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

• Author: Hanne M. Duindam,Jessica J. Asscher,Hanneke E. Creemers,Machteld Hoeve
• Published date: 01 April 2021
• Date: 01 April 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20983748
• Subject Matter: Articles

983748IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X20983748International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyDuindam et al.
research-article2021
Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
A Quasi-Experimental Study
Comparative Criminology
2021, Vol. 65(5) 644 –666
on the Effectiveness of Dutch
© The Author(s) 2021
Cell Dogs in Incarcerated
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Youth
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20983748
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20983748
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo
Hanne M. Duindam1 , Hanneke E. Creemers1,
Machteld Hoeve1, and Jessica J. Asscher1,2
Abstract
This study examined the effectiveness of Dutch Cell Dogs (DCD), a prison-based dog
training program that aims to improve socioemotional functioning of incarcerated
youth by giving them the opportunity to train a shelter dog. Primary (aggression
and institutional infractions) and secondary (wellbeing and therapeutic functioning)
outcomes were assessed for the intervention (n = 61) and comparison group (n = 77)
before the start of DCD, after 4 weeks, and after 8 weeks at posttest. Overall, DCD
participation was not effective. Compared to the comparison group, institutional
infractions decreased in DCD participants with an immigrant background and increased
in DCD participants with a native Dutch background. In addition, DCD participation
reduced the quality of the therapeutic alliance for younger participants and those in
secure residential facilities. The current study demonstrated heterogeneity in DTP
responsiveness. Future research with robust designs and sufficiently large samples is
needed to further identify who benefits from DTPs.
Keywords
prison-based dog program, incarceration, youth, aggression, wellbeing, correctional
program
1University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
2Utrecht University, the Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Hanne M. Duindam, Forensic Child and Youth Care Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe
Achtergracht 127, Amsterdam, 1018 WS, the Netherlands.
Email: h.m.duindam@uva.nl

---

Duindam et al.
645
Introduction
Despite the wide variety in correctional practices around the world, there is growing
consensus that rehabilitation of youth offenders is essential in reducing criminal
behavior. Correctional programs for incarcerated youth are an important effort to off-
set criminal life trajectories and several have been found to improve wellbeing and
decrease reoffending rates (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy, substance abuse treat-
ment; Lipsey et al., 2010; Lipsey, 2009; Wilson, 2016). Programs that promote skill
building, personal development, and self-insight have been found to be more effective
than interventions oriented toward restriction and control (e.g., Lipsey et al., 2010;
Lipsey, 2009). One type of intervention that aims to foster skill building and positive
attitude development for incarcerated youth are prison-based dog training programs
(DTPs). The goal of the current study was to examine the effectiveness of Dutch Cell
Dogs—a community-service DTP—on primary (i.e., aggression, institutional infrac-
tions) and secondary (i.e., wellbeing and therapeutic functioning) outcomes in a sam-
ple of youth who were incarcerated for committing offences.
In correctional facilities, community-service DTPs such as Dutch Cell Dogs (DCD)
are the most common form of prison-based dog programs (Cooke & Farrington, 2014).
Even though there is variability among community-service DTPs in terms of program
characteristics, such as duration (few weeks to ongoing) and access to the dog (24-7
vs. part-time), the overall goal of DTPs is for incarcerated individuals to train and care
for shelter dogs to improve the dog’s adoption chances. The aim is to create a “win-
win” situation: asylum dogs get adopted into a new home thanks to the behavioral
training they receive and the DTP participants’ wellbeing and behavior are expected to
improve due to them helping the dog through positive reinforcement (Leonardi et al.,
2017). DCD is the only DTP offered in correctional facilities in the Netherlands. It is
an 8 weeks long community-service DTP during which incarcerated people train,
groom, and play with an asylum dog, to whom they have been matched, biweekly for
2 hours. Compared to some other DTPs, DCD is relatively short (8 weeks) and partici-
pants have access to “their” dog during training hours only.
Incorporating DTPs in correctional programming stems from the medical field,
where Animal Assisted Therapy (AAT) has been implemented to tackle a wide variety
of mental and medical problems (Furst, 2006; Nimer & Lundahl, 2007). DTPs are dif-
ferent from AAT in that DTPs do not have a therapeutic focus and pre-defined thera-
peutic goals, moreover, there are no “patients” in the program who need to be “helped.”
However, DTPs may improve participants’ rehabilitation chances and increase overall
wellbeing by harvesting the benefits of the human-animal bond, similar to AATs.
Animals can have a calming effect by deactivating stress reactions, but they can also
be activating by stimulating human’s intrinsic motivation (Beetz, 2017). Accordingly,
a wide array of psychosocial and physiological benefits of the human-animal bond has
been identified, such as reduced stress and anxiety, enhanced social support, and
improved communication (Beetz et al., 2012).
By forming a positive attachment to the dog during DTPs, offenders may become
more trusting and open to relationships with others, including therapeutic professionals

---

646
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 65(5)
and prosocial peers, which is important as poor attachment patterns are associated with
delinquency (Hoeve et al., 2012; Jasperson, 2010; Leonardi et al., 2017). Dogs can be
a source of social support particularly for offenders in closed settings with higher rates
of insecure attachment patterns, as it may be more difficult for them to experience this
support from contact with humans (Beetz, 2017). Interacting with a dog to whom one
feels attached, has been linked to an increase in oxytocin, which in turn is related to
displaying more prosocial behavior (Beetz et al., 2012). In addition, dogs provide
offenders with instant behavioral feedback during DTPs due to their tendency to directly
respond to environmental stimuli, which may enhance offenders’ self-awareness and
stimulate the development of more effective emotion regulation skills (Duindam et al.,
2020). Moreover, DTPs can provide offenders with a sense of purpose during incar-
ceration and contribute toward a more positive “anti-criminal” identity. By helping a
shelter dog, incarcerated individuals may experience the benefits of prosocial behavior
and conforming to societal norms (Hill, 2018). In general, achieving goals and targets
during the training of the dogs may also boost self-esteem (Fournier et al., 2007).
Some empirical evidence exists in support of these hypothesized effects of DTPs
for incarcerated individuals. For example, identified benefits of DTP participation are
a reduction in anxiety and stress and an improvement in self-esteem, self-control, and
social-emotional regulation skills (e.g., Cooke, 2014; Cooke & Farrington, 2016;
Flynn et al., 2019; Leonardi et al., 2017). However, most of this support for DTPs
comes from studies with significant methodological limitations (e.g., no control group,
small sample sizes, cross-sectional design; Cooke, 2014; Flynn et al., 2019). A recent
meta-analysis synthesized findings from (quasi)-experimental research on the effec-
tiveness of prison-based dog programs up until now (Duindam et al., 2020), resulting
in the inclusion of nine studies on DTPs. No effect was found for social-emotional
functioning, however, prison-based dog programs were found to reduce recidivism
although this was based on three retrospective studies only.
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, con-
trolled 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. Grommon et al.
(2018) found no change in a variety of psychosocial factors (e.g., self-esteem, empa-
thy, 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. Differences in findings may be due to variation in pro-
gram (e.g., limited vs. fulltime presence of the dogs), study design (e.g., RCT/quasi-
experimental; prospective vs. retrospective design), and/or sample characteristics
(e.g., male vs. female offenders).

---

Duindam et al.
647
In sum, previous research has been contradicting and more experimental studies are
needed to get insight into the effectiveness of DTPs for youth offenders. The current
study added to the limited body...