Veterinary Social Work and the Emerging Need for Human–Animal Systems Social Work

The Working Animals Federation of Australia (WAFA) recognises that assistance animals exist within complex, interconnected human systems that include disability support, veterinary medicine, animal welfare services, housing systems, and legal frameworks. Within this space, an emerging interdisciplinary field known as Veterinary Social Work (VSW) has begun to formalise the integration of social work practice into animal-related settings. However, WAFA asserts that while this development is important, it remains an incomplete response to broader systemic needs, particularly within assistance animal training, placement, and lifecycle support systems.

Veterinary Social Work is defined in the peer-reviewed literature as the application of social work principles within veterinary and animal welfare contexts to address the human dimensions of animal care and loss. Core domains consistently identified include grief and bereavement following companion animal loss, compassion fatigue among veterinary professionals, the intersection between human and animal violence, and animal-assisted interventions (Strand et al., 2015; Hoy-Gerlach et al., 2021). These domains reflect a growing recognition that veterinary and animal welfare environments are not purely clinical or technical systems, but emotionally and socially complex environments requiring structured psychosocial expertise.

Research consistently demonstrates that professionals working in veterinary and animal care settings experience elevated levels of psychological distress, including compassion fatigue, secondary traumatic stress, moral injury, and burnout (Harris et al., 2019; Bartram & Baldwin, 2010). Animal shelter workers in particular are at heightened risk due to repeated exposure to euthanasia, resource scarcity, and emotionally charged surrender situations (Hoy-Gerlach et al., 2021). These stressors contribute to workforce instability and reduced wellbeing across the sector, reinforcing the need for structured psychosocial interventions. Veterinary Social Work has therefore emerged as a practice response that embeds qualified social workers within animal care systems to provide grief counselling, staff support, trauma-informed communication, and systems-level interventions (Strand et al., 2015; Hoy-Gerlach et al., 2021).

One of the most significant contributions of this field is its recognition of disenfranchised grief associated with the loss of companion animals. The human–animal bond is widely recognised as a meaningful attachment in which companion animals are often considered family members (Walsh, 2009). Because companion animals typically have shorter lifespans than humans, loss and bereavement are frequent and often socially under-recognised forms of grief (Walsh, 2009). Social work literature demonstrates that this form of grief can be clinically significant and requires structured support, including psychoeducation, meaning-making, and bereavement counselling interventions (Walsh, 2009; Packman et al., 2014).

Despite its growth, Veterinary Social Work remains a developing and unevenly implemented field. Peer-reviewed literature highlights that while its theoretical foundations are well established, its integration into mainstream veterinary systems remains inconsistent and geographically limited (Hoy-Gerlach et al., 2021). In many contexts, the role of veterinary social workers is still emerging, and there is no standardised workforce framework for implementation. As such, Veterinary Social Work remains an evolving interdisciplinary field rather than a fully embedded component of animal care systems.

WAFA recognises the importance of this development; however, it also identifies a significant structural gap in its scope. Veterinary Social Work primarily focuses on veterinary clinics, hospitals, and animal shelter environments. It does not yet extend in a systematic way into disability-facing systems where assistance animals are trained, matched, placed, and supported across their working lifespan. This represents a critical omission in psychosocial infrastructure within assistance animal systems, where individuals with disabilities, trainers, and organisations frequently navigate complex emotional, ethical, and legal challenges without structured social work support.

Assistance animals operate at the intersection of disability rights, animal welfare, and functional support systems. Their roles are embedded within identity, independence, participation, and relational attachment. The human–animal bond literature highlights that these relationships are not incidental but central to psychological wellbeing and functional support outcomes (Walsh, 2009; Brooks et al., 2016). Disruption of these relationships—through placement breakdown, behavioural withdrawal, or retirement—can therefore result in significant psychosocial impact. Despite this, there is currently no formalised social work discipline dedicated to supporting assistance animal systems across the full lifecycle of training, placement, and retirement.

WAFA therefore advocates for the development of a complementary discipline: Social Work in Assistance Animal Training, Placement, and Lifecycle Systems. This proposed field would extend social work practice into disability-facing animal assistance frameworks, providing structured support for matching processes, placement transitions, public access disputes, grief and retirement support, and ethical decision-making in training withdrawal scenarios. It would also provide wellbeing support for trainers and assessors operating in emotionally complex environments where decisions directly affect both human independence and animal welfare outcomes.

The need for such a system becomes even clearer when considering animal rescue and shelter environments, which function as a major entry point for many therapy and assistance animals. Research demonstrates that animal shelter workers and volunteers are exposed to high levels of occupational stress, moral distress, and compassion fatigue due to repeated exposure to euthanasia and resource constraints (Baran et al., 2012; Hoy-Gerlach et al., 2021). These environments are also frequently the origin point for animals later assessed for therapy or assistance roles, meaning that early trauma exposure and systemic stressors may carry forward into working animal pathways. Without structured psychosocial frameworks across this continuum, both human and animal outcomes remain vulnerable to inconsistency and avoidable breakdown.

The broader literature on the human–animal bond further reinforces the importance of addressing these systems holistically. The human–animal bond is defined as a dynamic, mutually beneficial relationship between people and animals that contributes to emotional, psychological, and social wellbeing (Walsh, 2009). Within assistance animal contexts, this bond becomes functionally essential, as it directly supports independence, mobility, emotional regulation, and participation in society. As such, disruption of this bond is not merely an emotional event but a functional and social transition that requires structured support.

WAFA therefore positions Veterinary Social Work as an important but partial step in the evolution of human–animal systems thinking. It has demonstrated the necessity of integrating social work into veterinary and animal welfare contexts to address grief, burnout, and systemic emotional strain. However, the next stage of development requires recognition that assistance animal systems constitute a distinct domain requiring their own psychosocial infrastructure.

WAFA advocates for the development of a broader framework known as Human–Animal Systems Social Work, encompassing both Veterinary Social Work and Assistance Animal Social Work as interconnected but distinct practice domains. This expanded field would integrate trauma-informed, disability-affirming, and systems-based approaches across veterinary care, animal welfare, assistance animal training, and disability support systems. It would ensure that the emotional, ethical, and relational dimensions of human–animal partnerships are embedded within professional practice rather than treated as secondary considerations.

In conclusion, Veterinary Social Work has made an important contribution to understanding the human dimensions of animal care systems. However, Australia now requires a broader and more integrated approach that extends this insight into disability and assistance animal frameworks. WAFA asserts that the development of structured social work practice within assistance animal systems is not optional but necessary to ensure ethical, sustainable, and trauma-informed practice across the human–animal interface.

References

Baran, B. E., Allen, J. A., Walker, A. J., & Rhoades, G. K. (2012). An exploratory study of the job satisfaction and stress of animal shelter workers. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 15(2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2012.624902

Bartram, D. J., & Baldwin, D. S. (2010). Veterinary surgeons and suicide: Influences, opportunities and research directions. Veterinary Record, 166(16), 477–478. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.c1681

Brooks, H. L., Rushton, K., Lovell, K., Bee, P., Walker, L., Grant, L., & Rogers, A. (2016). The power of support from companion animals for people living with mental health problems: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Psychiatry, 16, 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-016-0761-8

Hoy-Gerlach, J., Ojha, M., & Arkow, P. (2021). Social workers in animal shelters: A strategy toward reducing occupational stress among animal shelter workers. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8, 734396. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.734396

Packman, W., Carmack, B. J., & Ronen, R. (2014). The human-animal bond and grief: A synthesis of literature. OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, 68(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.2190/OM.68.2.b

Strand, E. B., Zaparanick, T. L., & Brace, A. D. (2015). Veterinary social work: Practice within veterinary settings. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 25(1), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2014.966211

Walsh, F. (2009). Human–animal bonds I: The relational significance of companion animals. Family Process, 48(4), 462–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01297.x