Abstract
The establishment of a successful prison dog program requires considerable effort and patience on the part of all of the partners: corrections staff, inmates, community volunteers, and the group representing the dogs. One of the most important considerations in the establishment of dog training programs is determining which inmates from among those who volunteer will be allowed to participate. Prison dog programs are exceptionally diverse, so the criteria used in the selection of inmates to participate in dog care and training programs vary from facility to facility. The process of screening and selecting inmate participants is influenced by many different variables, such as the: purpose of the program, security level of the facility, preferences of the different partners, characteristics of the dogs, extent of training necessary, and needs of the community. The focus of this chapter is to is to discuss the criteria that are established by various programs to decide which inmates to approve for participation. Typical of the entrance criteria are things that can be quantified, including: the inmates’ criminal history, institutional conduct, work history while incarcerated, education levels, and sentence characteristics. Equally, if not more, important are more subjective indicators of inmate suitability for prison dog programs , such as compassion for dogs, mental stability (including such traits as patience, persistence, ability to manage emotions), commitment to program goals, and interpersonal skills. The chapter incorporates examples of selection process documents from several different programs as well. Poorly implemented programs pose a danger to the security , health, and safety of both the people and the dogs in the process; therefore, careful selection, screening and dismissal policies are an essential safeguard for all stakeholders in the initiative. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the potential benefits for inmates who participate in high-quality prison dog programs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Achen, P. (2012). Some Yacolt prison inmates given pet cats. Seattle Times, April 10. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2017950824_apwacatsintheclink2ndldwritethru.htm.
Anonymous inmate handler. (2015). SCI Cambridge Springs. All Paws on Deck, 2(1), 23.
Antonio, M. E., & Klunk, F. R. (2014). Forty years after “what works?”: Examining offender programming in Pennsylvania’s board of probation & parole. Corrections Today, 76(6), 42–44.
Arkow, P. (2019). The “dark side” of the human-animal bond. In L. Kogan & C. Blazina (Eds.), Clinician’s guide to treating companion animal issues: Addressing human-animal interaction (pp. 319–346). New York: Academic Press.
Aufderheide, C. (2016). The application and effects of service dog training by inmates to self-perception and self-other overlap as a rehabilitative approach to incarceration. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. Available: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/20667/Aufderheide_oregon_0171N_11514.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Britton, D. M., & Button, A. (2006). Prison pups: Assessing the effects of dog training programs in correctional facilities. Journal of Family Social Work, 9(4), 79–95.
Cusack, C. M. (2015). Animals and criminal justice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Florida Department of Corrections. (2018, February 13). Service dog training and canine obedience training for canine adoptions, procedure 506.102.
Furst, G. (2006). Prison-based animal programs: A national survey. The Prison Journal, 86(4), 407–430.
Gaes, G., Wallace, S., Gilman, E., Klein-Saffran, J., & Suppa, S. (2002). The influence of prison gang affiliation on violence and other prison misconduct. Prison Journal, 82, 359–385.
Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(4), 419–448.
Han, T. M., Flynn, E., Winchell, J., Gould, E., & Gandenberg, J. (2018). Prison-based dog training programs: Standard Protocol. Denver: Institute for Human-Animal Connections. https://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=anitobe.
Harkrader, T., Burke, T. W., & Owen, S. S. (2004). Pound puppies: The rehabilitative uses of dogs in correctional facilities. Corrections Today, 66(2), 74–79.
Hoffer, T., Hargreaves-Cormany, H., Muirhead, Y., & Meloy, J. R. (2018). Violence in animal cruelty offenders. New York: Springer Briefs in Psychology and Behavioral Criminology.
International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants. (2019). IAABC position statement on LIMA. Retrieved March 3, 2019 form: https://m.iaabc.org/joint-standards-of-practice/.
Lawrence, S., Mears, D., Dubin, G., & Travis, J. (2002, May). The practice and promise of prison programming. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Minton, C. A., Perez, P. R., & Miller, K. (2015). Voices from behind prison walls. Society & Animals, 23, 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341379.
Moneymaker, J., & Strimple, E. (1991). Animals and inmates: A sharing companionship behind bars. Journal of Inmate Rehabilitation, 16(3–4), 133–152.
National Broadcasting Company. (2006). Prisoners rehabilitate death row dogs. October 3. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15014860/ns/health-pet_health/t/prisoners-rehabilitate-death-row-dogs/#.UjVEEMasim4.
Pendleton Correctional Facility. (2017, November 14). Indiana Canine Assistance Network “ICAN”, Facility Directive 172.
Rampey, B. D., Keiper, S., Mohadjer, L., Krenzke, T., Li, J., Thornton, N., & Hogan, J. (2016). Highlights from the U.S. PIAAC survey of incarcerated adults: Their skills, work experience, education, and training: Program for the international assessment of adult competencies: 2014 (NCES 2016-040). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved May 22, 2019 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
Rockville Correctional Facility. (2013, December 1). ADOPT Apprenticeship Program, Facility Directive 14-01.
Tewksbury, R., Connor, D. P., & Denney, A. S. (2014). Disciplinary infractions behind bars: An exploration of importation and deprivation theories. Criminal Justice Review, 39(2), 201–218.
Thompson, V. (2019). What percentage of students attend college after graduation? Retrieved March 3, 2019 from: https://www.theclassroom.com/percentage-high-school-students-attend-college-after-graduation-1423.html.
Washington Department of Corrections. (2016, January 1). Inmate Dog/Cat Programs, Policy DOC 700.350.
Weiss, R. (2001). “Repatriating” low-wage work: The political economy of prison labor reprivatization in the postindustrial United States. Criminology, 39, 253–291.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wright, B., Jalongo, M.R., Guy, T. (2019). Screening and Selecting Inmates for Program Participation. In: Jalongo, M. (eds) Prison Dog Programs. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25618-0_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25618-0_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25617-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25618-0
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)