Child and Youth Care Forum

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 89–101 | Cite as

Some of our best therapists are dogs

  • Gerald P. Mallon


The potential values of using animals as adjuncts in work with children and youth have begun to be explored in a variety of settings. The exploratory study reported here used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the benefits and drawbacks of introducing dogs into living units in group care programs. Although both benefits and drawbacks were identified, the benefits appeared to out-weigh the drawbacks by a wide margin. Differences by age of clientele were identified, and implications of the findings are suggested.


Good Therapist School Psychology Quantitative Method Exploratory Study Care Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beck, A. (1990).The role of animal interaction with children and adolescents: A presentation of studies and practice. Paper presented at the Center for Applied Ethology and Animal/Human Interaction, West Lafayette, Indiana.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, A., & Katcher, A.H. (1983).Between pets and people: The importance of animal companionship. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.Google Scholar
  3. Burmeister, E. (1967).Tough times and tender moments in child care work. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Epstein, I. (1988). Quantitative and qualitative methods. In R. M. Grinell (Ed.),Social work research and evaluation, 3rd Edition (pp. 185–198). Itasca: F. E. Peacock Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Gonski, Y. (1985). The therapeutic utilization of canines in a child welfare setting.Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 2(2), 93–105.Google Scholar
  6. Kidd, A.H., & Kidd, R. M. (1984). Pet owner psychology: The human side of the bond. In P. Arkow (Ed.),Dynamic relationships in practice: Animals in the helping professions (pp. 68–82). Alameda: The Latham Foundation.Google Scholar
  7. Levinson, B. (1962). The dog as co-therapist.Mental Hygiene, 46, 59–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Levinson, B. (1968). Household pets in residential schools,Mental Hygiene, 52(3), 411–414.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Levinson, B. (1969).Pet-oriented child psychotherapy. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Mallon, G. (1992). Utilization of animals as therapeutic adjuncts in the treatment of children and youth: A review of the literature.Child and Youth Care Forum, 21(1), 53–67.Google Scholar
  11. Mallon, G. (1993). A study of the interactions between men, women, and dogs at the ASPCA in New York City.Anthrozoos, 6(1), 43–48.Google Scholar
  12. McCulloch, M.J. (1984). Pets in therapeutic programs for the aged. In R.K. Anderson, B.L. Hart, & L.A. Hart (Eds.),The pet connection (pp. 387–398). Minneapolis: Center to Study Human-Animal Relationships and the Environments.Google Scholar
  13. Melson, G. (1990).Fostering inter-connectedness with animals and nature: The developmental benefits for children. Paper presented to Green Chimneys People, Pets, and Plants Conference, Brewster, NY.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald P. Mallon
    • 1
  1. 1.Green Chimneys Children's ServicesNew York

Personalised recommendations