Companion Animals In Substance Use Disorder Recovery: Insights into Barriers and Benefits

Background and Purpose: Substance use disorder (SUD) disproportionately affects justice-involved populations, with an estimated 63% of incarcerated individuals meeting criteria. Although whole-person care is central to effective recovery, the influence of companion animals on the recovery process remains largely overlooked, especially for individuals navigating drug court. This study addresses this critical gap in the literature by examining how pet ownership shapes treatment engagement and recovery among justice-involved individuals in drug court.

Methods: This study utilized semi-structured interviews with four adults actively enrolled in an Arkansas drug court. Participants were recruited in collaboration with peer recovery support specialists and the program director of the drug court. Consistent with participatory research values, individuals with lived experience were members of the research team, contributing to the development of the interview guide alongside researchers and MSW students. Interviews lasted 30–60 minutes and were conducted by groups of MSW students as part of a yearlong evaluation research course, with at least two students present per interview. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, de-identified, and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis in Dedoose (v.10.0.59). This study is part of a larger project funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance that aimed to create a whole-person, community-based network for people with SUD.

Results: All four participants were dog owners, either currently or prior to beginning treatment. Three resided in transitional housing; 75% identified as female. All participants were in recovery with sobriety ranging from “100 days clean” to more than a year. Pet ownership played a central role in participants’ recovery experiences, offering companionship, routine, and a sense of safety that many struggled to find in human relationships. Yet the same bond created barriers: the scarcity of pet-friendly treatment and housing led some to delay or avoid entering treatment altogether. As one participant put it, “It’s very hard to seek out the treatment that you need if you don’t have anywhere for that pet to go.” Informal support networks were often critical in keeping animals out of shelters, though extended care arrangements sometimes made it difficult to reclaim pets. Despite these challenges, participants described meaningful personal growth, with reuniting with their pets serving as a motivator. All four called for systemic change, including kennel partnerships, on-site pet visits while in treatment, and pet-friendly transportation. Notably, 75% said this interview was the first time anyone had asked about their companion animals.

Conclusions and Implications: Companion animals occupy a meaningful yet under-acknowledged place in the SUD recovery of justice-involved individuals. This study demonstrates that pets can both support recovery and create structural barriers that delay care. Recovery programs can better serve individuals when companion animal considerations are integrated into housing policy, case management, and care coordination. Social work's commitment to the common good demands that we ask the questions others have not, and these findings suggest that asking about pets may itself be a therapeutic and democratizing act. Future research should examine pet ownership across larger, more diverse samples and assess how pet-inclusive supports influence long-term recovery outcomes.