Though a growing body of evidence supports the efficacy of prison-based dog training programs, research on the process of change or the underlying mechanisms of change for incarcerated individuals who participate in these programs is limited. This qualitative study used interviews with 21 dog program staff to examine the utility of empowerment theory as a theoretical framework for understanding mechanisms of change for participants in prison-based dog training programs.
Findings
Thematic analysis of interviews with program staff indicated that outcomes of prison-based dog training programs are consistent with constructs of empowerment theory. Reported outcomes were more aligned with individual-level empowerment; however, participation in these programs addressed some structural issues of power within the correctional institution. Analysis resulted in six themes: (1) finding purpose and meaning, (2) enhanced self-concept, (3) skill development, (4) greater perceived control, (5) increased community engagement, and (6) positive post-release outcomes.
Applications
The alignment of prison-based dog training program outcomes with constructs of empowerment theory suggests that positive outcomes may be related to empowering handlers, though human–animal interactions and positive reinforcement training were often mentioned by staff. Consequently, programs may benefit from using empowerment theory as a guiding framework in program design and training of program staff. Prison-based dog training programs may be of particular interest to social workers in correctional settings, as program features align with core social work values of social justice, dignity and worth of the person, and the importance of human relationships.
AlMasebH.JuliaM. (2007).
Kuwaiti Bedouin Muslim women achieving control over their lives: Factors supporting empowerment. Social Development Issues,
29(1), 81–99. https://www.socialdevelopment.net
2.
BrittonD. M.ButtonA. (2005).
Prison pups: Assessing the effects of dog training programs in correctional facilities. Journal of Family Social Work,
9(4), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1300/J039v09n04_06
ButtonA. (2007). Freedom from themselves: Gendered mechanisms of control, power, and resistance in prison dog training programs [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Kansas State University.
CattaneoL. B.ChapmanA. R. (2010).
The process of empowerment: A model for use in research and practice.American Psychologist,
65, 646–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018854
8.
ChianeseN. M. (2009). Girls, jails, and puppy dog tails: An evaluation of the New Leash on Life Program (Publication No. 1478339) [Master’s thesis, California State University, Fullerton]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
9.
CookeB. J.FarringtonD. P. (2014).
Perceived effects of dog-training programmes in correctional settings. Journal of Forensic Practice,
16, 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-08-2013-0041
10.
CookeB. J.FarringtonD. P. (2015).
The effects of dog-training programs: Experiences of incarcerated females. Women & Criminal Justice,
25, 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2014.909763
11.
CookeB. J.FarringtonD. P. (2016).
The effectiveness of dog-training programs in prison: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. The Prison Journal,
96, 854–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885516671919
12.
DuindamH. M.AsscherJ. J.HoeveM.StamsG. J. J.CreemersH. E. (2020).
Are we barking up the right tree? A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prison-based dog programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
47, 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820909875
FlynnE.CombsK. M.GandenbergerJ.TedeschiP.MorrisK. N. (2020).
Measuring the psychosocial impacts of prison-based dog training programs and in-prison outcomes for inmates. The Prison Journal,
100, 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519894657
16.
FournierA.GellerE. S.FortneyE. V. (2007).
Human–animal interaction in a prison setting: Impact on criminal behavior, treatment progress, and social skills. Behavior and Social Issues,
16, 89–105. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v16i1.385
FurstG. (2007a).
Prison-based animal programs: Self-reported effects of participation and implications for desistance. Prison Service Journal,
172, 38–44. https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/publications/psj
20.
FurstG. (2007b).
Without words to get in the way: Symbolic interaction in prison-based animal programs. Qualitative Sociology Review,
3, 96–109. http://www.qualitativesociologyreview.org
21.
GutiérrezL. M. (1990).
Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective. Social Work,
35(2), 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/35.2.149
HillL. (2020).
Becoming the person your dog thinks you are: An assessment of Florida prison-based dog training programs on postrelease recidivism. Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research,
5, 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2018.1433564
24.
Hipolito-DelgadoC. P.LeeC. C. (2007).
Empowerment theory for the professional school counselor: A manifesto for what really matters. Professional School Counseling,
10, 327–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X0701000401
25.
KingN. (2012). Doing template analysis. In SymonG.CassellC.(Eds), Qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges (pp. 426–450).
Sage.
26.
McLaughlinK. (2014).
Empowering the people: ‘Empowerment’ and the British Journal of Social Work, 1971–99. Critical and Radical Social Work,
2, 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1332/204986014X13987657343659
27.
Merriam-ArduiniS. (2000). Evaluation of an experimental program designed to have a positive effect on adjudicated, violent, incarcerated male juveniles age 12–25 in the State of Oregon [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Pepperdine University.
28.
MintonC. A.PerezP. R.MillerK. (2015).
Voices from behind prison walls: The impact of training service dogs on women in prison. Society & Animals,
23, 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341379
29.
MoneymakerJ. M.StrimpleE. O. (1991).
Animals and inmates: A sharing companionship behind bars. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,
16(3–4), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v16n03_09
30.
MulcahyC.McLaughlinD. (2013).
Is the tail wagging the dog? A review of the evidence for prison animal programs. Australian Psychologist,
48, 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12021
31.
PerkinsD. D.ZimmermanM. A. (1995).
Empowerment theory, research, and application.American Journal of Community Psychology,
23, 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506982
32.
RappaportJ. (1995).
Empowerment meets narrative: Listening to stories and creating settings.American Journal of Community Psychology,
23, 795–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506992
ThomasK. W.VelthouseB. A. (1990).
Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review,
15, 666–681. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310926
van WormerJ.KigerlA.HamiltonZ. (2017).
Digging deeper: Exploring the value of prison-based dog handler programs. The Prison Journal,
97, 520–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517712481
37.
WalshP. G.MertinP. G. (1994).
The training of pets as therapy dogs in a women’s prison: A pilot study. Anthrozoös,
7, 124–128. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279394787002014
38.
ZimmermanM. A. (1995).
Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations.American Journal of Community Psychology,
23, 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506983
39.
ZimmermanM. A. (2000). Empowerment theory. In RappaportJ.SeidmanE. (Eds), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43–63).
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
40.
ZimmermanM. A.WarschauskyS. (1998).
Empowerment theory for rehabilitation research: Conceptual and methodological issues. Rehabilitation Psychology,
43, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.43.1.3
