Submission on behalf of Assistance Dogs International for the

Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Australian Government

Attorney General’s Department

October 2025

Australian Members of ADI Oceania and Asia Council include:

Assistance Dogs Australia

Vision Australia Seeing Eye Dogs

See Differently

Guide Dogs NSW/ACT

Guide Dogs WA/TAS

Guide Dogs VIC

Guide Dogs QLD

Guide Dogs SA/NT

Australian Lions Assistance Dogs

Executive Summary

Representing organisations with over 30,000 dogs in service worldwide, Assistance Dogs International (ADI) welcomes the review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The legislation requires a clearer and more consistent definition of what constitutes an assistance dog to prevent discrimination and restore public confidence. A recent global survey found that 58% of Australian assistance dog handlers experienced access refusals in the past year; clear evidence of the urgent need for reform.

ADI recommends that the Act align with global best practice by recognising assistance dogs as the defined and regulated category of assistance animals, as reflected in Queensland legislation. Clarifying this definition will strengthen protections for people with disability and duty holders alike, by ensuring that recognised assistance dogs meet verifiable standards of training and behaviour appropriate for public settings. Establishing nationally consistent, mandatory minimum standards, supported by practical regulations that meet international benchmarks, would provide both the certainty needed to uphold quality and public trust.

The reforms of a clear legal definition, national standards, an accreditation and compliance framework, and a public education campaign, will together protect the rights of people with disability, safeguard public safety and promote animal welfare.

About ADI

ADI is a worldwide coalition of non-profit organisations that train and place Assistance Dogs. Founded in 1986, ADI has become a leading global authority in the Assistance Dog industry, fostering a collaborative community dedicated to excellence in human-dog partnerships.

Our mission is to create a world without barriers for people with disabilities by ensuring high standards relating to the breeding, training, and placement of assistance dogs and to the ongoing support provided to working dogs and their handlers.

Each ADI member organisation in Australia (and globally) has been accredited as having met or exceeded a set of minimum standards across all aspects of an ethical and effective assistance dog program.

These standards are high, but they are also what we know to be the minimum required to ensure that people with disabilities are supported by assistance dogs that are appropriately bred and trained, perform their required tasks to a high standard, and behave in public in a manner that engenders confidence with the public, business owners, and governments.

These standards have been refined over 40 years, have been tested across multiple countries and jurisdictions, and align closely with those of the International Guide Dog Federation. We have considerable experience advocating for and influencing

Submission on behalf of Assistance Dogs International (Oceania & Asia Council) 2

regulatory frameworks around the world in relation to upholding the rights of people supported by assistance dogs while ensuring high standards and public confidence.

For these reasons, ADI’s submission to the review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 focuses exclusively on Part 6 — Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act, and on the definition and legal status of Assistance Animals.

The Problem

Clients supported by assistance dogs routinely face discrimination and access refusals that can be attributed largely to a lack of understanding in the community about what constitutes a genuine assistance dog and how they are able to verify them.

The problem is exacerbated by a proliferation of ‘fake’ assistance dogs, where people put coats on pets or poorly trained dogs, passing them off as assistance dogs and demanding the same access rights.

The result is a market that is beset by confusion, which has been inadvertently encouraged by the Disability Discrimination Act’s overly vague definitions on what constitutes an assistance dog and the extent of training required. The lack of clear national standards and of a national licensing or accreditation scheme is also a contributing factor.

Inconsistent definitions and standards across State and Territory legislation have created widespread confusion around what constitutes a qualified assistance dog. Nationally consistent legislation is urgently needed to restore clarity and confidence. This lack of consistency is having a perverse impact, with many clients becoming reluctant to go out in public, reducing their independence, mobility, and community participation, and increasing social isolation.

Compounding this issue is the growing misrepresentation of untrained dogs as assistance dogs. This is not only a safety risk but also a significant animal welfare concern. Placing untrained dogs in demanding public environments can cause distress and compromise their wellbeing. Genuine assistance dogs undergo extensive training to safely manage complex and unpredictable settings; without these standards, both dogs and Clients are placed at risk.

To ensure people with disabilities can enjoy the full range of life-changing benefits and opportunities that can come from working with an Assistance Dog, ADI recommends urgent progress in the following areas:

1. Developing a clearer definition of assistance dogs or assistance animals: provide clarity in market and harmonise this definition across all state and territory legislation.
2. Setting new national standards for the entire assistance dog journey: aligned with established international benchmarks.

Submission on behalf of Assistance Dogs International (Oceania & Asia Council) 3

3. Developing a national accreditation and compliance framework: underpinned by a new accreditation scheme for training organisations, a new national ID card for handlers, and greater consequences for non-compliance.
4. Improve public awareness and education: reduce discrimination against legitimate assistance dog users by making the community more aware of their access rights and building confidence in how to distinguish between legitimate and fake assistance dogs.

Supporting Evidence

In early 2025, the International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF) and Assistance Dogs International (ADI) released a report ‘Paws for Access – a Global Survey on Assistance Dog Rights’.

This report highlights the extent of discrimination and the challenges faced by people supported by assistance dogs in accessing the community. These challenges are a global occurrence. In Australia, 58% of respondents reported experiencing multiple access refusals in the last 12 months (compared with 56% globally). We believe the actual figure is much higher as many refusals go unreported due to complaint fatigue

Access refusals occurred across a broad spectrum of public places including hospitality venues, transport, accommodation, medical facilities and grocery stores. Doubt around the legitimacy of assistance dogs remains a persistent issue, exacerbated by the rise in fake assistance dogs in recent years. Globally over 65% of survey respondents encountered scepticism regarding their dog’s legitimacy as an assistance dog. The majority of these (81%) feel this has been because of an increase of untrained assistance or emotional support dogs over time.

The report also tables that the emotional and behavioural impact of refusals can be significant and linger with 59% of handlers in Australia avoiding public places altogether, higher than the global score of 40%. This has a significant impact on the wellbeing of handlers.

In addition to access refusals, survey respondents reported being frequently subjected to requests for evidence of their disability and to verify or justify their assistance dog.

The outcomes of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide underscore the urgent need to strengthen the Disability Discrimination Act to ensure equitable access to accredited assistance dog programs that promote inclusion, recovery, and suicide prevention for people with disability and veterans. Ongoing barriers of discrimination and access refusal are not mere inconveniences, they are deeply distressing and compounding, exacerbating isolation, trauma, and inequity. Strengthening the Disability Discrimination Act with our recommendations is therefore essential to ensure fair, consistent, and life-changing access for people with disability and veterans whose wellbeing and recovery depend on these vital supports.

Submission on behalf of Assistance Dogs International (Oceania & Asia Council) 4

Recommendations

ADI believes that several measures in relation to the definition and regulatory framework around Assistance Animals need to be addressed in the DDA review. Our recommendations can be summarised under the four areas below.

1. Definition of Assistance Animals

Australia needs a clear legal definition for assistance animals that aligns with international standards, such as those developed by ADI and the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN).

These definitions identify the key criteria for an assistance dog as being that it is specifically trained to perform three or more tasks that mitigate the effects of an individual’s disability. Additionally, assistance dogs must be safe, calm and effective in a public place or vehicle and able to be controlled by their handler.

We note that ADI makes its recommendations in relation to assistance dogs and not the more general category of ‘assistance animals’ that is currently used in the Act. There is a global body of evidence and 40+ years of learning and refinement in the field of assistance dogs. ‘Assistance animals’ more broadly is a highly unregulated, under-researched and contested field. This is not to diminish the therapeutic value of all types of domestic pets. But when it comes to genuine assistance animals, we believe governments and the public can only have confidence in the training and accreditation frameworks that currently exist for dogs and better outcomes could be achieved for people with disabilities by clarifying this in the Act. We note that this distinction is already reflected in some other Australian jurisdictions. For example, the Guide, Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act 2009 (Qld) specifically applies to dogs and does not recognise any other type of assistance animal.

2. Clear National Standards

Australia must set a clear set of national standards that apply to all assistance dogs.

As a global organisation with consistency in membership across multiple jurisdictions and regions, ADI has seen the benefit of consistency in the application of standards across all aspects of the assistance dog journey.

For trainers, training organisations, handlers, governments, businesses and the general public to have confidence in any framework, the standards must be clear, consistent, and set a high bar. Decades of international progress has produced robust benchmarks through ADI and International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF) and, more recently, by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). In line with these global models, Australian standards should apply across the entire lifespan of an assistance dog, from breeding and training though to retirement, to ensure quality, safety and welfare at every stage.

ADI believes that these standards provide a sensible and straightforward reference point for the adoption of clear national standards in Australia.

Submission on behalf of Assistance Dogs International (Oceania & Asia Council) 5

Currently the DDA’s limited clarity around training standards and accreditation leaves room for inconsistent practices, which can unintentionally place handlers, the public and working dogs at risk when training quality varies. This lack of specificity is leading to confusion amongst the public and businesses as to which animals are trained and safe to be in public and is hindering enforcement when people with disabilities are refused access and discriminated against. This places legitimate assistance dogs at risk if they are aggressively confronted or attacked by a poorly trained dog in a private venue or public place.

As a client from one of our members has noted:

“As a guide dog user, | am concerned because | live near an un-approved assistance dog school and regularly encounter these dogs around town. Being confronted by an aggressive dog in a confined space, such as a shop or restaurant, may lead to a serious incident that permanently damages my guide dog’s confidence and ability to work.”

A consistent national ‘Public Access Test’ should therefore form part of the new standards.

3. National accreditation and compliance framework

For new national standards to be effective, they must be accompanied by an appropriate accreditation and compliance framework. From four decades of work in this space, ADI suggests there are three key elements for the government to consider:

i) Accreditation scheme for training organisations ADI and the IGDF have developed accreditation programs involving five-yearly audits and compliance assessments with all members. We suggest a similar framework could be developed by the Australian government as a blueprint for all Australian assistance dog training organisations.

We further suggest that the ADI and IGDF accreditation programs be recognised by the new Australian government accreditation scheme. Members of these organisations account for >90% of the market for guide dogs and significant proportion of the market for other types of assistance dogs, so this would relieve the government of the need to independently assess those training organisations. An assessment body or panel of assessors would then need to be established for training organisations who are not ADI or IGDF members and for owner trainers.

We further note that ADI has a ‘Candidate’ program for training organisations who are not yet able to meet all the ADI standards, but who have committed to that pathway. ADI allocates resources to support them in this process over a 2-5 year period. The Australian government’s new accreditation scheme could provide provisional accreditation to these organisations or the government could consider developing something similar to support and encourage training organisations to meet the new standards.

Submission on behalf of Assistance Dogs International (Oceania & Asia Council) 6

ii) National identification

ADI recommends that a single national identity card in digital format be developed. ADI and IGDF have already undertaken substantial foundational work in this area, developing a global digital ID card that could serve as a model for Australia.

The digital card is fully accessible to people with disabilities, provides security against fraudulent reproduction, and can be instantly updated or cancelled if/when required.

It is important that a version of the national identity card can also be issued to staff and volunteers of accredited training organisations who need access to public places for dog training and socialisation.

ADI is very open to sharing its knowledge and collaborating with the Government to assist in the development of a national ID card.

National standards should also be set for the design and appearance of accredited assistance dog coats. While these may cater to logos or design elements from particular training organisations, they need to be broadly generic and easy to identify in public. This model of consistent coats has been tested in Europe and has experienced success.

iii) Improved enforcement

Currently, there are no disincentives within the Act for people to falsely claim their pet is a trained assistance dog. Compliance with new standards would be strengthened if the Act explicitly recognised the misrepresentation of an unqualified dog as an assistance dog as an offence.

ADI members also report that police routinely refuse to attend instances of discrimination such as access refusals to assist with enforcement of the legislation, forcing handlers to accept illegal acts of discrimination and seek redress through cumbersome and inaccessible reporting processes. ADI recommends that state government police services be engaged in an education initiative to ensure they are aware of their role in helping to ensure compliance with the standards and accreditation framework of the Act when it is updated.

4. Public Education

Public education is necessary to raise awareness of disability discrimination with particular emphasis on the many and varied roles of assistance dogs as an aid in supporting individuals with disability.

Once the new national standards and accreditation scheme are in place, the public will need to be made aware of the new framework, including how to recognise an accredited assistance dog and what they have a right to ask for in terms of evidence for public access. This will also provide more confidence for

Submission on behalf of Assistance Dogs International (Oceania & Asia Council) 7

businesses and others on when they are legally able to refuse access. By reducing the number of untrained and poorly behaved dogs in public places and private venues, the access and wellbeing of legitimate handlers and their dogs will be assured and public confidence in the framework will be gradually re-built.

5. Complaints Process

To address these systemic barriers, a formalised national process should be established for the consistent lodging, review, monitoring, and resolution of complaints related to access and discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act. This should include a clear mechanism for lodging incidents, systematically collecting, and analysing data to identify trends and drive continuous improvement, and ensuring transparent feedback loops with affected individuals and organisations. Enforceable penalties for breaches of the Act must also be introduced to ensure genuine accountability and sustained cultural and systemic change.

Conclusion

ADI thanks the Australian Government for the opportunity to contribute to this important review. We would welcome the chance to provide further information drawn from international experience, including detailed insights into ADI’s global standards, and to connect the review team with international experts who can support the development of best practice in Australia.

Submitted this 14 day of November 2025

Damian Papps Chair ADI Oceania & Asia Council

redacted: s47F - name Executive Director Assistance Dogs International

Ph: redacted: s47F - phone number

Ph: redacted: s47F - phone number

Submission on behalf of Assistance Dogs International (Oceania & Asia Council) 8

PAWS FOR ACCESS

A Global Survey on Assistance Dogs Rights

PUBLISHED SPRING 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Overview | 3
• Report Purpose | 3
• Background | 3
• Problem Statement | 4
  • The Challenges | 4
  • Regional Differences | 4
• Defining Assistance Dogs | 5
• The Survey | 5
• Key Findings | 5
  • Access Issues | 5
  • Verification & Justification | 6
  • Transport | 6
  • Skepticism & Fake Certifications | 7
  • Emotional & Behavioral Impact | 8
  • Perception of UN Rights | 8
• Comparative Statistics Across Countries | 8
• Advocacy & Next Steps | 9
• Conclusion | 10

OVERVIEW

Public spaces are essential for social interaction, community engagement, and accessing vital goods and services.

“1 balance my experiences between advocating and avoiding”

Unfortunately, assistance dog handlers often face barriers to these necessities due to being denied access when accompanied by their dogs. This is a significant ongoing issue with serious effects on the wellbeing of individuals requiring assistance dogs.

The International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF) and Assistance Dogs International (ADI) survey aimed to uncover the challenges faced by assistance dog handlers in accessing the community. The survey revealed significant access issues and refusals, highlighting the need for greater awareness,

“It’s disheartening to see how often my guide dog and I are turned away from places”

education, and legislative changes to support these individuals.

REPORT PURPOSE

The primary goal of this report is to offer a global perspective on the significant and consistent challenges faced by assistance dog handlers daily, and to identify the advocacy and social change efforts they seek to improve inclusion.

This is achieved in three ways:

1. The report aims to raise awareness about the challenges that handlers encounter in public spaces by pinpointing the most common issues and the effects on wellbeing.
2. It will provide a robust evidence base by detailing the findings from the IGDF/ADI survey, and documenting the prevalent issues faced by these assistance dog handlers.
3. The report will offer recommendations, informed by the responses of assistance dog handlers, that is aimed at legislators, businesses and the public to address these issues.

BACKGROUND

Assistance dog handlers face substantial access challenges in public spaces, businesses, and public transport. These issues vary regionally due to differing regulations and public perceptions of assistance dogs. In countries including the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, assistance dog handlers are often denied access to crucial products and services.

“ A doctor refused to see me because I had an assistance dog”

PAWS FOR ACCESS: A GLOBAL SURVEY ON ASSISTANCE DOG RIGHTS | 3

The emotional toll on assistance dog handlers is also considerable, leading to feelings of exclusion, anxiety, and frustration. This is exacerbated by the need to continually advocate for their rights before receiving equal treatment. Despite legal frameworks designed to protect these rights, the implementation and enforcement of these laws can be inconsistent across different regions, reflecting a broader issue of global disparity in the treatment and perception of assistance dogs.

“Have been refused until explained legislation and the legal liability”

These issues underscore the need for improved public education, clearer definitions of assistance roles, and stronger enforcement of existing laws. This approach would help mitigate the challenges faced by handlers and promote a more inclusive and accessible environment for all assistance dog handlers.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

THE CHALLENGES

Assistance dog handlers encounter significant access challenges in areas including restaurants, cafes, hotels, medical facilities, and public transportation systems like ride share services and buses.

Assistance dog handlers report that these access denials are frequent and widespread, with almost one in two survey respondents (43%) reporting they had been refused access to public spaces in the past 12 months.

Additionally, the data shows that these experiences are often motivated by the public’s limited understanding and misconceptions about the roles and rights of assistance dogs. Despite legal protections in many regions, enforcement of these laws often varies, and many businesses and individuals are either unaware of or choose to ignore these mandates.

REGIONAL DIFFERENCES

Regional differences in the treatment of dog handlers arise due to disparities in public understanding, local legislation, and the application of laws between countries.

Data from the survey reveals how wide-ranging and consistent access refusals are globally. In the UK and Netherlands, 79% of handlers reported multiple access refusals within the last year; followed by Russia (71%), Ireland (60%), and Australia (58%). These figures underscore the necessity for a global approach to address these challenges uniformly.

“It amazes me how many people do not know what a harness means or what role a Guide Dog plays”

PAWS FOR ACCESS: A GLOBAL SURVEY ON ASSISTANCE DOG RIGHTS | 4

DEFINING ASSISTANCE DOGS

To build a case for a standardized global definition, this report defines assistance dogs as:

Dogs that are specifically trained to perform tasks that mitigate the effects of a disability, including guiding, alerting, medical response, mobility support, and psychiatric assistance.

This distinction excludes emotional support animals (ESAs) which provide comfort but are not trained to perform disability-related tasks.

“| have had numerous places try to refuse access and | assertively explain ADA and consequences of not adhering”

THE SURVEY

The survey has a global scope and seeks to gain data on areas where insights into assistance dog handlers experiences are currently lacking. The survey received responses from over 1,000 dog handlers across 20 countries. The countries with the highest number of respondents (10+ respondents) included the USA, Australia, Russia, Canada, Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, UK, and Japan.

The types of assistance dogs used by respondents were diverse, including:

• Guide dogs, for people with visual impairments.
• Hearing dogs, for people with hearing impairments.
• Service dogs, assisting with physical disabilities, mobility support, retrieval.
• Service dogs assisting with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other psychiatric disabilities.
• Medical alert/response dog.

KEY FINDINGS

ACCESS ISSUES

The most common places where access issues were reported include restaurants and cafes (56%), hotels and other accommodation (28%), medical facilities (28%), and grocery stores (19%).

Respondents shared personal experiences of being refused access, often due to misconceptions about assistance dogs.

“| was refused entry to a restaurant because they said my dog would cause allergies to other customers.”

PAWS FOR ACCESS: A GLOBAL SURVEY ON ASSISTANCE DOG RIGHTS | 5

VERIFICATION AND JUSTIFICATION

Handlers frequently need to verify or justify their assistance dogs, especially those with invisible disabilities or non-traditional assistance dog breeds. This need for verification adds to the emotional burden and frustration experienced by handlers.

The type of assistance dog also influenced the frequency of access issues. Guide dog handlers and those with psychiatric service dogs reported higher rates of refusals compared to handlers of other types of assistance dogs. For example, 48% of guide dog handlers and 40% of handlers with service dogs that support physical disabilities and psychiatric disabilities reported access issues, compared to the global average of 43%. In addition, people with invisible disabilities face additional pressure to justify the legitimacy of their assistance dog. This indicates a need for targeted awareness campaigns to address misconceptions about these specific types of assistance dogs.

“| was turned away from a hotel because they didn’t believe my dog was a legitimate service animal”

“But you don’t look disabled’ is a big one”

TRANSPORT

Transportation poses significant challenges for assistance dog handlers. Issues remain when accessing transport options, with 56% of respondents globally experiencing refusals in taxis or rideshares like Uber and Lyft. Guide dog handlers reported even higher refusal rates at 63%.

“ Uber and Lyft are the most difficult. I’ve been refused, driven away from, almost run over, you name it”

PAWS FOR ACCESS: A GLOBAL SURVEY ON ASSISTANCE DOG RIGHTS | 6

Reasons for refusals include allergies and concerns about dog hair in vehicles. Such issues can create a significant barrier to completing important daily tasks. For instance, being regularly rejected from transportation services decreases the ability to commit to scheduled arrival times. With these challenges being reported globally, there is a clear need for international advocacy and education efforts.

SKEPTICISM & FAKE CERTIFICATIONS

Doubt around the legitimacy of assistance dogs remains a persistent issue, exacerbated by the rise in fake assistance dogs in recent years. The growing popularity of assistance dogs adds an additional layer of complexity when gaining access to public spaces since it reduces the perceived credibility of genuine assistance dogs.

“People often question if my dog Is really a service animal because of all the fake ones out there.”

This confusion is particularly compounded when vests are worn by untrained and fake assistance dogs, which takes away the integrity of what used to be clear imagery of an assistance dog. In the survey, over half (65%) of respondents encountered skepticism regarding their dog’s legitimacy as an assistance dog. The majority of these (81%) feel this has been a result of the increase of untrained assistance or emotional support dogs over time.

“Undertrained or fake “service dogs” wreaking havoc for legitimately trained service dog teams”

Untrained assistance dogs are creating disruption to legitimate assistance dog handlers and have been adding to negative experiences in public spaces. Well over half of respondents (58%) have encountered interference (such as biting, lunging, snapping) from untrained assistance dogs, disrupting them and their dog from working safely.

“They are even in the airplane cabin. They bite and bark at my dog and it’s very difficult for him to do his job”

PAWS FOR ACCESS: A GLOBAL SURVEY ON ASSISTANCE DOG RIGHTS | 7

EMOTIONAL & BEHAVIORAL IMPACT

The repercussions of being denied entry to a venue with an assistance dog extend beyond immediate practical inconveniences. While a rejected individual may be required to find another cafe, grocery store or bus, the emotional and subsequent behavioral impact of such experiences can linger. Many handlers reported feeling burdened, frustrated, and anxious.

As a result, 40% of respondents considered avoiding public places altogether, with higher rates in Australia (59%) and among guide dogs’ users worldwide (48%).

“ A lot of people (especially business owners) have so many encounters with fake service dogs that they are skeptical”

PERCEPTION OF UNITED NATIONS RIGHTS

A significant portion of respondents globally felt that their rights under UN Conventions and Mandates were not being upheld in their respective countries (28%). This sentiment was particularly strong among those who faced frequent access refusals and skepticism about their assistance dogs. This increases significantly to 63% in the UK, and to 54% in Canada. It’s also significantly higher than average amongst guide dog users, at 34%.

The lack of enforcement and awareness of these rights contributes to the ongoing challenges faced by dog handlers. As with many international laws, enforcement is an issue, however greater standardization of rules is an important objective on the road to ensuring equal treatment for dog handlers in public and should continue to be advocated for.

COMPARATIVE STATISTICS ACROSS COUNTRIES

The survey data provides a comparative view of access issues across different countries with over 10 respondents (see graph on next page for full breakdown):

• Netherlands: reported notable issues in public transport and medical facilities.
• Australia: 58% of respondents faced access refusals, 56% experiencing multiple refusals within the last year.
• USA: reported a significant focus on airlines.

“| often feel anxious and frustrated because of the constant refusals and skepticism”

PAWS FOR ACCESS: A GLOBAL SURVEY ON ASSISTANCE DOG RIGHTS | 8

ADVOCACY & NEXT STEPS

To address the challenges highlighted by the survey, respondents suggested five central measures to be taken. These solutions are targeted at improving base knowledge levels in businesses and the public at large, as well as simplifying the identification of legitimate assistance dogs to minimize confusion.

1. Public Education: Confusion regarding what constitutes an assistance dog is a significant factor driving rejections. Awareness campaigns are essential to clarify the roles of assistance dogs and dispel common misconceptions. Most respondents believe that public education is crucial for increasing inclusion. These campaigns should emphasize that assistance dogs can support individuals with both visible and invisible disabilities, and come in various breeds, not just traditional types like Labradors or Retrievers.

“I also walk away or avoid confrontation to keep SD [service dog] safe”

2. Standardization & Regulation: It is crucial that a consistent global definition of assistance dogs and their roles is developed. Respondents support the need for standardization and regulation. Additionally, stricter penalties should be introduced for fake certifications and untrained dogs that do not match this definition. This is particularly crucial to ensure that dogs are afforded the welfare they deserve, which isn’t necessarily maintained when they are not part of one of IGDF or ADI’s graduate programs.

3. Improved Identification: Again, clarity around the appearance of dog vests was a source of confusion. A redesign of vests and ID cards to prominently display “assistance” labels would be highly

“I don’t feel like my rights are being respected or upheld”

beneficial. It may also encourage handlers to carry ID cards which can be used to validate their dog’s legitimacy. Respondents feel that improved identification would help reduce skepticism.

PAWS FOR ACCESS: A GLOBAL SURVEY ON ASSISTANCE DOG RIGHTS | 9

4. Small Business Training: Educate businesses about legal rights and responsibilities regarding assistance dogs. Train staff to recognize legitimate handlers and manage access requests appropriately. Respondents believe that small business training is essential for reducing access refusals.

“Hotels didn’t know about my service dogs’ access until I spoke to manager”

5. Legislative Reforms: The biggest push from respondents was for legislative reforms to protect their rights. This includes advocating for better enforcement of UN conventions protecting the rights of assistance dog users and pushing for laws that clarify distinctions between emotional support animals, service, and assistance dogs.

“Legislation and legal enforcement are necessary to make the other activities impactful”

CONCLUSION

This global survey has highlighted critical access issues faced by assistance dog handlers in public places, businesses, and public transport. This underscores a widespread need for greater societal awareness, enhanced legislative frameworks, and educational efforts. Despite legal provisions aimed at facilitating access, many handlers still face undue challenges and discrimination, which not only hinders their daily activities but also impacts their emotional well-being.

This report provides a foundational analysis, revealing that such issues are not isolated incidents but part of a broader systemic problem that requires a multifaceted approach, including public education, standardization, improved identification, small business training, and legislative reforms. By implementing these measures, we can create a more inclusive and understanding environment for assistance dog handlers, preserving their dignity and rights.

PAWS FOR ACCESS: A GLOBAL SURVEY ON ASSISTANCE DOG RIGHTS | 10