An experimental trial of a dog-training program in a juvenile detention center

Abstract

Objectives: This research examines the effect of a dog-training program among juveniles ordered to a county juvenile detention facility in a large, Midwestern city. Methods: A pre-test, post-test experimental design was constructed to examine changes in selfesteem, empathy, optimism, pessimism, compassion, and social competence between juveniles who were randomly assigned to the canine-assisted activity program and to the standard conditions of the detention center without access to the program. Two-way and repeated measures ANOVA models are used to assess the differential effect of the program. Results: The dog-training program evaluated in this study did not differentially benefit nor did it harm participants in relation to juveniles who received the standard operating practices and procedures of the detention center. Conclusions: Generalized conclusions about the effectiveness of dog-training programs in secure correctional facilities should not be made from this study. Despite the unique program model structure used in this study, the results demonstrate that once selection effects are mitigated through randomization, the mere exposure to a dog-training program does not translate to improved outcomes. The results raise more questions about the influence of selection effects on reported findings and stimulate inquiry on dog-training program models, research designs used to assess program effects, and the importance of intermediate interventions.

A Quasi-Experimental Study on the Effectiveness of Dutch Cell Dogs in Incarcerated Youth

“…The lack of overall improvement in primary and secondary outcomes as a result of DCD participation is consistent with the results of two RCT’s on DTPs for youth offenders that did not find positive program effects in externalizing behavioral problems ( Seivert et al, 2016 ) and in psychosocial functioning (i.e., self-esteem, empathy, optimism, pessimism, compassion, and social competence; Grommon et al, 2018 ; Seivert et al, 2016 ). This is in contrast with previous research in adults, that did demonstrate positive overall effects for DTPs in primary (i.e., infractions, externalizing behavior problems; e.g., Cooke & Farrington, 2016 ; van Wormer et al., 2017 ) and secondary outcomes, such as social-emotional (e.g., Cooke, 2014 ) and therapeutic (e.g., Fournier et al., 2007 ) functioning.…”

“… Seivert et al (2016) found that anxiety and empathy worsened slightly overtime in both the DTP and active control group; no changes were found in externalizing behavioral problems. Grommon et al (2018) found no change in a variety of psychosocial factors (e.g., self-esteem, empathy, compassion, social competence) after participation in a DTP. Chianese (2009) , on the other hand, concluded that DTPs are a promising intervention for incarcerated adolescent girls, as program participants reoffended at only half the rate compared to girls who had no dog contact.…”

“…Several recommendations for future research can be formulated based on our study, such as examining the long term effects of participating in a DTP: it may be that certain changes are only detectable at a later stage, as social-emotional change generally takes time ( Grommon et al., 2018 ). Therefore, follow-up assessments are important.…”

“…For incarcerated adolescents in particular, positive rehabilitating effects have been reported in studies with a qualitative design (e.g., Leonardi et al, 2017 ; Smith & Smith, 2019 ), suggesting DTPs may be promising for youth offenders. However, controlled studies focusing on DTPs for this group are scarce: the recent meta-analysis ( Duindam et al, 2020 ) included only three studies that were conducted on incarcerated youth (e.g., Chianese, 2009 ; Grommon et al, 2018 ; Seivert et al, 2016 ) and these reported mixed findings about the DTP’s effectiveness. Seivert et al (2016) found that anxiety and empathy worsened slightly overtime in both the DTP and active control group; no changes were found in externalizing behavioral problems.…”

Are We Barking Up the Right Tree? A Meta-Analysis on the Effectiveness of Prison-Based Dog Programs

“…Several types of PBDPs exist (e.g., Grommon et al, 2018; Jasperson, 2013). One of these is the dog-training program (DTP), in which individuals who are incarcerated train asylum dogs, equipping them for adoption (i.e., community service design), or train dogs to become assistance dogs for people with disabilities or mental health problems (i.e., service animal socialization program; Furst, 2006).…”