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

• Author: Jessica J. Asscher,Hanneke E. Creemers,Hanne M. Duindam,Geert Jan J. M. Stams,Machteld Hoeve
• Published date: 01 June 2020
• Date: 01 June 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820909875
• Subject Matter: Literature Review

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, Vol. 47, No. 6, June 2020, 749 –767.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820909875

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

749

ARE WE BARKING UP THE RIGHT TREE?

A Meta-Analysis on the Effectiveness of Prison-Based

Dog Programs

HANNE M. DUINDAM

University of Amsterdam

JESSICA J. ASSCHER

University of Amsterdam

Utrecht University

MACHTELD HOEVE

GEERT JAN J. M. STAMS

HANNEKE E. CREEMERS

University of Amsterdam

Prison-based Dog Programs (PBDPs) are used in correctional facilities to decrease recidivism and improve social-emotional

functioning. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide an overview of the effectiveness of PBDPs, accounting for the

potential influence of study, program, and sample characteristics through moderator analyses. We included 11 manuscripts,

seven published and four unpublished, yielding 93 effect sizes (N = 3,013). Eight studies were quasi-experimental and three

were randomized controlled trials. The overall effect of PBDPs was significant and small (d = 0.153, 95% confidence inter-

val [CI] = [0.026, 0.281]), and may have been somewhat inflated by possible publication bias, while study quality was

generally low. Moderator analyses showed that the overall effect was largely driven by the small-to-medium effect of PBDPs

on recidivism (d = 0.414, 95% CI = [0.153, 0.676]). It is therefore concluded that PBDPs may be a promising intervention

to reduce recidivism, although more (robust) research is needed.

Keywords: Animal-Assisted Intervention; correctional facilities; multi-level meta-analysis; Prison-based Dog Programs;

primary and secondary outcomes

INTRODUCTION

A variety of intervention and diversion programs exist in correctional facilities that

aim to reduce criminal recidivism, such as vocational training, education programs, sub-

stance abuse interventions, and treatment of mental health problems (Tripodi et al.,

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors thank Janneke Staaks and Emmeke Kooistra for their assistance.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Hanne M. Duindam, Forensic Child and Youth

Care Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 127, 1018 WS Amsterdam, the Netherlands;

e-mail: h.m.duindam@uva.nl.

909875CJBXXX10.1177/0093854820909875Criminal Justice and BehaviorDuindam et al. / A Meta-Analysis on Prison-Based Dog Programs

research-article2020

750 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

2011; Wilson et al., 2000). One popular relatively new and underexplored intervention

that might positively contribute to rehabilitation is the Prison-based Animal Program

(PAP). The most commonly used animals in PAPs are dogs, that is, Prison-based Dog

Programs (PBDPs; Furst, 2006; Jasperson, 2013). The aim of the present meta-analysis

was to examine the effectiveness of PBDPs in reducing criminal recidivism and improv-

ing social-emotional functioning of people convicted of a crime, while testing to what

extent study, program, and sample characteristics moderate the outcome of the

program.

Even though there is not one prevailing theory that explains the working mechanisms of

PBDPs, several have been proposed building on the abundance of research supporting

(therapeutic) benefits of the human–animal interaction (Mercer et al., 2015). Human–animal

contact has psychosocial as well as physiological benefits, such as reducing stress and pro-

viding social support (Barker & Dawson, 1998; Barak et al., 2001; Berget et al., 2008;

Brooks et al., 2013; Friedmann et al., 1980; Nimer & Lundahl, 2007; Prothmann et al.,

2006). Therefore, companion animals have a long history of being incorporated in the care

for those with physical and psychiatric illnesses (Furst, 2006; Leonardi et al., 2017). When

focusing on the working mechanisms of PBDPs, dogs in particular are viewed as catalysts

for change because they respond directly to what they observe, either positive or negative,

providing people with instant behavioral feedback that might motivate them to critically

self-assess and learn new (emotional regulation) skills (Kruger et al., 2004). Effective emo-

tion (e.g., anger) regulation has been identified as a dynamic criminogenic need, which is

therefore considered to be a promising intermediate target to help reduce criminal recidi-

vism (Andrews et al., 2006).

In addition, individuals in correctional facilities may become attached to the dog,

which may be a new and healing experience that may help them cope with stress. Using

an animal as a secure base may also make those who are incarcerated more receptive to

the therapeutic impact of PBDPs (Jasperson, 2010). Moreover, attachment to the dog may

generalize to relationships with humans; which may ultimately help in the process of

developing more positive relationships with others who have parted from a criminal life-

style (Holbrook et al., 2001; Jasperson, 2010), thereby potentially contributing to a pro-

tective factor for criminal recidivism: relationships with prosocial peers (Andrews et al.,

2006).

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). Assisting the dog or the community may help people

perceive themselves as someone who can take responsibility and do good for others, thereby

conforming to the rules and expectations of society, which has been shown to be associated

with desistance, because it helps build an alternative, “anticriminal” identity (Andrews

et al., 2006; Hill, 2016). Moreover, taking responsibility and caring for the dog are skills

believed to generalize to other life domains (e.g., work) and relationships with humans,

thereby improving overall social-emotional functioning and aiding the rehabilitation pro-

cess (Humby & Barclay, 2018).

DTPs are the most common form of PBDP in the United States and Australia (Furst,

2006; Humby & Barclay, 2018). However, dogs are also incorporated into therapeutic