did not currently share a residence, and their regular contact with pets was based on their housing situation, which often varied from day to day. In terms of gender identity, our sample included four cisgender women (24%), six cisgender men (35%), two transgender women (12%), one transgender man (6%), three Two-Spirit people (18%), and one non-binary person (6%). Across sexual identity, 10 participants identified as bisexual (59%), 4 were pansexual (24%), 2 identified as lesbian (12%), and 1 as gay (6%). Most participants identified as bi-racial or multi-racial (9; 47%), and eight of these young people claimed a Native identity (41%). Five participants identified as white (24%), two identified as Black (12%), and one youth identified as Latino/a (6%). In terms of socioeconomic background, 7 (41%) homeless young adults reported their parent’s highest educational level as a bachelor’s or professional degree, while the remaining 10 (59%) youth had parents with a high school degree or less. Regarding young people’s current socioeconomic status and in addition to not having a regular place to live, nine youth reported being employed for wages (53%), while eight were unemployed (47%).

The LGBTQ+ young adults experiencing homelessness in this study had endured a wide variety of life challenges, ranging from early childhood abuse, lifelong traumatic experiences, chronic housing instability, and an array of mental health difficulties. In navigating this multitude of life challenges, young people reported struggling to find ways to cope with mental health stressors related to structural inequalities including lack of stable housing, employment, and prejudice as well as discrimination tied to their LGBTQ+ identities. Young people’s relationships with pets throughout their lives emerged as key mental health resources, particularly when they perceived a lack of structural and interpersonal supports. Primarily, LGBTQ+ young adults conceptualized companion animals as critical emotional supports they drew from in times of turmoil. Secondly, pets for LGBTQ+ young people often boosted their sense of self in positive ways, such as by enhancing their self-image and bolstering their confidence. Finally, pets provided a sense of stability and purpose in participants’ lives that helped to offset challenges tied to structural inequalities in the form of housing insecurity and anti-LGBTQ+ ideologies.

“They know when you're hurting and they're there for you”

The LGBTQ+ young adults in this study recounted a myriad of life challenges they had encountered, in both their early childhood and their current life situations. Ranging from enduring multiple types of child abuse in their various family contexts and prejudice and discrimination related to their LGBTQ+ identities in attempting to securing housing and employment, it is clear that the youth were navigating numerous life stressors simultaneously. Stemming from these challenges, the role of pets as critical emotional support emerged for LGBTQ+ young people experiencing homelessness as key coping resources. For Melanie, a white bisexual transgender woman, dogs served the purpose of providing love and emotional support for her when she had few other social supports to draw from: “Dogs sure know emotion. When you have no one else to love you, they’re there. Dogs are more my family that any other person. Dogs are my thing.” Prior to experiencing homelessness, Melanie had undergone widespread family conflict regarding her gender expression of wearing feminine clothing, like dresses, and ultimately “getting disowned” by her family when they refused to accept her gender identity. For young adults like Melanie, who reported a life “full of pain, all types of abuses growing up,” the power of an emotional connection with an empathetic companion animal like a dog can potentially alleviate extreme mental health challenges.

Many young people also emphasized companion animals’ seemingly natural ability to sense humans’ distress and desire to comfort, to the point that even the most mundane acts of animal compassion were highly valued by LGBTQ+ youth. In the case of Natalie, a Latinx bisexual gender-fluid youth, the significance of animals’ heightened perceptions for human suffering is captured in the significant impact of their very presence during times of emotional distress:

I feel like they have this chemical that they can sense. Like if you're having a bad day or something and they just want to come to you, they just want to help. They just want to make sure you're okay. Right now, I have a puppy. Her name's Ebony. She is the sweetest dog I've ever met. She's like, sometimes if I'm crying, having a bad day, she'll come on the couch and just cuddle with me.

Similar to the majority of young people in this study, Natalie also described a history of mental health challenges related to family conflict and not having a regular place to live, such as feeling unsafe on a daily basis and fearing negative reactions to their gender and sexual identities. Having a pet for young adults like Natalie, however, can help support positive coping mechanisms to buffer mental health stressors, particularly in relation to expressing their expansive gender and sexual selves. For example, Natalie described feeling

stressed and depressed when I had to still be in that cage, but with animals you can just talk to them just like humans. But animals are so much more supportive to me than humans are, because humans judge. Animals don’t.

This sentiment of animals being better listeners and more effective supports than people because of their ability and willingness to “just sit there and listen to you” was echoed by numerous participants as the essence of the value of pets in supporting LGBTQ+ young adults’ mental health. For LGBTQ+ young people who are also experiencing structural marginalization such as homelessness, having a reliable source of nonjudgmental, affirming emotional support can be one of the most sought after mental health resources, especially if more formalized, institutional supports may not be viewed as accessible or viable.

For some LGBTQ+ young adults, relationships with companion animals were framed as having much more direct positive impacts, and in some cases, were conceptualized as the difference between life and death for youth. In describing the integral role of pets in his life, Caleb, a multiracial (Native and white) bisexual cisgender man, began his narrative outlining a harrowing experience of street victimization where he attributed his survival to his dog:

I was in a really bad area. I wake up to a fully automatic pistol in my face. All due to my brother being short on selling drugs. Our dog bit the guy's arm, snapped his wrist. I was able to get up, and grab the firearm, and disable it. At the end of the day, if it wasn't for that dog, I'd be dead.

Although this specific account is tied more to a dog serving as a physical guardian from the dangers of street life, having a sense of daily physical safety is also intertwined with a young person’s mental well-being. Caleb elaborated on this connection between a dog supporting both his physical and mental health in the following way:

Having a dog was really beneficial, because if I get upset or anything, I didn't like talking to people, because I know if I was to say something, they'd say something back, go behind my back. A dog, you can sit there and talk to the dog. I feel like an animal is more of a security animal, to where you can go to with your problems. I mean, dogs can understand when you're upset or you're not feeling well.

In this way, a trusted animal companion can provide “security” in the form of very concrete physical forms, as well as emotional supports stemming from the physical safeguards they provide and being a reliable confidant for working through stressors. Caleb also noted, however, that experiencing homelessness precluded him from living with his dog, so he prioritized his dog’s needs as he “put my dog in a house with a friend that I would know would take care of my dog when I couldn’t be there.” Pets for young people experiencing homelessness may act as a type of proxy for a physical residence when young adults cannot access housing, but can instead develop companionship with a trusted animal.

“At least in this one creature's eyes, I'm doing the best I can”

While LGBTQ+ young people experiencing homelessness framed pets as helping them emotionally cope with the structural and interpersonal stressors they faced in their everyday lives, animals also shaped participants’ mental health in the form of positively impacting their broader self-image. For Avery, a multiracial (white and Black) non-binary pansexual person, relationships with pets supported a positive outlook on life and an enhanced sense of themselves: “They make me feel like regardless of all the other things I do wrong, at least in this one creature's eyes, I'm doing the best I can.” As reported by all participants, Avery also summarized their life as a series of traumatic life events resulting in chronic stress, to the point that when asked about stressful life experiences, Avery responded, “Do we want it alphabetically, or chronologically?” In coping with stress, Avery discussed developing problematic drinking behaviors that interacted with involvement in past abusive relationships, and Avery described their relationship with their cat Ophelia as:

They make it so that if only for a second, like when I’m petting them, I have something else that seems way more important in the long run than my stress at that moment. In the moment, I feel like I don’t need to drink.

Despite the significant mental health challenges Avery endured, they also emphasized the importance of pet care during times of emotional duress by noting, “They [cats] rely on me…I do need to be there for them to make sure they get fed and clean their litter box…it forces me to at least make sure I’m okay enough to be there for them.” In situations where a young person may otherwise turn to maladaptive coping strategies, like drinking or a depressive episode, a pet can provide more long-term supports that bolster both self-image and broader emotional health.

Animals as reliable sources of friendship and companionship also materialized as important aspects of how pet relationships could positively impact LGBTQ+ young people’s self-images. For young people like Greg, a white gay cisgender man, companion animals were consistent, reliable, and their lives importantly revolved around youth’s schedules: “Just having that loyal, little friend that's always happy to see you. Like a Chihuahua, I’ve always really liked Chihuahuas. That's, you know, is always there, and they're just so cute and playful. I just enjoy having them around.” Lilly, a white gender-fluid pansexual young person, elaborated on the idea of the importance of having a bond with a companion animal that factored into not only providing emotional support, but also forming a key part of their identity:

Like not necessarily just being helpful on helping my moods and that's the only reason I get them. But more in the fact of being like actually part of my family. Like I cannot get rid of them, they are a part of who I am. Like right now it's because it helps me with my mood, it distracts me and they're really fun and it's so worth it. They're like your friend. But I'm hoping in the future they're more like family than a friend.

When youth largely face the unknown in terms of their housing and future possibilities, the fact that pets factor into LGBTQ+ young people’s self-concepts to the point of framing them as integral parts of themselves and family members underscores the powerful potential of pet relationships among marginalized young adults. Furthermore, when young people face barriers to accessing secure, permanent housing, a pet can serve as a symbolic, stable resource around which youth can base their self-concept in the face of extreme stress and marginalization.

Developing important life skills and abilities was also a common theme LGBTQ+ young people discussed in terms of the benefits of having pets. For example, Samantha, a multiracial (Native and white) bisexual transgender woman, described pets’ impact on her self-image as imbuing her with a sense of responsibility and the necessary skills for pursuing future life goals:

Taking care of a pet is about responsibility. If I'm not responsible enough to take care of a pet and make sure it's perfectly fine, again, how am I gonna be able to take care of a baby or take care of a family?

In emphasizing the importance of providing for a companion animal’s basic needs, all participants reiterated their commitment to ensuring a pet’s basic needs were met, despite often struggling to secure basic resources for themselves. As Samantha stated,

I'm gonna get a cat, it's gonna be an indoor cat. I wanna have everything prepared. I'm gonna already have the food, the towers, the litter box, all of that. I'm gonna have it already prepared before I even get the cat. No point in getting the cat and not having anything for it to eat.

Participants were keenly aware of public perceptions that stigmatized them for both being homeless and being LGBTQ+, but pets often provided them with an opportunity to reject these derogatory messages through their sense of responsibility and commitment to animal care.

“Having pets has always been a grounding rod for me”

In addition to serving as emotional supports in times of mental distress and promoting LGBTQ+ young people’s sense of self, participants also conceptualized companion animals as providing feelings of stability and purpose in their lives largely characterized by stress and trauma. Drawing from the formative impact of lifelong traumatic experiences and stressors, Avery clearly emphasized the sense of stability they enjoyed through their pet relationships:

Honestly, having pets has always been a grounding rod for me because I screwed up a lot as a kid. I do feel like the pets understand. Even when I'm at my worst, I'm still trying to be better, so that the needs of those around me are being met. For the pets, it's food, water, a roof…I've had plenty of jobs I've hated, but I kept them because they made it so I could make sure that the pets were safe.

Avery’s partner, Devin, a multiracial (Native and Black) queer pansexual transgender man, echoed the critical support of pets in imbuing their life with purpose during times of extreme mental duress:

There have been several times where I've had severe suicidal ideations, and I see my cats and be like, ‘Okay, I can't die yet because I got to take care of my cats first.’ That's a big thing that I've always done with my suicidal ideations, is if I start having them, I say, “I've got this, that, and the other thing to do this week. Especially taking care of my cats. Can't do it yet. After that, we'll talk.”

In cases such as Avery and Devin’s, a pet can be perceived as that critical “grounding rod” that motivates youth to continue pursuing meeting their basic needs as well as simply continue living life when mental health challenges feel overwhelming. Framing pets as dependents among marginalized young people like LGBTQ+ young adults enduring homelessness may provide key sources of both stability and purpose, which can enhance young people’s mental health functioning in the face of limited structural resources.

For young people experiencing significant mental health challenges, such as not feeling in control of their emotions, a companion animal can help provide regulatory supports. Luke, a multiracial (Native and white) pansexual cisgender man, reported experiencing “really bad anger” and having “a really bad temper” that his dog Baby helped him manage daily:

I'm known to pop off when I've just about had enough. When Baby figures out that that's going on, she'll come close to me, and she'll stand right by my leg and just looks at me and smiles. She is adorable when she smiles…she's kept me cool when I wanted to punch somebody in the face.

This critical support of pets helping LGBTQ+ young people manage their emotions in healthy, productive ways can be the influential buffer between youth and criminal justice systems involvement. For example, Luke stated that his dog “keeps me out of trouble…I’ve been to prison once for attempted manslaughter because this guy raped my sister.” It is important to note, however, that exposure to people with emotional challenges and violent tendencies as Luke described himself can also be harmful to animals’ well-being and their welfare should continually be considered.

In a similar way, Lilly underscored the positive power of playing with animals as providing “distraction” from perceived problematic behaviors: “Pets can help me feel happier…I feel more comfortable being myself around them. Like to play with pets kind of distracts my mind from bad thoughts such as suicide, self-harm, fighting, stuff like that.” Richard, a multiracial (Native and white) cisgender bisexual man echoed the sentiment of the simple pleasure of playing with pets as distracting from life problems: “It really made stress easier to handle, because I could just go outside and play fetch with my dog, and forget about the problems I was having.” For these LGBTQ+ young adults, simply having pets in their presence and engaging in playful, recreational activities with animals can be powerful in and of itself in helping to “distract” and stabilize youth’s stress responses during emotionally challenging life situations.

Discussion

LGBTQ+ young people experiencing homelessness often endure distinctive challenges to navigating residential instability, such as prejudice and discrimination, which can directly shape their mental health challenges (Morton et al., 2018), notably through processes of minority stress (Meyer, 2003). Because marginalized young people are faced with layered structural barriers tied to both homelessness and being LGBTQ+, it is necessary to more fully delineate the diverse, less formalized mental health supports youth may draw upon. In exploring the distinctive role that companion animals, or pets, can play in the lives of LGBTQ+ young adults experiencing homelessness, this study’s findings underscore the importance young people place on pet relationships in impacting their mental health dynamics and contribute to the complex dynamics of the widely debated “pet effect” (Herzog, 2011). Expanding upon previous research, pets contribute to young people’s ability to engage in “emotional work” when providing emotional supports, participate in “biographical work” in enhancing self-image, and complete “everyday work” by providing stability and purpose (Brooks et al., 2013). These findings demonstrate the diversity of coping strategies and emotional and mental health supports that marginalized young adults may be utilizing, which can inform a movement towards more inclusive, affirming supports for youth experiencing homelessness.

As LGBTQ+ young adults experiencing homelessness are frequently struggling with a variety of different life stressors, access to viable mental health supports is critical for young people’s overall well-being. However, because formal homeless health-related resources and supports may not be perceived as accessible for young people for various reasons, including structural constraints and social perceptions of exclusion (Hudson et al., 2010), more alternative mental health outlets may be viewed as preferable. LGBTQ+ young people in this study strongly emphasized the critical role that pets played in enhancing their ability to more effectively deal with major life stress, such as helping them manage depression and promote feelings of physical safety. Providers should also be mindful of how pets could be leveraged as potential tools of abuse by perpetrators and incorporate this awareness into services (Faver and Strand, 2007), as unstably housed LGBTQ+ young adults are often more vulnerable to exploitative and manipulative relationships (Morton et al., 2018). Particularly for LGBTQ+ young adults, fear of experiencing prejudice and discrimination from service providers may be a significant barrier to seeking out resources (Choi et al., 2015; Schmitz and Tyler, 2018), as many participants in this study highlighted pets as being both more empathetic and understanding in processing youth’s emotions, as well as being nonjudgmental toward young people’s life experiences. Young people seeking homeless resources may also avoid pursuing certain resources they deem essential but not accessible if services are not openly welcoming of youth’s pets (Thompson et al., 2006).

Pets were perceived by LGBTQ+ young adults broadly as key mental health supports, and participants also specifically framed their relationships with companion animals as integral to enhancing their sense of a positive self-image. The majority of young people enduring homelessness face challenges in developing a healthy sense of personal identity, including feelings of diminished self-efficacy and self-esteem, which is an influential component of their overall mental health status and future life achievements (Osgood et al., 2005). Elevated feelings of positive self-esteem can shape resilience among youth navigating homelessness (Kidd and Shahar, 2008), so the fact that LGBTQ+ young people in this study emphasized how pets boosted their confidence underscores their power in promoting resilience strategies among marginalized populations (Meyer, 2015). Furthermore, pets may also serve as real-time sources of personal strength in times of emotional turmoil, such as helping youth control their emotions and avoid interpersonal conflict and even violence. Participants’ narratives of stigma management and how pet care mitigated social derogation build upon processes of how people experiencing homelessness deploy their pet relationships as a form of “enabled resistance” to help offset both identity (LGBTQ+) and status-based (homelessness) stigma and promote a positive self-concept (Irvine et al., 2012). While prison pet therapy programs have proven beneficial (Thomas and Matusitz, 2016), future research should also examine how pets may be protective against justice-system involvement, especially since LGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness are disproportionately policed and criminalized (Griffith, 2019). However, because LGBTQ+ youth sustaining housing insecurity are often institutionally detained and regulated because of their gender and/or sexual expansiveness (Robinson, 2020), the welfare of both youth and their companion animals in these situations must be considered, such as efforts to reunite them and secure them stable shelter, ideally together (Rhoades et al., 2015). Young people’s framing of pet relationships as tied to their positive identity and sense of self can be critical in fostering more adaptive coping strategies in response to stress, particularly when homelessness stressors often push LGBTQ+ youth to engage in harmful practices like substance abuse (Cochran et al., 2002).

In addition to viewing pets as important emotional and mental health supports, as well as emphasizing their role in boosting self-image, LGBTQ+ young adults in this study underscored how pets fostered feelings of purpose and stability within the context of homelessness. When young people are not only struggling to meet their basic needs, but also emerge into adulthood in the face of significant structural constraints, having a “grounding rod” can be essential to well-being. Indeed, many LGBTQ+ young adult participants framed their pet relationship commitments as “redemptive” by crediting them with promoting responsibility, preventing self-harming, and developing healthy self-esteem (Irvine, 2013). While it is important to acknowledge the risks and challenges that marginalized young people face (Russell, 2005), this overemphasis can obscure the more abstract, higher order ways youth are developing emotionally and mentally. LGBTQ+ youth strongly desire developing their multiple identities, even when faced with structural inequalities and instability (Schmitz and Tyler, 2018), and pet relationships may provide the stability youth experiencing homelessness can benefit from to pursue their basic needs as well as more complex cognitive development. Particularly, when young people are not able to seek out resources, pets can be there in the moment to help youth perform their daily activities by imbuing them with purpose and can even serve as a more mundane “distraction” when life stressors accumulate and feel overwhelming.

Findings from this study also have significant implications for youth homelessness policies and services aiming to support marginalized young people. Encouragingly, homeless service providers across the USA are developing more inclusive and affirming services for LGBTQ+ young people and their distinctive needs (Ferguson and Maccio, 2015). There may be areas, however, where services could be expanded to more fully acknowledge young people’s diverse needs, such as being pet-inclusive, as a primary reason for foregoing shelter services among people involves anti-companion animal policies (Lindgren et al., 2019). Formulating services that are viewed as more accessible and supportive by LGBTQ+ young adults is particularly crucial because these young people often sustain significant social rejection in their lives and may be more distrustful of authority figures and people in general. As such, pet-inclusive resources could also involve more formal programming like pet-assisted therapy to help support young adults who value companion animal relationships (Maharaj, 2016). As many young adults in homelessness endure numerous life challenges, such as participants in this study (i.e. substance use, mental health struggles, abusive relationships), it is essential to consistently consider and promote pets’ welfare as well. Although we should not assume all homeless youth are victimizing their pets, young persons who have experienced personal victimization may be more prone to perpetuating animal abuse as a way of coping with their own traumatic experiences (Baldry, 2005). It is essential, therefore, to ensure that animal-assisted/inclusive services promote the well-being of both humans and animals and do not result in an animal’s continued exposure to stressful situations or environments (Glenk, 2017). The present study findings can also inform broader social policies through revisions to housing programs that acknowledge the mental health benefits of pets and how living with pets can promote more holistic well-being among marginalized groups (Huss, 2005).

Limitations

This study contributes to our knowledge and applications of the importance of pets in promoting LGBTQ+ young adults’ mental health in the context of homelessness, but limitations remain that require consideration. First, it is important to note that despite the positive role pets can play in the lives of young people experiencing homelessness, the process of moving toward pet-inclusive homeless services is fraught with structural complexities. Meeting young people’s basic needs, primarily shelter, is of the utmost priority, and adding in the layer of responsible pet care can create additional challenges that will require significant time, effort, and resources in achieving pet-inclusive housing that is healthy for all (Rhoades et al., 2015).

Next, this study’s qualitative methodology examined young people’s personal perspectives on pets and their mental health, and while we utilized open-ended questions to encourage expansive interpretations, question framing may have promoted participants to consider pets from a largely positive perspective. Additional research could more explicitly examine any perceived negative impacts of pets, such as youth feeling compelled to remain in dangerous and/or abusive housing environments to keep or protect their pets (Cronley et al., 2009; Faver and Strand, 2007). Also, while not presented in detail in this study, several young adults mentioned having to rehome a pet with a trusted social contact to meet their pet’s needs. Loss of a pet could have a negative impact on young people’s emotional well-being, so future work should complement these findings by analyzing youth’s pet relationships and global health outcomes using quantitative measures to better elucidate on the dynamics of a “pet effect” (Herzog, 2011). Finally, all young people were recruited for this study through homeless resources they were utilizing in Oklahoma, so we may not be reaching youth at all levels of marginalization who are not connected to services (Kryda and Compton, 2009). Therefore, future studies should also examine how young people who may not be utilizing services and those living in other regions in the USA conceptualize the impact of pets in their lives.

Conclusion

LGBTQ+ young adults experiencing homelessness face a vast array of life challenges, and this study highlights a diverse coping strategy young people may be drawing from that has not yet been fully considered: pets. Mental health challenges stemming from environmental stressors are especially salient for LGBTQ+ young adults who lack a regular place to live, and acknowledging how companion animals may buffer minority stress is a critical area for further exploration. Marginalized young adults’ narratives should be considered in questions surrounding their mental health outcomes and what is most important to them when it comes to promoting their own well-being. This study highlights LGBTQ+ youth’s perspectives in expanding more conventional mental health strategies to include more diverse coping mechanisms that may take the form of four-legged mental health resources.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors dedicate this work to the young people who shared their stories for this research and all the animals who impacted their lives.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the College of Liberal Arts at Oklahoma State University.

ORCID iD

Rachel M Schmitz

Rachel M Schmitz, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Oklahoma State University. Her research interests include gender and sexuality, the family, LGBTQ youth and young adults, and qualitative methods. Her current work emphasizes the voices and lived experiences of marginalized LGBTQ+ youth and their understandings of health.

Zachary T Carlisle, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Social Sciences at Midland University. His main research and academic interests involve social psychology and the sociology of sport, as well as qualitative methodology, social stratification, sociological theory, and the sociology of gender. Zac’s dissertation examines men college students’ experiences with sexual victimization.

Jennifer Tabler, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Wyoming. She studies mental health across the life course and her community-based work focuses on health disparities among underserved populations. Currently, her work explores the measurement of sex, gender, and sexuality in top social science surveys.

References

Allen

(2003) Are pets a healthy pleasure? The influence of pets on blood pressure. Current Directions in Psychological Science 12(6): 236–239.

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) (2019) Definition of companion animal. Available at: https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/definition-companion-animal (accessed 4 September 2019).

American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) (2018) AVMA pet ownership and demographics sourcebook. Available at: https://ebusiness.avma.org/ProductCatalog/product.aspx?ID=1529 (accessed 24 September 2020).

Baldry AC (2005) Animal abuse among preadolescents directly and indirectly victimized at school and at home. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 15(2): 97–110.

Barnes V, Clouder DL, Pritchard J, et al. (2003) Deconstructing dissemination: dissemination as qualitative research. Qualitative Research 3(2): 147–164.

Bender

Thompson

McManus

, et al. (2007) Capacity for survival: Exploring strengths of homeless street youth. Child and Youth Care Forum 36(1): 25–45.

Boyatzis

(1998) Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Brooks

Rogers

Kapadia

, et al. (2013) Creature comforts: Personal communities, pets and the work of managing a long-term condition. Chronic Illness 9(2): 87–102.

Brooks

Rushton

Lovell

, et al. (2018) The power of support from companion animals for people living with mental health problems: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry 18: 31.

10.

Center for American Progress (2010) Gay and transgender youth homelessness by the numbers. Available at: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2010/06/21/7980/gay-and-transgender-youth-homelessness-by-the-numbers/ (accessed 1 August 2017).

11.

Chapin Hall (2017) Missed opportunities: National estimates. Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. Available at: https://voicesofyouthcount.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/VoYC-National-Estimates-Brief-Chapin-Hall-2017.pdf (accessed 4 January 2021).

12.

Choi

Wilson

BDM

Shelton

, et al. (2015) Serving our youth 2015: The needs and experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth experiencing homelessness. Available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1pd9886n#page-2 (accessed 4 January 2021).

13.

Choo HY and Ferree MM (2010) Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological Theory 28(2): 129–149.

14.

Cochran

Stewart

Ginzler

, et al. (2002) Challenges faced by homeless sexual minorities: Comparison of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender homeless adolescents with their heterosexual counterparts. American Journal of Public Health 92(5): 773–777.

15.

Creswell

Poth

(2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

16.

Cronley

Strand

Patterson

, et al. (2009) Homeless people who are animal caretakers: A comparative study. Psychological Reports 105(2): 481–499.

17.

Durso

Gates

(2012) Serving our youth: Findings from a national survey of service providers working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The Williams Institute with True Colors Fund and The Palette Fund, USA.

18.

Dworsky

Napolitano

Courtney

(2013) Homelessness during the transition from foster care to adulthood. American Journal of Public Health 103(S2): S318–S323.

19.

Ecker

(2016) Queer, young, and homeless: A review of the literature. Child & Youth Services 37(4): 325–361.

20.

Faver CA and Strand EB (2007) Fear, guilt, and grief: Harm to pets and the emotional abuse of women. Journal of Emotional Abuse 7(1): 51–70.

21.

Ferguson

Maccio

(2015) Promising programs for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning runaway and homeless youth. Journal of Social Service Research 41(5): 659–683.

22.

Friedmann

Barker

Allen

(2011) Physiological correlates of health benefits from pets. In: McCardle P, McCune S, Griffin JA, et al. (eds) How Animals Affect Us: Examining the Influences of Human–Animal Interaction On Child Development and Human Health. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp.163–182.

23.

Glenk LM (2017) Current perspectives on therapy dog welfare in animal-assisted interventions. Animals 7(2): 7.

24.

Griffith

(2019) LGBTQ youth are at greater risk of homelessness and incarceration. Prison Policy Initiative. Available at: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/01/22/lgbtq_youth/ (accessed 4 January 2021).

25.

Guba EG and Lincoln YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp.105--117.

26.

Hatzenbuehler

(2014) Structural stigma and the health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23(2): 127–132.

27.

Hayden-Evans

Milbourn

Netto

(2018) ‘Pets provide meaning and purpose’: A qualitative study of pet ownership from the perspectives of people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. Advances in Mental Health 16(2): 152–162.

28.

Headey

Grabka

(2011) Health correlates of pet ownership from national surveys. In: McCardle P, McCune S, Griffin JA, et al. (eds) How Animals Affect Us: Examining the Influence of Human-Animal Interaction on Child Development and Human Health. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp.153–162.

29.

Herzog H (2010) Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard To Think Straight About Animals. New York, NY: Harper.

30.

Herzog

(2011) The impact of pets on human health and psychological well-being: Fact, fiction, or hypothesis? Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(4): 236–239.

31.

Hudson

Nyamathi

Greengold

, et al. (2010) Health-seeking challenges among homeless youth. Nursing Research 59(3): 212–218.

32.

Huss

(2005) No pets allowed: Housing issues and companion animals. Animal Law 11: 69.

33.

Irvine

(2013) Animals as lifechangers and lifesavers: Pets in the redemption narratives of homeless people. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 42(1): 3–30.

34.

Irvine

Kahl

Smith

(2012) Confrontations and donations: Encounters between homeless pet owners and the public. Sociological Quarterly 53(1): 25–43.

35.

Keuroghlian

Shtasel

Bassuk

(2014) Out on the street: A public health and policy agenda for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth who are homeless. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 84(1): 66–72.

36.

Kidd

Shahar

(2008) Resilience in homeless youth: The key role of self‐esteem. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 78(2): 163–172.

37.

Koivusilta LK and Ojanlatva A (2006) To have or not to have a pet for better health? PLoS One 1(1): e109.

38.

Kryda

Compton

(2009) Mistrust of outreach workers and lack of confidence in available services among individuals who are chronically street homeless. Community Mental Health Journal 45(2): 144–150.

39.

Lehavot

Simoni

(2011) The impact of minority stress on mental health and substance use among sexual minority women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 79(2): 159.

40.

Levy

(2013) On the outside looking in? The experience of being a straight, cisgender qualitative researcher. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 25(2): 197–209.

41.

Lindgren

Riordan

Newton

(2019) Exploring shelter access among animal guardians experiencing homelessness in New York City: NYC One Health Street Clinic Survey and Interview Results. New York: My Dog is My Home.

42.

Maharaj

(2016) Companion animals and vulnerable youth: Promoting engagement between youth and professional service providers. Journal of Loss & Trauma 21(4): 335–343.

43.

Meyer

(2003) Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin 129(5): 674.

44.

Meyer

(2015) Resilience in the study of minority stress and health of sexual and gender minorities. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 2(3): 209.

45.

Miltiades H and Shearer J (2011) Attachment to pet dogs and depression in rural older adults. Anthrozoös 24(2): 147–154.

46.

Morton

Samuels

Dworsky

, et al. (2018) Missed Opportunities: LGBTQ Youth Homelessness in America. Chicago: Chapin Hall.

47.

Müllersdorf M, Granström F, Sahlqvist L, et al. (2010) Aspects of health, physical/leisure activities, work and socio-demographics associated with pet ownership in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38(1): 53–63.

48.

Muraco

Putney

Chengshi

, et al. (2018) Lifesaving in every way: The role of companion animals in the lives of older lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adults age 50 and over. Research on Aging 40(9): 859–882.

49.

Osgood

Foster

Flanagan

, et al. (2005) On Your Own without a Net: The Transition to Adulthood for Vulnerable Populations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

50.

Padgett

(2017) Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

51.

Putney

(2014) Older lesbian adults’ psychological well-being: The significance of pets. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 26(1): 1–17.

52.

Rew L (2000) Friends and pets as companions: Strategies for coping with loneliness among homeless youth. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing 13(3): 125–132.

53.

Rhoades

Winetrobe

Rice

(2015) Pet ownership among homeless youth: Associations with mental health, service utilization and housing status. Child Psychiatry and Human Development 46(2): 237–244.

54.

Robinson BA (2020) The Lavender Scare in Homonormative Times: Policing, Hyper-incarceration, and LGBTQ Youth Homelessness. Gender & Society 34(2): 210–232.

55.

Russell

(2005) Beyond risk: Resilience in the lives of sexual minority youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education 2(3): 5–18.

56.

Saldaña

(2015) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

57.

Sanders

(1999) Understanding Dogs: Living and Working with Canine Companions. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

58.

Schmitz RM and Tyler KA (2019) ‘Life has actually become more clear’: an examination of resilience among LGBTQ young adults. Sexualities 22(4): 710–733.

59.

Schmitz RM and Tyler KA (2018) LGBTQ+ young adults on the street and on campus: Identity as a product of social context. Journal of Homosexuality 65(2): 197–223.

60.

Slatter

Lloyd

King

(2012) Homelessness and companion animals: More than just a pet? British Journal of Occupational Therapy 75(8): 377–383.

61.

Snapp

Watson

Russell

, et al. (2015) Social support networks for LGBT young adults: Low cost strategies for positive adjustment. Family Relations 64(3): 420–430.

62.

Straatman I, Hanson EK, Endenburg N, et al. (1997) The influence of a dog on male students during a stressor. Anthrozoös 10(4): 191–197.

63.

Taylor

Riggs

Donovan

, et al. (2019) People of diverse genders and/or sexualities caring for and protecting animal companions in the context of domestic violence. Violence against Women 25(9): 1096–1115.

64.

Thomas

Matusitz

(2016) Pet therapy in correctional institutions: A perspective from relational-cultural theory. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work 13(2): 228–235.

65.

Thompson

McManus

Lantry

, et al. (2006). Insights from the street: Perceptions of services and providers by homeless young adults. Evaluation and Program Planning 29(1): 34–43.

66.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (2018) Key federal terms and definitions of homelessness among youth. Available at: https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/Federal-Definitions-of-Youth-Homelessness.pdf (accessed 4 January 2021).

67.

Van Leeuwen

Boyle

Salomonsen-Sautel

, et al. (2006) Lesbian, gay, and bisexual homeless youth: An eight-city public health perspective. Child Welfare 85(2): 151–170.

68.

Weller SC, Vickers B, Bernard HR, et al. (2018) Open-ended interview questions and saturation. PloS one 13(6).

69.

Wells

(2009) The effects of animals on human health and well‐being. Journal of Social Issues 65(3): 523–543.

70.

Wood

Giles-Corti

Bulsara

(2005) The pet connection: Pets as a conduit for social capital? Social Science & Medicine 61(6): 1159–1173.

71.

Wright JD, Kritz-Silverstein D, Morton DJ, et al. (2007) Pet ownership and blood pressure in old age. Epidemiology 18: 613–617.