Pawsitive Solutions: An Overview of Prison Dog Programs in Australia

Abstract

A survey of animal welfare agencies and corrections departments across Australia was conducted to compile a nationwide profile of prison dog programs, wherein inmates train dogs while learning skills to assist their rehabilitation. Most programs operating in 23 prisons in six Australian states were a community service design administered by animal welfare organizations. Inmates benefit through opportunities to train the dogs, give back to society, gain a sense of responsibility, improve self-confidence and social skills, and acquire vocational qualifications to improve job opportunities postrelease. Barriers identified included insufficient funding, limited training opportunities for the dogs, and some staff resistance.

Keywords

prison dog programs human–animal bond correctional treatment programs rehabilitation

Introduction

With an ever-increasing prison population in Australia and almost half (44%) of those inmates reoffending (Productivity Commission, 2016), it is evident that correctional systems are in need of new methods for rehabilitating offenders and deterring reoffending. In June 2016, there were 38,680 incarcerees (sentenced and on remand) in Australia, a rate of 208 inmates per 100,000 of the adult population (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2016). As a result, new approaches to rehabilitation that teach offenders life-enhancing skills need to be considered to challenge and change offender behavior and reduce recidivism (Strimple, 2003).

Incarceration, as a form of punishment, is one of the most popular forms of sentencing. By removing people from the criminogenic influences of the community, the prison promises to provide an environment in which offenders might be reformed. However, although imprisonment may prevent reoffending in the short term through incapacitation, research suggests that in the long term, prison increases rather than decreases crime (Clemmer, 1940). Although the direct causes of this process are debatable, previous studies have concluded that adapting to the prison environment is difficult, and incarcerated persons can suffer long-term consequences that affect their ability to reintegrate into society postrelease and live an offense-free life (Haney, 2006). Few people are completely unchanged or unscathed by the prison experience. As Porporino (1990) asserts,

. . . relationships with family and friends can be severed . . . particular vulnerabilities and inabilities to cope and adapt can come to the fore . . . and . . . the behaviour patterns and attitudes that emerge can take many forms, from deepening social and emotional withdrawal to extremes of aggression and violence (pp. 35-36).

Accordingly, in recent years, there has been a gradual shift toward a more rehabilitative approach that focuses on psychological intervention (Cunneen et al., 2013). One innovation has been the implementation of animal therapy in prisons. The purpose of this article is to report on the findings of a study that examined the nature and extent of prison dog programs (PDPs) currently operating in Australia and explore the effectiveness of these types of programs for rehabilitating offenders.

Pets as Therapy

Animals play an important role in the lives of many people. Dogs especially appear to occupy a unique place in human society (Morey, 2006). The bond humans share with dogs is often considered to be the same as that shared with a family member, friend, partner, or child (Beck & Katcher, 1996). A recent Australian survey on pet ownership found that Australia has one of the highest rates of pet ownership in the world, with dogs being the most commonly owned pet (39%; Animal Health Alliance [AHA], 2013).

Dogs can provide a range of benefits to the lives of humans. Although the physical benefits of dogs are commonly observed (i.e., guide dogs for the blind), the psychological benefits are often overlooked. A source of companionship and support, dogs have been found to prevent ill health, facilitate recovery, and predict certain underlying ailments, such as seizures and cancer (Wells, 2007). More recently, it has been shown that dogs can assist in education, improving reading ability, and encourage motivation and focus among children (Fisher & Cozens, 2014). As a consequence, numerous animal-based therapeutic interventions have been developed and implemented in a number of settings, including prisons.

Prison Dog Programs

Prison dog programs are a rehabilitative tool, which involves a dog being paired with one or more specially selected inmates who train, socialize, and care for the dog for a specified period of time or until the animal is ready to be rehomed or move on to advanced training as an assistance dog for individuals with a disability. In the process, inmates learn skills that assist their rehabilitation. Anecdotally, research suggests that dog programs support many positive physical, psychological, social, behavioral, vocational, and environmental benefits for not only inmates but also correctional staff, the dogs, and society (Britton & Button, 2005; Chianese, 2010; Cooke & Farrington, 2014; Fournier, Geller, & Fortney, 2007; Furst, 2006, 2007a, 2007b; Katcher, Beck, & Levine, 1989; Moneymaker & Strimple, 1991; Turner, 2007; Walsh & Mertin, 1994).

Physiological Benefits

There is a dearth of research regarding the physiological impact PDPs may have on the incarcerated. This may be due to the difficulties researchers can experience in seeking permission from prison authorities to access the prison population. Only one study, conducted over two decades ago at the Lorton Correctional Facility in the United States, attempted to examine the physiological impact pets have on inmates (Katcher et al., 1989). The study consisted of 20 Black, male prisoners whose blood pressure was measured with and without their pet present in a two-treatment crossover design. Results indicated that when participants talked to their pets, there was a significant drop in blood pressure. However, there was no change in blood pressure when they talked to the experimenter with or without their pets (Katcher et al., 1989). In a qualitative study, Furst (2007a) identified a number of physical changes inmates experienced since participating in a prison dog program, including weight loss, increased exercise, more energy, and improved sleep patterns. In addition, one participant reported that she had suffered with diabetes since the age of 12, but after 3 months in the program, her blood sugar as well as her blood pressure had stabilized.

Psychological Benefits

Most studies on PDPs have been conducted in the United States and focus on a program’s psychological impact on inmates—the most reported psychological benefits include a sense of responsibility, self-esteem, patience, and an improved mood. Of these, an improved sense of responsibility is one of the most cited psychological benefits (see Cooke & Farrington, 2014; Currie, 2008; Furst, 2006, 2007a; Mercer, Gibson, & Clayton, 2015). Caring for an animal imposes routines and schedules (Mercer et al., 2015). Program participants are required to feed, water, groom, and train the dogs. Learning to take on responsibility is a life skill and can assist inmates in a variety of ways, including in their roles as parents (Turner, 2007).

Patience is another commonly identified benefit (Britton & Button, 2005; Currie, 2008; Furst, 2007a; Merriam-Arduini, 2000). Currie (2008) found more than one third (37%) of current and former U.S. inmate PDP participants reporting an increase in patience, with most acknowledging that teaching a dog a command until it masters it requires a considerable amount of patience. An evaluation of Project Pooch at an Oregon youth facility also documented that patience was a necessary part of teaching the dog. In this study, enrollees were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how much they changed. For increased patience, the average rating was 8.5 out of 10 (Merriam-Arduini, 2000).

Other positive psychological outcomes include improvements in inmates’ levels of depression, anxiety, and stress (Britton & Button, 2005; Furst, 2007b; Merriam-Arduini, 2000; Mulcahy, 2011; Walsh & Mertin, 1994); building trust (Furst, 2007a; Mercer et al., 2015); and increases in self-control (Cooke & Farrington, 2014), self-confidence (Furst, 2007a), and self-esteem (Cooke & Farrington, 2014; Currie, 2008; Mulcahy, 2011; Turner, 2007).

Socialization Benefits

Improved social intelligence (i.e., the ability to interpret verbal communication from others and sensitivity to norms governing appropriate social behavior) is a significant benefit of PDPs (Britton & Button, 2005; Cooke & Farrington, 2014; Fournier et al., 2007; Mulcahy, 2011). In some studies, there were improvements in the way program participants relate to other inmates; in others, positive changes in the relationship between inmates and correctional staffs were detected. Mulcahy (2011, p. 85) describes the relationship between inmate trainers as “uncharacteristically cooperative, indicating a sense of teamwork and collaborative achievement.” Similarly, Mercer et al. (2015) noted that the dog program improved communication skills and the ability to relate to and work with others. Turner (2007) also found that for both inmates and staff, dogs in the program changed the context of their interactions. The dogs were described as acting as mediators between inmates and staff—the topic of conversations, which enhanced rapport. Britton and Button (2007, p. 14) further emphasize that the presence of the dogs improves inmate-staff relationships by “softening” a prison officer’s often authoritative stance and altering inmates’ perceptions of correctional officers.

Vocational and Educational Benefits

Prison dog programs offer individuals the opportunity to learn skills and gain qualifications that lead to increased educational and vocational opportunities postrelease (Britton & Button, 2007; Currie, 2008; Turner, 2007). PDPs teach basic skills related to obtaining and keeping a job, including personal responsibility, dedication, and respect (Furst, 2006). Many programs offer enrollees a career path to obtain qualifications in animal studies, increasing employment opportunities postrelease (Currie, 2008). For others, success in the program leads to roles as tutors and mentors to new program recruits. For some, this promotes skill development in management and administration (Harkrader, Burke, & Owen, 2004).

Environmental Benefits

Prison dog programs also have a positive impact on the prison environment. Turner (2007) and Britton and Button (2007) illustrate that having dogs in a prison calms and normalizes the prison environment. As one participant reported in Turner (2007),

Go to a dorm that ain’t, that don’t have dogs in it, it’s got more tension in it. And if you go into a dorm that’s got the dogs in it . . . it ain’t got very much tension. It’s very laid back. Everybody’s thinkin’ they’re at home or something . . . (p. 42)

Notably, prison dog programs provide inmate participants a degree of freedom that is not typical of prison life (Britton & Button, 2005; Turner, 2007). Respondents in Turner’s (2007) study reported this to be one of their main motivations for program involvement—inmates are free to train their dogs from morning to evening and have additional access to a fenced dog yard and agility course. Britton and Button (2005) had similar conclusions, although the authors hypothesized that this calming effect was the result of the social control exerted by the program rather than the impact of the dogs. Furthermore, inmates not participating in the program (nontrainers) also benefited, with 33% of nontrainers indicating a positive change in the prison environment as a result of the dog program.

Impact on Inmate Behavior

Research that examined inmate misconduct among those enrolled in prison dog programs has produced mixed findings. Whereas some studies show a reduction in the number of institutional infractions among PDP participants (Britton & Button, 2005; Currie, 2008; Turner, 2007), others could not document any statistical difference in the number or severity of misconduct reports between those who kept pets and those who did not (Britton & Button, 2007; Katcher et al., 1989). Fournier et al. (2007) assessed the impact prison dog programs had on criminal behavior at a Virginia minimum security male prison. There was a statistically significant reduction in the frequency of institutional infractions for inmates working in a prison dog program compared with a control group. Some researchers suggest that the threat of losing a place in the program or not being able to participate is a “powerful disincentive to misbehavior” (Britton & Button, 2007, p. 11; see also Currie, 2008). Alternatively, a respondent in Turner’s (2007) investigation maintained that the dogs reduce stress levels, explaining the subsequent reduction in the number of conduct reports.

The Impact on Recidivism

Furst (2007b) conducted interviews with prison administrators and program directors of the affiliated animal welfare organization and found that in the 4- to 5-year period since release, none of the program participants had recidivated. However, caution should be used in interpreting these results, as data were collected anecdotally from prison officials. It is possible that the zero recidivism rate was due to the relocation of an offender. As such, additional quantitative studies are needed to examine whether there is a causal relationship between prison dog programs and recidivism.

Merriam-Arduini (2000) evaluated “Project Pooch,” a program that pairs incarcerated juvenile offenders with shelter dogs. There was a zero recidivism rate for the 89 youth who were released during the study period. Chianese (2010) examined the impact of the program “New Leash on Life” on the recidivism rates of female offender enrollees. A secondary analysis of enrollees’ probation department records indicated that they had reoffended at half the rate of nonparticipants.

Rationale for the Present Study

The above review showed the paucity of research on prison dog programming. This is particularly the case in Australia where there is a need to evaluate program structure, inmate and staff benefits, and program impact on rates of recidivism. Accordingly, the current study sought to address this gap by conducting a survey of staff of the correctional service departments in each Australian state and territory, as well as the animal welfare agencies that are external PDP facilitators. The aim was to compile a national profile of current program delivery in Australian prisons.

Method

The goal of the survey was to gather information on program characteristics—including the program style, the year implemented, the number of participants, eligibility criteria, the aims of each program, and how successful the programs are at achieving these goals.

Prison Dog Programs in Australia

The first documented prison dog program in Australia began in 1974 at the Beechworth Training Prison in Victoria (VIC; Walsh & Mertin, 1994). This program placed puppies with low security inmates who were responsible for kennel hygiene, grooming, feeding, exercise, and socialization until the animals were ready to move to advanced guide dog training. Prison dog programs have been in operation in all six Australian states and the Northern Territory (NT). There are three main facilitators of Australian prison dog programs: (a) Assistance Dogs Australia (ADA); (b) Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), and (c) Greyhound Racing. Other PDPs are run by a number of smaller animal welfare organizations, local pounds, and rescue shelters, including Snowy Mountain Animal Rescue Team (SMART), Dogs Home of Tasmania, Geraldton Dog Rescue, and Lort Smith Animal Hospital.

There are a number of program design models used in Australia. Table 1 provides an outline of the design models.

Table 1.

Description of PDP Models.

Program design	Description
Community service	Inmate trainers train and care for abandoned or unwanted animals, which are then adopted out to the community
Service animal socialization	Labrador puppies are raised and trained to become assistance dogs for people with physical or mental disability
Visitation	Companion animals are brought into correctional facility by volunteers and their pet dogs
Vocational	Inmate trainers are trained and certified in animal studies or animal grooming handling and care
Multimodal	A mix of two programs or more. Usually includes the vocational model and community service or service animal socialization models

Source. Adapted from Furst (2006).

Note. PDP = prison dog programs.

The Sample Study

At time of study, there were 94 prisons in Australia, including 85 government-operated prisons and nine privately operated prisons. Jurisdictionally, there were 32 prisons in New South Wales (NSW; two private), 13 in VIC (two private), 13 in Queensland (QLD; two private), 16 in Western Australia (WA; two private), nine in South Australia (SA; one private), five in Tasmania (TAS), one in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), and five in the NT (Productivity Commission, 2016).

Procedure

Prior to commencing the study, ethical clearance was obtained from the University of New England’s Ethics Committee. Permission was sought from the head office of each state and territories corrections departments to survey prison staff involved in PDPs. Each of the 94 prisons was then contacted to determine whether they facilitated a prison dog program and whether staff would be willing to take part in the survey. Twenty-three prisons in six of Australia’s states were identified, five in NSW, five in VIC, four in QLD, seven in WA, one in SA, and one in TAS. Forty-six potential participants across the 23 prisons were identified. Information was also sought from the prisons on the animal welfare organizations involved in facilitating the PDPs; there were eight different groups identified.

Each was then contacted by phone or email and asked to enroll in the research. Those who agreed were then emailed a copy of the survey along with a cover letter and study information, their rights concerning participation in the study, and assurance of confidentiality. In addition, the researcher explained that informed consent was implicit through completion of the survey. A follow-up email was sent 2 months after initial contact to increase response rates. A total of 26 surveys were returned; 18 from representatives of animal welfare organizations and eight from corrections staff, a 56% response rate.

The Survey

The corrections departments staff survey gathered basic information on program characteristics—the name of the program, year implemented, number of participants, eligibility criteria, and so forth. A second survey for external facilitators of prison dog programs was sent to staff from organizations such as the RSPCA, ADA, and Greyhound Racing Australia. This survey examined the types of programs, the aims of each program, and how successful the programs were at reaching these goals. Each survey was adapted and developed for Australian conditions based on a survey used by Furst (2006) in a U.S. nationwide survey that examined prison animal program operations in the United States. To verify that the questions elicited the intended data, the survey was piloted on five participants involved in PDPs.

Data Analysis

This study incorporated a qualitative research design based on a grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). Once gathered, data were analyzed using the process employed by Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014). First, all collected data were reviewed to gain a comprehensive understanding of participants’ experiences. Then, the data were reduced into meaningful units by comparing and contrasting the material to “identify similar phrases, relationships between variables, patterns, themes, categories, distinct differences between subgroups, and common sequences” (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014, p. 12). The reduced data were subsequently organized through text, diagrams, charts, and matrixes to extrapolate systematic patterns and interrelationships.

Results

At the time of writing (2016), 18 prisons reported conducting a dog program in six Australian states: five in VIC, four in WA, four in QLD, three in NSW, and one each in SA and TAS. The NT and ACT do not provide dog programs. WA has facilitated the most number of dog programs, with four programs currently operating. SA and TAS had the least with each state running only one program. The majority of dog programs were established after 2010 (N = 14). The first PDP was implemented in 2000 and the last implemented in May 2016.

Most respondents (N = 16) reported an association with a not-for-profit animal welfare organization. Local council pounds and rescue centers were the most common associations (N = 7). These programs assist abandoned and unwanted dogs by taking them out of the shelter environment, retraining and resocializing them in an attempt to increase their chances of adoption. Greyhound Racing was the second most popular partnership with four prison affiliations: three in VIC and one in SA. PDPs facilitated by Greyhound Racing focus on retraining and resocializing ex-racing greyhounds, so that they can be adopted out as family pets through the Greyhounds as Pets (GAP) program. RSPCA and ADA both administered two programs. PDPs facilitated by the RSPCA in NSW and QLD involve inmates resocializing and retraining unwanted or abandoned dogs from the RSPCA. The dogs receive basic care and training by approved offenders, and once a dog responds well to the program, the RSPCA arranges for the dog to be adopted as a well-behaved pet. ADA operates two programs, one in QLD and another in WA. These programs raise (and sometimes train) Labradors to assist people with independence. Animal Welfare League Queensland facilitates one PDP in QLD, and the two remaining programs rely on members of the public to volunteer with their pet dogs.

The degree of responsibility animal welfare staff have for administering the program varies between programs. In most (N = 16), the associated animal welfare organization provides the dogs (either free or at minimal cost) and teaches the inmates how to care for and train the dogs (N = 14). Typically, trainers visit the prison at least once a week to work with the prisoners and their dogs throughout the duration of the program (N= 8).

Program Design

The most common program design used is the community service model, which has been implemented at seven prison sites in Australia, including two each in WA and QLD, and one each in NSW, VIC, TAS, and SA. In this model, lost, abandoned, or unwanted dogs are trained, socialized, and cared for by the inmates. Once the dogs are rehabilitated, they are then adopted and rehomed by members of the community. The second most frequent program design is the multimodel program (N = 5). Based on a community service design, this model also incorporates a vocational element. Multimodel programs have been implemented in two NSW prisons, two VIC prisons, and one SA prison. The remaining programs are service animal socialization (N = 3), visitation (one), and pet therapy (one) models.

The majority of dog programs (N = 13) are ongoing, providing a rolling intake of inmates and dogs, where inmates remain on the program until they are to be released from prison and the dogs remain until they are rehomed. The survey revealed that the majority of dogs remain until rehomed (N = 9), whereas in four other sites, the length of stay for the dogs varied from 1 hr to 12 months.

The amount of time inmates spent with their dog was dependent on whether the prison had purpose-built kennel facilities for the dog to reside at night. The findings revealed eight prisons provided purpose-built kennels for the dogs, six allow the dogs to sleep with their inmate handlers in housing-type accommodations or prison cells, and one provided no accommodations for the dogs as they resided outside the prison. The widespread variability of prison dog programs highlights a need to evaluate these programs and develop a best practices model to ensure uniformity and maximize program success.

Preparticipation

Eight of the nine corrections staff participants reported implementing screening procedures for inmates prior to participation. This included conducting interviews with them to ascertain their suitability for the program (N = 7), placing inmates on probation within the program (N = 1), taking into consideration crimes committed (N = 8), time until release (N = 4), security level of the inmate (N = 2), and personality (N = 1).

In Australia, to be considered for parole, inmates are required to be involved in prison programming. However, the growth in prison populations and the small number of available programs with restrictive selection criteria serve to limit access. For example, the Victorian Ombudsman (2015) found that a significant number of incarcerees had not undergone risk and needs assessments and that there was a backlog dating to 2010. Of those who were deemed suitable for therapeutic intervention, 44% had been waiting longer than 6 months. As prison programs are intended to enhance an individual’s reentry reintegration and reduce reoffending, it is desirable to implement innovative programs such as PDPs and provide greater access.

Postparticipation

The survey showed that more than 827 inmates have trained more than 12,258 dogs across Australia since 2006. Of these, new homes were sought for approximately 12,233 dogs, and homes were found for 1,725 (59%). The rest of the dogs remained in the program until they were adopted, returned to the shelter for adoption, or were cared for by volunteers until permanently rehomed. QLD has rehomed the most number of dogs (N = 1,083), contributing to more than half of the rehomed population (62%), followed by NSW with 364 (21%) and VIC with 219 (12%). QLD has rehomed the largest proportion of all dogs trained in the programs along with TAS and SA (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Number of dogs rehomed by state.

Of the 827 inmates who have participated in an Australian PDP since 2006, one third (33%) were housed in a QLD prison, 27% in VIC, 21% in WA, 13% in NSW, 4% in TAS, and 4% in SA. Although it appears that QLD and VIC offer the most opportunity for PDP participation, by comparing data with maximum capacity ratings, WA seems to offer the most opportunity for inmates to participate in a PDP, with 36% (in prisons with PDPs) participating in a PDP (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Number of prisoners participating in PDPs by state.

The majority of incarcerated offenders exit the program on release from prison (N = 10). Although some research suggests PDPs reduce recidivism, there are no reliable postrelease data examining their impact on reoffending. Although anecdotal accounts of PDPs claim no recidivism among former offenders who participated in a PDP (Furst, 2007b; Merriam-Arduini, 2000), this may not necessarily be a true indicator. For example, they may have reoffended in another jurisdiction. This, again, builds the case for better research designs to measure the impact of PDPs on reoffending and postrelease employment prospects.

Funding

Seventeen programs (94%) have received private donations from members of the public to assist in covering program operation costs (excluding the wages of trainers). These costs include feeding the dogs, veterinary fees, training equipment, and kennel facilities. Eight programs are fully funded by donations, seven are funded by donations and the affiliated welfare organization, and two are partially funded by animal welfare organization and the related state corrective services department. Programs partially funded also rely on money received from corrective services (N = 2) and dog adoption fees (N = 2). The remaining program, a visitation program, relies on volunteers and their dogs. Sources of donations included private donations from the general public, as well as those from associated animal welfare organizations.

Program Benefits

There were four major and several minor themes drawn from the participants’ views on the benefits of PDPs. The majority (N = 12) reported that prison dog programs were an altruistic activity that provided an opportunity for inmates to help dogs and give back to society. The second most reported benefit was the capacity for prison dog programs to foster personal development skills, notably inmates’ sense of responsibility (N = 9) and confidence/self-esteem (N = 5). Third, developing, improving, and practicing social skills was another theme (N = 8). Finally, two respondents offered that prison dog programs were an opportunity for learning additional vocational skills that would increase job opportunities postrelease.

Altruism

Altruism is defined as a voluntary and intentional act performed with the primary goal of benefiting another being. The ultimate goal of altruism is to increase another’s welfare (Leeds, 1963). A sense of satisfaction from altruistic activities was evident in comments from several of the respondents who viewed PDPs as a positive outcome for the dogs. One participant noted that “the best thing about the program is that we are helping to rehome animals that have been saved from death row at the pound.” Similarly, other participants indicated that the programs

. . . provide the opportunity [for inmates] to give back to the community by helping dogs that would otherwise be euthanized.

. . . provide a positive outcome for greyhounds to re-train who might otherwise be destroyed.

. . . give the dogs another opportunity or second chance at being housed; avoiding euthanasia.

. . . meet a community need as each dog has behaviour problems and has been surrendered . . . so we create an opportunity for sentenced prisoners . . . to give back to their community.

Although there are no national statistics on the number of surrendered and abandoned dogs in Australia, the Pet Industry Association of Australia (PIAA; 2012) applied key indicators of NSW data to the total known dog population and estimated that 245,783 dogs are unwanted each year in Australia; 44,650 are euthanized due to a lack of room in adoption shelters. PDPs can, thus, relieve the pressure placed on shelters by providing a temporary home for the dogs. PDPs also increase the adoptability of the dogs through regular training and socialization, reducing the number of dogs who are euthanized.

Furthermore, several who completed the survey added that in addition to saving dogs and increasing their chances of rehoming, PDPs can give the dogs “a break from the stress of the shelter.” One explained how prison dog programs can increase a dog’s adoption chances:

. . . away from the shelter, the dogs receive a high level of attention and follow a training program devised by our behaviour specialists until they are assessed as ready to be rehomed.

Another stated,

The six kennels we have act as foster homes for those dogs thus extending our foster network. Whilst officially kennels, the dogs undertake activities that help them transition into pet life on the outside including learning appropriate leash manners and getting used to being inside (inmates accommodation), which simulates a normal home environment.

Research shows that animal shelters are stressful environments that can have a negative impact on a dog’s health and behavior. This, in turn, can affect the likelihood of rehoming (Wells, Graham, & Hepper, 2002). PDPs provide respite for overly stimulated dogs, and through training, prisoners can increase a dogs’ positive behaviors and chances of rehoming.

Personal Development

The majority of participants (N = 9) pointed out that working with the dogs improved an inmate’s sense of responsibility. Caring for the dogs helps inmate trainers learn to give of themselves. As part of the programs, inmates are required to feed, water, groom, and train their dog. Furthermore, some programs required inmates to take on additional administrative responsibilities. In addition, four respondents saw an increase in inmates’ confidence and self-esteem. One described the benefits:

. . . Watching the dogs and the inmates grow with confidence. Getting to know the inmates and teaching them other life skills like nurturing, which is something they all agree that they lack. Teaching responsibility and watching those who had no focus on life, begin to show interest in life . . .

The findings of responsibility and confidence were noted by others:

. . . the fact they are responsible for something else than themselves makes them not as selfish and to start thinking of other people.

The prisoners have something to look after other than themselves and this could be a first for some prisoners.

It’s great to see the confidence building and team work between the women . . .

It has helped the inmates with confidence and the fact they are responsible for something else than themselves.

Our program also runs psycho-educational sessions alongside the dog-training which offers support around issues that might have been part of the offending behaviour such as boundaries, grief and loss, self-esteem, relationships and so on. This has proven to be as successful as the hands on sessions and have in several instances provided the women with eye opening moments during the program.

These findings replicate previous studies that show PDPs to be supportive of inmates’ learning skills that they otherwise may not have acquired (Britton & Button, 2005; Currie, 2008; Furst, 2006; Strimple, 2003; Turner, 2007). Furthermore, as offenders are more socially disadvantaged than the general population, with many unemployed, undereducated, and/or suffering with a mental disorder (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2015), prison life skills programming is important for potentially reducing the prison population and the costs of incarceration to society. There is clearly a need for more PDP research to document success, which, in turn, may provide support for additional funding and program implementation.

Social Skills

In the current study, PDPs were perceived to break down barriers between inmates and correctional staff. Research has shown that the relationship between correctional staff and inmates is a negative one (Britton & Button, 2005; Marston & Bennett, 2003), often characterized by an “us and them” mentality. One respondent recounted the impact the program had on an inmate handler:

We had an inmate here that had been in custody for about 16 years. He didn’t speak to staff as a rule and avoided eye contact with us. He entered the program and the change was amazing . . . he helped train four dogs whilst here and it really helped him come out of his shell. I would walk with him to hand over the dogs to their new owners and he would always return shedding a tear. By the time he was discharged, he was talking freely with staff and was a lot more confident in himself. I really believe if he hadn’t been in this program he would have been discharged from custody a different person.

In addition, prison dog programs also facilitate relationships between inmates. According to two participants,

. . . it brings inmates together that without the program wouldn’t normally talk or affiliate with each other.

It’s great to see the confidence building and team work between the women and increased capability to communicate.

Again, these results echo other studies that found PDPs can improve inmate–staff relationships, inmate relationships, and familial relationships outside the prison (Furst, 2007a; Mulcahy, 2011; Turner, 2007). McNicholas and Collis (2000) suggest that the dogs act as an icebreaker, creating a safe and neutral topic of conversation. One may question whether the formation of human–dog relationships decreases the number of gang or other dysfunctional relationships forms in prison. Future research could address whether the dogs provide supportive social companionship to inmates. Does this bonding reduce the need or desire for human–human relationships?

Vocational Development

There is a perception that PDPs provide inmates with the opportunity to acquire job-ready skills and qualifications. Of the 19 programs identified in this study, three offer inmates nationally recognized qualifications in animal studies, with one offering a certificate of participation. Moreover, four participants knew of former inmates working with animals in the community since being released. The theme of vocational development is expressed in the following comments:

Combined with the Certificate II in Animal Studies [the program] can provide prisoners with increased employment options for release.

. . . watching those who had no focus on life, begin to show interest in life and the job opportunities and options that may be available to them after prison and completing our program.

. . . gives inmates an opportunity to learn pet industry-related vocational skills which can help them find employment after their release from custody. They complete nationally recognised qualifications to enable them to train, exercise and care for dogs rescued by RSPCA NSW.

These same observations have been cited in other studies—PDPs teach inmates skills for obtaining and retaining employment. These include a positive work ethic, dedication, and responsibility, and determination for attaining certification from a recognized educational institution (Currie, 2008; Furst, 2006; Harkrader et al., 2004; Strimple, 2003).

Gaps in Service Provision

Eleven study participants noted the need for PDP improvement in design, implementation, and operation. Notable was the need for additional resources, more training opportunities for the dogs, and greater prison officer support.

Additional Resources

Seven participants thought that more resources were necessary for the program to excel. In addition to funding resources (N = 7), more staff (and/or volunteers), and additional program work hours (N = 3) were suggested. For some, it was to expand the program; for others, it was to provide better facilities or employ qualified dog trainers.

We would love to expand the program but there are no funds available to do this.

. . . with more money the program could be expanded to offer places for more dogs, the program could also run for more than 6 weeks . . . [It] could include hydro bath, grooming facilities and so on.

. . . it’s a resource issue . . . I would like to get a [program] extension in the women’s prison but the infrastructure would need to be built first (e.g. an outside dedicated area for kennels, washing, feeding).

Would love to have a formal trainer . . . enter the prison on a regular basis to formalise and oversee basic training of the greyhounds to see better outcomes . . . and better teach the inmates.

As reported above, the majority of PDPs rely on private donations. However, there are a number that are partially funded by corrective services. Further investigation is needed to identify best practices for program design: Should corrective services fund or partially subsidize these programs? Alternatively, should the prison manage a local pound and offer services to the public (i.e., grooming, dog handling) to earn income for the PDP and the prison?

Additional Training Opportunities for the Dogs

Four respondents observed that there was often a lack of socialization for the dogs, suggesting additional training opportunities outside of the prison would be beneficial. According to Dennison (2005) socialization

. . . is about exposing [a dog] gradually and systematically to different types of people, places, things, surfaces, noises, touch (from you and strangers), other dogs, and other species of animals . . . [Its] all about setting the dog up for success—introducing her to each new situation in such a manner that she won’t be afraid. (p. 124)

In the prison environment, the opportunities to socialize the dogs are limited. Two study participants recognized this lack of opportunity for the dogs to experience a variety of situations as a program limitation. A lack of socialization can result in a timid dog that is afraid of the unknown. As noted above, the majority of PDPs source the dogs through animal shelters. Research has shown that many of these dogs already have negative experiences and associations, and their behavior is often a primary reason for surrender management. One respondent indicated they addressed problems of socialization by sending the dogs to foster care (Diesel, Pfeiffer, & Brodbel, 2008). Another solution was having an inmate handler take each dog for a walk outside of the prison to enhance socialization opportunities. This approach was found in a number of previous sites that also granted special permission to certain inmates for outside-the-prison dog trips to acclimate them to different environments (Walsh & Mertin, 1994). However, as another observed, prisons are in “relatively remote locations,” and as such “community access into varied environments is difficult.” Despite this, PDPs are still considered a better alternative to the local pound or animal shelter, with dogs in PDPs exhibiting fewer negative behaviors than those left in the shelter (Hennessy, Morris, & Linden, 2006).

Additional Support From Prison Officers

The need for more support from prison officers was identified by four participants. One expressed the opinion that the officers should become more involved and show their support for the program. Another noted that “better communication” and “clear shared goal setting” between representatives of animal welfare organizations and corrections staff were desirable. Furst (2006) and Fournier et al. (2007) similarly found that staff resistance was one of the most negative aspects of PDPs. As much research reveals, the relationship between correctional officers and inmates is characterized by a lack of respect and mutual trust (Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo, 1973). Although the reason for this opposition remains unexamined, punitive ideologies and strategies may be favored by correctional staff. As one participant noted,

Unfortunately some staff believe that the inmates don’t deserve the opportunity to work with the dogs . . .

To overcome this resistance, future research could examine the staff–inmate relationship and officer opposition to PDPs. Information sessions for prison staff on the benefits of PDPs may be a practical way to address negative perceptions.

Summary and Conclusion

The major contribution of this national survey of prisons and animal welfare agencies is a profile of the number and characteristics of PDPs operating in Australia. The programs in all six Australian states were most commonly a community service design, with pounds and local rescue centers providing the dogs. Most were established after 2010, most implement screening procedures prior to participation and are predominantly funded by private donations. Survey respondents overwhelmingly regard these programs as positive, with benefits identified under four themes: altruism, personal development, social, and vocational skills. The most commonly cited negative aspects were insufficient funding, limited training opportunities for the dogs, and resistance from prison staff.

The findings of this study recommend a number of avenues for future investigations. These include the need to conduct research with a larger sample across various populations, including inmates, prison staff, program facilitators, and dog trainers to provide a more objective evaluation of PDPs. An examination of the relationship between correctional staff and inmates would identify the extent to which staff attitudes affect the implementation and success of the program. Program overviews would also benefit from an assessment of the costs of PDPs and an exploration of ways in which they can be funded. Development of a program logic model would ensure all PDPs are fundamentally the same in design, approach, and delivery. Furthermore, it would be useful to quantitatively explore the impact of PDPs on the unwanted dog population and euthanasia rates. Overall, there is a need for more research to design, implement, and evaluate postrelease dog programs to support reentry employment for those handlers trained in prison. Finally, a study of the impact of human–dog relationships on human–human relationships would be important work to conduct.

Conclusion

The notion of prison as an effective method of crime control is becoming increasingly questionable. As such, there has been a gradual shift toward community corrections and refocusing on more rehabilitative and reformative measures. The main objective of this study’s national survey was to identify the nature and extent of dog programs currently being administered in Australian prisons. Despite the increase in this innovative programming, there has been very little research conducted on its effectiveness for prisoner rehabilitation. Future study is recommended to assess PDP quality and identify and develop best practices to inform future design, development, and implementation. “Given all that is wrong with our prisons, the possibility of prison dog programs being identified as reliable and effective treatment is alluring” (Furst, 2006, p. 425). Through pairing offenders and dogs, ex-offenders are given the opportunity to develop life-enhancing skills and the potential for successful community reentry and reintegration.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Lauren Humby graduated with a PhD in criminology, at the University of New England, New South Wales (NSW), Australia in 2017. Her thesis examined the therapeutic benefits of dog programs operating in Australian prisons.

Elaine Barclay, PhD, is associate professor in criminology, University of New England, NSW, Australia. She has 25 years of research focusing on crime and justice in rural areas.

References

Animal Health Alliance. (2013). Pet ownership in Australia. Retrieved from http://animalmedicinesaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Pet-Ownership-in-Australia-2013-Summary-ONLINE-VER.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics (Producer). (2016). Corrective services Australia (No. 4512.0). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4512.0

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2015). The health of Australia’s prisoners 2015. Retrieved from http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129553527

Beck

A. M.

Katcher

A. H.

(1996). Between pets and people: The importance of animal companionship. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Britton

D. M.

Button

A. L.

(2005). Prison pups: Assessing the effects of dog training programs in correctional facilities. Journal of Family Social Work, 9, 79-95.

Britton

D. M.

Button

A. L.

(2007). This isn’t about us: Benefits of dog training programs in a women’s prison. In Miller

S. L.

(Ed.), Criminal Justice Research and Practice: Diverse Voices from the Field (pp. 195-209). Boston, Massachusetts: Northeastern University Press.

Chianese

N. M.

(2010). Girls, jails, and puppy dog tails: An evaluation of the New Leash on Life Program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Fullerton: California State University.

Clemmer

(1940). The prison community. Boston, MA: Christopher Publishing House.

Cooke

B. J.

Farrington

D. P.

(2014). Perceived effects of dog-training programmes in correctional settings. Journal of Forensic Practice, 16, 171-183.

10.

Cunneen

Baldry

Brown

Schwartz

Steel

(2013). Hyperincarceration and penal culture: The revival of the prison. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

11.

Currie

N. S.

(2008). A case study of incarcerated males participating in a canine training program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University). Retrieved from http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2097/1028/NikkiCurrie2008.pdf

12.

Dennison

(2005). Complete idiot’s guide to positive dog training. New York, NY: Alpha.

13.

Diesel

Pfeiffer

D. U.

Brodbel

(2008). Factors affecting the success of rehoming dogs in the UK during 2005. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 84, 228-241.

14.

Fisher

B. J.

Cozens

(2014). The BaRK (Building Reading Confidence for Kids) canine assisted reading program: One child’s experience. Literacy Learning: The Middle Years, 22(1), 70.

15.

Fournier

A. K.

Geller

E. S.

Fortney

E. V.

(2007). Human-animal interaction in a prison setting: Impact on criminal behavior, treatment progress, and social skills. Behavior and Social Issues, 16, 89-105.

16.

Furst

(2006). Prison-based animal programs: A national survey. The Prison Journal, 86, 407-430.

17.

Furst

(2007a). Prison-based animal programs: Self-reported effect of participation and implications for desistance. Prison Service Journal, 172, 38-44.

18.

Furst

(2007b). Without words to get in the way: Symbolic interaction in prison-based animal programs. Qualitative Sociology Review, 3, 96-109.

19.

Haney

(2006). The wages of prison overcrowding: Harmful psychological consequences and dysfunctional correctional reactions. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 22, 265-293.

20.

Haney

Banks

Zimbardo

P. G.

(1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal of Criminology & Penology, 1, 69-97.

21.

Harkrader

Burke

T. W.

Owen

S. S.

(2004). Pound puppies: The rehabilitative uses of dogs in correctional facilities. Corrections Today, 66, 74-80.

22.

Hennessy

M. B.

Morris

Linden

(2006). Evaluation of the effects of a socialization program in a prison on behavior and pituitary–adrenal hormone levels of shelter dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 99, 157-171.

23.

Katcher

A. H.

Beck

A. M.

Levine

(1989). Evaluation of a pet program in prison: The PAL project at Lorton. Antrhozoos, 2, 175-180.

24.

Leeds

(1963). Altruism and the norm of giving. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 9, 229-260.

25.

Marston

Bennett

P. C.

(2003). Reforming the bond - Towards sucessful canine adoption. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 83, 227-245.

26.

McNicholas

Collis

G. M.

(2000). Dogs as catalysts for social interactions: Robustness of the effect. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 61-70.

27.

Mercer

Gibson

Clayton

(2015). The therapeutic potential of a prison-based animal programme in the UK. Journal of Forensic Practice, 17, 43-54.

28.

Merriam-Arduini

(2000). Evaluation of an experimental program designed to have a positive effect on adjudicated violent, incarcerated male juveniles age 12-25 in the state of Oregon (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University). Retrieved from http://www.worldcat.org/title/evaluation-of-an-experimental-program-designed-to-have-a-positive-effect-on-adjudicated-violent-incarcerated-male-juveniles-age-12-25-in-the-state-of-oregon/oclc/320264164

29.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldana

(2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.

30.

Moneymaker

J. M.

Strimple

E. O.

(1991). Animals and inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 16, 133-152.

31.

Morey

D. F.

(2006). Burying key evidence: The social bond between dogs and people. Journal of Archaeological Science, 33, 158-175.

32.

Mulcahy

(2011). Companions on the inside: Pet ownership and the introduction of a prison dog program at Darling Downs Correctional Centre (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland). Retrieved from http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:262536

33.

Pet Industry Association of Australia. (2012). PIAA dogs lifetime guarantee policy on dog traceability & rehoming research, analysis and statistics. Retrieved from https://nadiasdailyjournal.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/piaa-documentary-source.pdf

34.

Porporino

F. J.

(1990). Differences in response to long-term imprisonment: Implications for the management of long-term offenders. The Prison Journal, 70, 35-45.

35.

Productivity Commission. (2016). Report on government services 2016. Retrieved from http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2016/justice

36.

Strauss

Corbin

(1994). Grounded Theory methodology: An overview, In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y.S.

, (Eds): Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1-18). London: Sage.

37.

Strimple

E. O.

(2003). A history of prison inmate-animal interaction programs. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 70-78.

38.

Turner

W. G.

(2007). Experiences of offenders in a prison canine program. Federal Probation, 71, 38-43.

39.

Victorian Ombudsman. (2015). Investigation into the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners in Victoria. Available at: https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/getattachment/280f4a06-5927-4221-bf64-d884ba6abaf9

40.

Walsh

P. G.

Mertin

P. G.

(1994). The training of pets as therapy dogs in a women’s prison: A pilot study. Anthrozoos, 7, 124-128.

41.

Wells

D. L.

(2007). Domestic dogs and human health: An overview. British Journal of Health Psychology, 12, 145-156.

42.

Wells

D. L.

Graham

Hepper

P. G.

(2002). The influence of length of time in a rescue shelter on the behaviour of kennelled dogs. Animal Welfare, 11, 317-325.