Measuring the Psychological Impacts of Prison-Based Dog Training Programs and In-Prison Outcomes for Inmates

• Published date: 01 March 2020
• Author: Kevin N. Morris,Katie Massey Combs,Jaci Gandenberger,Erin Flynn,Philip Tedeschi
• DOI: 10.1177/0032885519894657
• Date: 01 March 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519894657

The Prison Journal

2020, Vol. 100(2) 224 –239

© 2019 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0032885519894657

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Article

Measuring the

Psychological Impacts

of Prison-Based Dog

Training Programs and

In-Prison Outcomes for

Inmates

Erin Flynn1, Katie Massey Combs2,

Jaci Gandenberger1, Philip Tedeschi1,

and Kevin N. Morris1

Abstract

As interest grows in programs that improve prison inmates’ behavior

and psychosocial well-being, any such interventions must be rigorously

examined and their underlying mechanisms for change must be understood.

This pilot study examined the use of prison-based dog training programs

across Washington State Department of Corrections facilities for their

impacts on inmates’ infraction rates. The study also compared levels of

empathy, self-efficacy, and anxiety between program participants and

nonparticipants. Findings indicated that prison dog program participants’

infraction rates improved and that participants had lower levels of anxiety

than nonparticipants.

Keywords

prison, prison-based animal programs, prison dog programs, infraction rates

1University of Denver, CO, USA

2University of Colorado Boulder, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kevin N. Morris, Institute for Human-Animal Connection, Graduate School of Social Work,

University of Denver, 2148 High Street, Denver, CO 80208, USA.

Email: kevin.morris@du.edu

894657TPJXXX10.1177/0032885519894657The Prison JournalFlynn et al.

research-article2019

Flynn et al. 225

Introduction

An estimated 2.3 million people were incarcerated in the United States in

2016, a significantly higher number than that of any other country in the

world (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018; Warren et al., 2008). Although efforts are

underway to reduce prison populations, it is essential that any such efforts

maintain safety for staff, inmates, and the wider population (Gelb &

Stevenson, 2017; Grawert et al., 2017). Programs that reduce inmate in-

prison infraction rates, particularly those that also improve inmates’ psycho-

social well-being, can be an effective way to maintain staff and inmate safety

within correctional facilities while also reducing the likelihood of recidivism

upon release (Cochran et al., 2014; Fournier et al., 2007; Steiner & Meade,

2016). Approximately 95% of prisoners are eventually released from prison,

so successfully addressing inmate infraction and psychosocial well-being is

an important component in improving the safety of both correctional facili-

ties and broader society (Hughes & Wilson, 2018).

Policymakers have explored a variety of approaches to achieve these

goals, including more conventional programs such as mental health therapy

and addictions treatment as well as alternative programs ranging from medi-

tation retreats to Shakespearean theater (Council of State Governments

Justice Center, 2014; Heard et al., 2013; Perelman et al., 2012). One promis-

ing but understudied approach is the implementation of prison-based dog

programs (PDPs), in which inmates become dog handlers who train the ani-

mals for adoption or service work (Van Wormer et al., 2017). Current research

indicates that these programs improve inmates’ well-being and reduce both

infraction rates and recidivism (Cooke & Farrington, 2016; Van Wormer

et al., 2017). However, that research has been limited by a number of factors,

including small sample sizes, single-site studies, the use of nonvalidated

measures, heavy reliance on qualitative data and anecdotal reports, omission

of details regarding research processes that makes replication difficult, and

the complexity of performing randomized controlled trials in prison settings

(Cooke & Farrington, 2014b, 2016; Fournier et al., 2007; Mulcahy &

McLaughlin, 2013; Van Wormer et al., 2017).

One recent study addressed some of these concerns using a larger sample

size (n = 1,001) to compare infraction rates of participants in PDPs and a

group of nonparticipating inmates statistically matched across several crite-

ria, including average incarceration length, custody level, and baseline levels

of outcome variables (Van Wormer et al., 2017). This study, the largest and

one of the few to use a statistically matched comparison group to date, found

that inmates who participated in PDPs had significantly lower serious and

violent infraction rates than matched inmates who did not participate in them.