The benefits of animal-assisted therapy are well-documented, from improved mental health to providing comfort and companionship. In recent years, many prisons have begun to realize the potential of animal-assisted therapy in helping inmates cope with their time in prison and even providing a sense of purpose and responsibility. One of the most successful animal-assisted therapy programs has been the introduction of dogs in prisons. In this blog post, we will explore how many prisons have dog programs, the benefits of these programs, and the impact on inmates. We will also discuss what animal-assisted therapy offers to inmates and the challenges that come with having dogs in prisons. By better understanding the possibilities of animal-assisted therapy, we can better equip ourselves to advocate for the rights of inmates and their access to these beneficial programs.
Summary of the Problem
Dog-training programs (DTPs) primarily target the issue of recidivism. 56 percent of inmates released in 2005 who participated in a longitudinal study by Durose, Cooper, and Snyder (2014) were Seven percent of the 404,638 state prisoners released in 30 states, or 67, were arrested within a year of their release. 8% were arrested within 3 years, and 76. 6% were arrested within 5 years. Specific goals vary from program to program, but they typically work to reduce recidivism using relatively straightforward techniques. The intensity of the training program, working with others to improve social skills, teaching the inmates how to train their puppies, learning skills and taking on responsibilities that will improve their employability, and giving the inmates a source of unconditional love that they may have never known are some of these methods. These goals are accomplished throughout the puppies’ training process, which lasts typically 12 to 18 months. They are driven by both theory and existing research. Existing research demonstrates that dogs can have significant physical and emotional effects on their owners (Wells, 2007). The justifications for implementing DTPs are based on a variety of criminological theories and concepts.
Effectiveness of DTPs
According to Cooke and Farrington (2016), dog-training programs (DTPs) are generally effective at reducing recidivism and producing the desired outcomes in their participants. The evidence demonstrates that these programs are successful in that they do lower recidivism. In private communication, Superintendent Robert Kent of the Sanger B. Strimple (2003) received information from the Powers Correctional Center in Oneida, Wisconsin, that none of the 68 released inmates who had taken part in the DTP since 1997 had reoffended. Additionally, the relationships between program participants’ peers and program staff as well as between participants and staff have improved. Participants in DTPs also exhibit increased social skills and social bonding (Cooke and Farrington, 2016).
DTPs facilitate better behavior of their participants while they are in prison due to the requirements of maintaining good behavior. This suggests that their objective of enhancing prisoner behavior has been accomplished. Currie (2008) discovered using qualitative methods that participants behaved well in order to obtain a dog, but after that, 80% of them reported an improvement in their willingness and capacity to accept responsibility for their actions, and 37% noted an improvement in their patience.
Additionally, there is proof that DTPs improve participants’ self-control, control over their anger, and patience. According to Cooke and Farrington (2016), prisoner dog trainers are more tolerant of the demands associated with incarceration and more willing to follow the rules of the facility. According to Button (2007), a participant described getting frustrated with their dog, but instead of expressing their annoyance to the dog out of a desire to be loving toward it, this person sat down and counted to ten. This is consistent with the idea that using dogs to show prisoners unconditional love could help them learn empathy. This supports the finding that DTP participants develop better coping mechanisms and emotional intelligence (Cooke and Farrington, 2016). In a program where prisoners are given shelter dogs, Ormerod (2008) discusses how both the prisoner and the dog are unwanted by society, which provides a way for the prisoner to develop empathy for the dog. The prisoners were inspired to alter their behavior when they noticed changes in the dogs’ behavior because they began to internalize the idea that if the dog could change, so could they. All of the desired findings discussed come with limitations.
These restrictions ought to influence how conclusions about the efficacy of DTPs are viewed. For instance, a significant drawback of recruiting participants is selection bias because those who are chosen tend to be the best-behaved/model prisoners already. They would be the ones most likely to be affected by change. This should raise the question of whether the DTPs contributed to the improved behavior or reduced recidivism, or if those changes would have happened regardless. There are no real experiments that look at DTPs directly with a test and control group. Future studies should take this into account and work to create such an ethical study that could make use of a control group in order to more accurately assess recidivism and behavior. Another drawback is that the DTPs only serve a small number of prisoners at a time.
Dog Training Programs in Practice
The most prevalent kind of animal programs in prisons are dog-training programs (DTPs) (Furst, 2006). When an inmate adopted a sick bird at the Lima State Hospital in Ohio in 1975, the first successful prison-based animal program in the United States unintentionally got underway (Strimple, 2003). The staff became aware of a shift in the inmates’ behavior on the ward, which prompted them to approve an animal therapy program. In comparison to a control group of inmates who did not have access to animals, it was discovered that inmates on the ward with animals required 50% less medication, made fewer suicide attempts, and experienced less violence (Britton and Button, 2005; Harkrader, Burke, and Owen, 2004).
DTPs have been implemented in 290 facilities in all 50 states of America. Since 1981, when the first DTP program was introduced at the Washington State Corrections Center for Women, DTPs have existed because the program’s creator, Sister Pauline Quinn, recognized the therapeutic value of dogs after one of them assisted her in overcoming her own psychiatric problems (Kohl and Wenner, 2012). The specific goals and objectives of each program may vary. However, the overarching objectives are to lower recidivism and enhance participant behavior. The effectiveness of the rehabilitation process may ultimately depend on participant behavior improvement. Unfortunately, only a small number of studies have examined how DTPs affect inmate behavior (Cooke and Farrington, 2016). DTPs attempt to accomplish this by instructing prisoners in dog training in the hopes that this will provide rehabilitation by teaching them pro-social skills, strengthening their pro-social bonds, and giving them positive social connections, life skills, empathy, responsibilities, and many other desirable traits or qualities, as well as eradicating the stigma and label of being a “prisoner.” ”.
The number of participants, eligibility requirements, duration, and even the amount of daily time participants spend with the dogs vary between programs. As an example, the DTP at the Massachusetts Correctional Institution (MCI)-Framingham facility has 8–10 participants at any given time (Drew et al.). Programs typically have a small number of participants. , 2013). A description of the DTP based on the collaboration between MCI-Framingham (MCI/F) and the New England Assistance Dog Services (NEADS) will be used to illustrate this strategy due to the variety of specific DTP designs.
For a period of 12 to 18 months, the MCI/F NEADS program pairs an eight-week-old puppy with a prisoner trainer. Prior to and throughout their participation in the program, the prisoner trainers must have good behavior/no discipline reports, and they must be able to commit to the 12–18 month training period. They must also apply to become trainers and successfully complete the mental health staff’s screening process. NEADS will have NEADS professional trainers interview candidates to see if they are actually a good fit to be a part of the program after a prisoner has been identified as a viable applicant for the DTP (Drew et al. , 2013). It is evident that this process leads to biased selection for research purposes, and the implications of this confounding factor will be discussed shortly.
Prisoner trainers are given a puppy to raise as a service dog after being chosen, and they are in charge of doing so. Throughout the 12- to 18-month period, the puppy and the prisoner trainer are together 24 hours a day, seven days a week, barring the puppy’s occasional weekend furlough. To give the puppy experiences outside of the prison, weekend trainers on the outside take the puppy away for a few weekends each month during the weekend furloughs. The puppy travels everywhere with the trainer; the two even share a cell together that contains a dog crate, food, and training supplies for the trainer. Additionally, the cellmate of the prisoner trainer might not participate in the DTP (Drew et al. , 2013).
A NEADS professional trainer works with prisoner trainers and their puppies once a week. The NEADS trainer attends to the puppy’s medical needs during the session, instructs the prisoner trainer on how to train the puppy, keeps track of the puppy’s development, and ensures that the prisoner is a good fit for the program. The 8–10 prisoner dog trainers at MCI/F typically reside in the same wing and have access to both the designated dog training areas in the prison yard as well as the unit’s common areas. A graduation ceremony is held following the successful conclusion of the program (the pairing of the fully trained puppy with a person in need of a service dog). Attendees include those who train prisoners, Department of Corrections personnel involved in training prisoners, NEADS trainers, weekend trainers, the puppy who becomes a service dog, and those who receive service dogs. This provides an opportunity for everyone involved, especially the prisoner trainers, to observe and appreciate the work that goes into training the puppies to become service animals that can help those in need.
FAQ
How many prisons have dog programs California?
Dogs are taken in by Paws for Life from shelters and trained in basic obedience and socialization by inmates at Mule Creek State Prison, the California Medical Facility, and LAC. Paws for Life then finds them forever families.
Why do prisoners get dogs?
They can provide them with motivation, a sense of purpose, and the desire to live a better life. These optimistic thoughts and the accompanying self-assurance enable them to lead better lives after incarceration. However, the advantages of dog programs in prisons go beyond simply assisting those who are detained.
Are prisoners as dog trainers a good idea?
Puppies raised by prisoners have a 70 percent success rate. Puppies Behind Bars, a New York initiative, has had greater success than conventional training. Compared to dogs trained by volunteers in the public, the program had an 87 percent success rate.
What PA prisons have dog programs?
For a long time, prisons have offered dog training programs. When Canine Partners for Life and SCI Cambridge Springs first partnered, it was in 2001 for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. Canines Achieving Miracles in Prison (CAMP)SCIYear StartedCambridge Springs2019.