The Impact of Working with Farm Animals on People with Offending Histories: A Scoping Review

• Published date: 01 September 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221102851
• Author: Libby Payne,Mary McMurran,Clare Glennan,Jenny Mercer
• Date: 01 September 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X221102851

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2023, Vol. 67(12) 1282 –1302

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X221102851

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

The Impact of Working with

Farm Animals on People

with Offending Histories:

A Scoping Review

Libby Payne1, Professor Mary McMurran1,

Clare Glennan1, and Jenny Mercer1

Abstract

Within the Criminal Justice System, using animals for therapeutic or rehabilitative

purposes has garnered momentum and is extensively researched. By contrast, the

evidence concerning the impact of farm animal work, either on prison farms or

social farms for community sanctions, is less well understood. This review sought

to explore the evidence that exists in relation to four areas: (1) farm animals and

their contribution to rehabilitation from offending; (2) any indicated mechanisms of

change; (3) the development of a human—food/production animal bond, and (4) the

experiences of forensic service users working with dairy cattle. Fourteen articles

were included in the review. Good quality research on the impact of working with

farm animals and specifically dairy cattle, with adult offenders, was very limited.

However, some studies suggested that the rehabilitative potential of farm animals

with offenders should not be summarily dismissed but researched further to firmly

establish impact.

Keywords

farm animals, offenders, prison farms, dairy cattle, rehabilitation

Introduction

There is compelling evidence that engaging with nature is beneficial for humans.

Described in Wilson’s (1984) Biophilia Hypothesis as an “innate tendency to focus on

1Cardiff Metropolitan University, UK

Corresponding Author:

Libby Payne, Cardiff Metropolitan University, 200 Western Avenue, Cardiff, CF5 2YB, UK.

Email: lpayne@cardiffmet.ac.uk

1102851IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X221102851International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyPayne et al.

research-article2022

Payne et al. 1283

life and lifelike processes” (p.1), human beings have a reliance on, and emotional con-

nection with, nature for survival and reproduction. Nature is also deemed restorative

(Kaplan, 1995) and its importance underpins the movement known as Green Care.

This term encompasses a number of different activities designed to address a variety

of social needs through direct interactions with natural environments (Moriggi et al.,

2020). Whilst not used consistently, the Green Care concept commonly refers to

nature-based activities undertaken for a variety of different purposes to benefit the

recipients, for example, to improve physical and psychological wellbeing and to

increase social inclusion. Green Care initiatives include care farming (also known as

social farming), therapeutic horticulture, nature-based recreation and therapy, and

interventions that involve animals.

Within the Criminal Justice System, the use of animals in custodial and community

settings for people with offending histories (hereafter also referred to as forensic ser-

vice users) appears to have garnered momentum over the last two decades, alongside

an explosion of other Green Care activities (e.g., horticulture programs in prisons, Lee

et al., 2021). Animal programs with incarcerated populations have been designed to

address a variety of aims including: reduction of post release recidivism (Cooke et al.,

2021); improved custodial behavior (van Wormer et al., 2017); increased psychologi-

cal wellbeing (Kunz-Lomelin & Nordberg, 2020); achievement of vocational qualifi-

cations and therefore increased employability (Mims et al., 2017), and a calming

influence on the overall correctional environment (Cooke & Farrington, 2015).

Furst (2006) described programs where individuals with offending histories are

working with or training animals (as opposed to an animal being present primarily for

a therapeutic aim) as Prison Animal Programs (PAPs). In a survey of 36 US states,

Furst (2006) identified eight different types of PAPs: the use of companion animals

(i.e., an animal introduced to an individual to provide short-term benefits while they

are together); wildlife rehabilitation; pet adoption; service animal socialization; voca-

tional achievement; community service (care and training of animals); multimodal

(combination of vocational and community service), and livestock care programs

focusing on farm animal care and husbandry. Across these different categories there is

research on programs with dogs (Cooke & Farrington, 2016; Flynn et al. 2020;

Villafaina-Dominguez et al., 2020) and horses (Bachi, 2013; Morgan, 2020) and their

impact on rehabilitation from offending. By contrast, the livestock care and farm work

subset of PAPs does not appear to have been subject to rigorous scrutiny, despite being

the fourth most common type identified by Furst (2006) and one which she suggested

should be considered as a distinct type of PAP. In particular, Furst queried whether

prisoners working with farm animals could develop empathetic relationships in the

same way observed in PAPs involving companion animals. The impact of working

with farm animals on people with offending histories is the topic under study here,

with a particular focus on work with cows.

A preliminary search for existing reviews on farm animals and people with offend-

ing histories was conducted. No reviews were identified and any relevant literature

that was indexed was within the context of social farms only (e.g., Artz & Davis,

2017). These did not include prison farms and did not focus specifically on the