Assessment of university policies for service animals and emotional support animals

Abstract

Objective

Assess administrative responsibilities and experiential effects of emotional support animal (ESA) and service animal (SA) policies on college campuses.

Participants

Students at two four-year universities participated in an emotional support animals and service animals survey. Selected students and professional personnel participated in interviews and focus groups.

Methods

This mixed-methods study included quantitative survey data from 1,363 students, qualitative individual interviews (3) and a focus group (1) regarding emotional support animal (ESA) and service animal (SA).

Results

Seventy-one students reported having ESAs, 18 had SAs. Barriers for ESAs on campus included no ESAs outside of dorms, while SA-owners reported fewer barriers. University administrators followed federal guidelines for SAs but lacked clear guidelines for ESAs. Qualitative themes included lack of awareness, education, support for SA, and ESA accommodations.

Conclusions

ESA and SA accommodations continue to rise, on university campuses. Clear guidelines and implementation processes are imperative for future improvements.

Keywords:

• Accommodations
• emotional support animals
• service animals
• university policies

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the university personal who provide materials and information about the university policies and who were willing to discuss related issues and concerns with proving adequate accommodations for students. The authors would also like to thank the apartment managers who provided additional information about animal policies for their housing complexes. A special thank you to the students who had service and emotional support animals for their honesty and unique perspective on campus policies. Finally, the authors would like to thank the University of California Los Angeles Law School for funding the study.

Conflict of interest disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements of the United States of America and received approval from the Institutional Review Board of Baylor University.

Funding

The study was funded by the University of California Los Angeles Law School- UCLA Animal Law and Policy Small Grant Program.