Table 2.
Distribution of cases where animal abuse investigators of the Animal Welfare Division of Pinhais were suspicious of socioeconomic vulnerability, classified by type of socioeconomic vulnerability and reason for suspicion
| Total cases with suspicion of socioeconomic vulnerability | Reasons for suspecting socioeconomic vulnerability | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Report* | Visualisation of the environment/family context* | |||||
| Type of socioeconomic vulnerability | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| Economic disadvantage | 33 | 75 | 32 | 73 | 22 | 50 |
| Violence | 13 | 30 | 9 | 20 | 9 | 20 |
| Substance abuse | 4 | 9 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 4 |
| Fragility of family bonds | 11 | 25 | 11 | 25 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 44 | 100 | 41 | 93 | 28 | 64 |
One family could have more than one type of socioeconomic vulnerability, resulting in a cumulative percentage higher than 100%.
The frequencies of the types of socioeconomic vulnerability were obtained in a total of 44 cases.