The Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy

Animal Studies Repository
10-2018

Prison-Based Dog Training Programs: Standard
ProtocolTyler M. Han
University of DenverErin Flynn
University of Denver

Joseph Winchell
University of Denver

Emily Gould
University of Denver

Jaci Gandenberger
University of DenverSee next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: https://animalstudiesrepository.org/anitobe
Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Comparative Psychology Commons, and the Other
Anthropology Commons
Recommended Citation
Han, T. M., Flynn, E., Winchell, J., Gould, E., Gandenberger, J., Barattin, D., Tedeschi, P., & Morris, K. N. (2018). Prison-based dog
training programs: Standard protocol. Denver: Institute for Human-Animal Connection.

This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Humane
Society Institute for Science and Policy. It has been accepted for inclusion
by an authorized administrator of the Animal Studies Repository. For more
information, please contact eyahner@humanesociety.org.

Authors

Tyler M. Han, Erin Flynn, Joseph Winchell, Emily Gould, Jaci Gandenberger, Dana Barattin, Philip Tedeschi,
and Kevin N. Morris

This report is available at Animal Studies Repository: https://animalstudiesrepository.org/anitobe/2

IHAC

STANDARD PROTOCOLPRISON-BASED DOG
TRAINING PROGRAMSOCTOBER 2018

Photo by Cpl. Anabel Abreu Rodriguez

Prepared byTyler M. Han, Erin Flynn, Joseph Winchell,
Emily Gould, Jaci Gandenberger, Dana
Barattin, Philip Tedeschi, & Kevin N. MorrisIHAC

WHO WE AREHoused within the Graduate School of Social Work at the
University of Denver, the Institute for Human-Animal
Connection (IHAC) is an internationally recognized center
for research, ethics formation, and clinical training, as well
as a respected source of scientific and scholarly
information on human-animal connections.

VALUES
We believe that the quest for new knowledge about humananimal connections and social-ecological systems mustreflect respect for social justice, cultural diversity, andbeneficial social change.

i

IHAC

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We woul d l i ke to acknowl edge al l of the dedi cated i ndi vi dual s,both i ncarcerated and not i ncarcerated, who work ti rel essl y toconti nue the work of pri son-based dog trai ni ng programs acrossthe Uni ted States.
A speci al thank you to the fol l owi ng i ndi vi dual s andorgani zati ons for thei r contri buti ons to thi s proj ect:Canine CellMates
Canine Companions for Independence
Colorado Correctional Industries
Death Row Dogs
DoggoneExpress
Drew Webster, CPDT-KA
Friends of Second Chance Adoption Shelter
Happy Hounds
Inmate Dog Alliance Project of Idaho
Illinois Department of Corrections
Montana Department of Corrections
New Mexico Corrections Department
Paws Giving Independence
Paws in Stripes
Pit Sisters
Prison Greyhounds
Puppies for Parole
Red Dog Project
Refurbished Pets of Southern Michigan
Second Chance Homeless Pet Society
Second Chance Pups
Washington Department of Corrections

ii

IHAC

SUMMARY
Across the United States, the number of prison-based dog training programs(PDPs) has increased substantially over the past several years. Currently, there
are approximately 255 PDPs across 47 states that operate in a variety ofcorrectional settings; however, there is little information available on how tosuccessfully develop and implement a PDP. As a result, the research teamfrom the Institute for Human-Animal Connection (IHAC) has developed astandard protocol to help guide PDP development and implementation.
This report identifies common practices of PDPs and incorporates both generaland context-specific recommendations that were gathered from interviews with
PDP staff, relevant literature, and content experts. In total, 21 interviews with 20
programs were conducted. PDPs were asked about several program features,
including policies and procedures, key personnel, funding, materials, physicalspaces, supervision and monitoring, safety considerations, animal welfare,handler selection and training, and program benefits.
This report highlights the benefits of PDPs to dogs, humans, prisons, local
communities, and society as a whole and identifies challenges related tofunding, staffing, and operating in a correctional setting. Findings from theprotocol point to the importance of planning, staffing, communication, internal
support, and training curriculum in successful program implementation.

iii

IHAC

CONTENTSINTRODUCTION
Overview of the Guidelines

1

Number of PDPs Across the United States

2

Development of the Guidelines

3

Importance of the Guidelines

3

Limitations of the Guidelines

4

The Five Freedoms

5

Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive

6

PROGRAM INFORMATION
Program Purpose

7

Program Duration

8

Funding8

Staff Roles and Responsibilities

9

Program Materials

11

Program Benefits

14

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Communication Practices

17

Record Keeping

18

Safety19

Restricted Access

21

Sanitation

21

iv

IHAC

FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Program Office and Supply Storage

22

Housing22

Training Space

23

Outdoor Space

24

DOG INFORMATION
Dog Welfare

25

Dog Selection Process

27

Transportation of the Dogs

28

Training Methodology

29

Adoption Protocol

29

HANDLER INFORMATION
Handler Roles and Responsibilities

31

Handler Qualities

32

Handler Selection Process

33

Handler Selection Criteria

34

Handler Training

36

Handler Monitoring and Evaluation

37

RECOMMENDATIONS39

REFERENCES

40

v

IHAC

INTRODUCTIONOVERVIEW OF THE GUIDELINES

255
Number of PDPs
across theUnited States

47
Number ofstates with PDPs

20
Number of
programs
interviewed

In recent years, prison-based dog training programs (PDPs) have expanded rapidly
across the United States. Currently, there are a little over 250 PDPs in 47 states that
operate in minimum, medium, and maximum security facilities at the local, state, andfederal levels. Due to a number of factors, including variations in funding and diversity inprison populations and settings, programs are extremely varied. The highly
contextualized nature of these programs makes knowledge sharing between PDPs
critical to the advancement of the field. However, there is little communication between
programs, which makes the development of new PDPs and improvement of current
PDPs challenging.
PDPs are beneficial to both dogs and humans, yet information on program development
and implementation is limited. As a result, the research team from the Institute for
Human-Animal Connection (IHAC) has developed a standard protocol to help guide
PDP development and implementation. This resource is intended to promote the welfare
of dogs in correctional institutions and to highlight the value of human-animal
interactions for inmates. This document presents guidelines that are based on relevant
research, practice knowledge from PDP practitioners, and information from content
experts. As social science researchers with a person-in-environment lens that is rooted
in values of social justice, the IHAC research team is well-positioned to discuss thesefindings and their applications to current and future PDPs. The research team hopesthat this information will help optimize outcomes of PDPs for dogs, humans, prisons,local communities, and society as a whole.

01

IHAC

NUMBER OF PRISON-BASED DOG TRAINING
PROGRAMS ACROSS THE UNITED STATESThis map represents the best knowledge currently available on the number of PDPs
across the United States; however, it is not without limitations. Information gathered on
the number of programs was restricted to web searches. As a result, programs without
an online presence are not reflected in this map. Also, some of the information
contained on websites may not be accurate or may no longer be up to date. Still, this is
the most comprehensive information on the number of PDPs currently available.
These numbers also include dog training programs that occur in jail settings. While
PDP is technically an inaccurate term, there is no other phrase that has been used todescribe these programs. Therefore, we will use the term PDP to refer to all dog
training programs that occur in correctional institutions.

02

IHAC

DEVELOPMENT OF THE GUIDELINES
These guidelines were developed through a multi-phase process. First, the IHAC
research team conducted a thorough review of relevant research, which included
literature on animal welfare considerations in animal-assisted interventions as well as
literature on the efficacy of PDPs and other prison-based animal programs. Second, theteam carried out systematic web searches of PDPs in all 50 states to create a databaseof programs. Using this database, the team contacted programs via email to informthem of the current project and to request for participation in an interview. Third, theteam conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 programs across the United States.
Common practices were then identified from the interviews. Finally, the team consulted
content experts and reviewed materials shared by established PDPs, including
administrative forms, training manuals, and policy and procedure documents, to help
inform the guidelines.

IMPORTANCE OF THE GUIDELINES

03

IHAC

LIMITATIONS OF THE GUIDELINES
These guidelines identify “common practices” rather than “best practices.” In manycases, research does not yet support a definitive statement on what is considered best.
Often, this may depend on the particular population and setting of the program. When
more or less desirable practices are identified, they are based on existing research andconsultation with practitioners and experts as outlined above. The team acknowledges
that this is a growing field that needs more research to identify best practices. The teamalso recognizes that interviews may not reflect all practices in each program. For
instance, PDPs may use methods to minimize stress to the dogs that were notdiscussed in the interviews.
These guidelines are not intended to be a definitive prescription for every program.
Instead, they are meant to be initial suggestions. To be used effectively, theseguidelines require recognition of site-specific circumstances. For example, practices
that may be necessary in a maximum-security prison may not be ideal for a minimumsecurity setting. Wherever possible, the team has attempted to identify context-specificrecommendations so that practitioners can select what best suits their environment andgoals. Before implementing a PDP, it is important to conduct your own research and to
consult with the appropriate experts.

04

IHAC
THE FIVE FREEDOMSTHE FIVE
FREEDOMSFREEDOM FROM HUNGER AND
THIRST01

by ready access to fresh water and a diet tomaintain full health and vigor.

FREEDOM FROM DISCOMFORT

02

by providing appropriate environment
including shelter and a comfortable restingarea.

FREEDOM FROM PAIN, INJURY
OR DISEASE

03

by prevention or rapid diagnosis andtreatment.

FREEDOM TO EXPRESSNORMAL BEHAVIOR

04

by providing sufficient space, proper
facilities and company of the animal's own
kind.

FREEDOM FROM FEAR AND
DISTRESS05

by ensuring conditions and treatment which
avoid mental suffering.

05

IHAC

LEAST INTRUSIVE, MINIMALLY AVERSIVE

06

IHAC

PROGRAMINFORMATIONPROGRAM PURPOSE
Dog training programs in correctional institutions have three primary purposes: (1) basic
obedience training, (2) socialization, and (3) service dog training. When developing a
PDP, it is important to identify its purpose to help guide decision-making. Someelements that will differ by program purpose include program duration, materials, andexpectations of dogs, handlers, staff, and other inmates. For example, service dog
training programs often place more restrictions on inmates’ interactions with the dogs
than socialization programs due to their focus on task training.
Programs that focus on obedience training cover a range of topics, including potty
training, crate training, loose leash walking, basic commands, and trick training. The
goal of these programs is to increase the adoptabilty of the dogs and to decrease thelikelihood that the dogs will be returned once adopted.
Service dog training programs teach the dogs a variety of specialized tasks, including
opening doors, turning on lights, retrieving items, alerting, and bracing for mobility
support. The specific training tasks taught to the dogs will depend on the needs of theservice dog recipients‒ that is, dogs intended to work with children with autism will learn
different tasks than dogs intended to work with individuals with limited mobility.
Though less common, socialization programs may have minimal if any training
components and instead concentrate on providing dogs exposure to and positive
experiences with other people and dogs. More often, programs choose to focus on both
obedience training and socialization.
Along with these primary purposes, programs can also have a secondary purpose.
Programs may have a grooming component, in which handlers groom the dogs in the
program or provide grooming services to the community at a reduced rate. Programs
may also have a board-and-train component, in which dogs from the community receive
intensive training while being housed at the institution, again at a reduced rate.
Programs that have the capacity to provide these services benefit from added financial
stability and improved community relations.

07

IHAC

PROGRAM DURATION
The duration of PDPs will depend on a number of different factors, including program
purpose, flexibility in program length, and housing for the dogs while awaiting adoption.
Generally, programs that train service dogs are longer than programs that teach basic
obedience due to the additional time needed to train the dogs for specialized tasks.
Some obedience and socialization programs are flexible and will allow dogs to stay past
the program end date if the dogs need additional support to become eligible for
adoption. For dogs that need less intensive support, a foster home may be a good
option if available. While most PDPs will move dogs out of the facility after they've
completed the program, others will house the dogs at the institution until they are
adopted. All these factors should be considered when determining program duration
since they affect a PDP's capacity to take in and train new dogs.

FUNDING
Funding is critical to the viability of PDPs, yet receiving and maintaining funding is oneof the greatest challenges. Due to the instability of funding sources, PDPs must rely on
a variety of mechanisms to fund their activities. Sources of funding can include adoption
fees, service fees from grooming and/or board-and-train services, individual donors,
local businesses, private foundations, charitable organizations, and state or local
governments. Often, governments provide the greatest amount of funding; however,these funds are unpredictable because they are highly vulnerable to budget cuts.
Adoption and services fees tend to be the most stable as they are generated by the
programs themselves. The use of online platforms, such as GoFundMe, to solicit
monetary donations can be a useful strategy in expanding a program's pool of donors.
The most financially secure PDPs rely on a variety of funding sources and areresourceful in obtaining funding. For example, partnering with a local professional
sports team is a creative way to generate funds while promoting the program andbuilding relationships with local communities. Another inventive option is tooffer individuals the opportunity to sponsor a dog in the program. In exchange, thesponsor would receive updates on the dog and would be invited to attend the dog's
graduation ceremony. While funding options for each program will vary, it is importantfor PDPs to be able to engage the resources available to them given the context inwhich they are operating.

08

IHAC

PDPs should also consider donations of goods and services to offset program costs.
Donations for food and veterinary care are particularly beneficial since they are thegreatest cost for PDPs. For food, PDPs can partner with local pet stores or may seek
corporate sponsorship from pet food companies to obtain food for free or at a reduced
cost. For veterinary care, local veterinarians may be inclined to offer their services at a
reduced cost in exchange for steady business. Veterinary schools may be anotheroption for PDPs, as they sometimes run low-cost clinics or provide services at a
reduced cost. PDPs may also receive donations from individuals for various items, suchas blankets, toys, or dog treats, and can use an online registry like Amazon Wish List to
request specific items.
Some other costs to consider when thinking about funding PDPs are transportation
costs, which can include transporting the dogs for participation in the program, forveterinary care and socialization trips once in the program, and to the shelter for
adoption after completion of the program. The transportation costs may be a one-time
fee or may be ongoing and include vehicle maintenance, gas, and insurance. Programs
that receive their dogs from another part of the country have the largest transportation
costs and must also factor in the cost of parasite management during transport. Liability
insurance should also be a consideration when thinking about funding for PDPs.

STAFF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

09

IHAC

Dog Program Staff
Dog program staff work in coordination with correctional officers and other key
personnel at the institution. Responsibilities can include acquiring dogs for the program,
maintaining clear lines of communication with prison staff, coordinating adoptions, andtransporting animals to and from veterinary visits, shelters, and adoption events.
Typically, program staff also participate in selecting inmate participants by reviewing
applications and conducting interviews. They may also maintain materials required forthe program, including documents and animal care supplies. Although this role is often
unpaid, this is not recommended. Based on interviews, the position is not sustainable if
unpaid, and a degree of continuity in this position is important for the long-term successof a PDP. Some program staff are also dog trainers, which can reduce costs bydecreasing the number of paid positions required for the program. At times, dog
program staff are employed by the prison. When this is the case, the programs tend tobe well-developed because of the amount of time staff is able to invest in the programand because of their increased capacity for communication and collaboration withprison staff.

Prison Staff
Prison staff can include a number of different people like the warden and otheradministrative staff; however, correctional officers often play the largest role in the dayto-day operation of PDPs. As a result, they should be familiar with the program’s
policies and procedures. Correctional officers provide general supervision to ensurethat the handlers and other inmates adhere to institutional rules and offer timely
communication with dog program staff to inform them of any issues that may arise.
PDPs that do not have full-time dog program staff on site rely more heavily on
correctional officers to provide daily oversight. This can involve case management,
monitoring the handlers’ training of the dogs, and overseeing the general safety of thedogs. Prison staff may also participate in the selection of handlers by distributing
announcements and screening applicants for program eligibility. Because correctional
officers play a vital role in the functioning of PDPs, it is important that they aresupportive of the program. When they are not, it can undermine the efficacy of the
program and potentially jeopardize the welfare of the dogs.

10

IHAC

Dog Trainer

Veterinarian
Programs should partner with a local veterinarian to provide routine care for the dogs
as well as a veterinarian that can provide emergency care as needed. Typically,
veterinary care includes spaying and neutering, vaccinations, parasite management,
and other routine care.

Shelter Staff

PROGRAM MATERIALSThe training materials and program supplies used in a PDP should align with the goalsof the particular program and the safety policies of the particular institution. Listed on
the following pages are some basic materials needed for a PDP.

11

IHAC
Basic Materials
Collars and Harnesses
Recommend Martingale or flat buckle collars and harnesses. Martingale collars
may need to be removed during play to prevent dogs from getting tangled andinjuring each other. Gentle leaders may be used. Prong or choke collars are notrecommended. Prisons may require programs to avoid anything with metal.

Leashes
Short leash (3-6 ft) for inside and long leash (15-30 ft) for outside training. May
need to avoid anything with metal.

Food and Feeding Supplies
Food and water bowls, food storage containers, and measuring cups. Kongs orKong wobblers (if permitted) and snuffle mats to provide enrichment and toprevent dogs from eating too quickly. High-quality food brands arerecommended. Canned pumpkin or yogurt can be used for upset stomachs.

Kennels, Crates, and Bedding
Kennels and crates of multiple sizes to accommodate different sized dogs.
Prisons may require a certain amount of free floor space, which can be achievedby elevating beds and placing crates under (if permitted).

Toys
Kongs, Nylabones, and rope toys (if permitted), squeaky toys, other durable toys,
and plastic pools. Damaged toys should be removed immediately to prevent
them from being used to hide contraband.

Medicine
General medications (e.g., Benadryl) and flea and heartworm preventatives.
Should be stored in a secure location and administered by staff.

Grooming Supplies
Soft bristle brushes, nail clippers, scissors, tubs, shampoo, towels, and items toclean ears and teeth. Some of these items may need to be kept secured andchecked out as needed.

Cleaning Materials
Waste bags, disinfectants, and paper towels

Clothing
Winter coats may be needed for added protection from the cold depending on
the climate, dog breed, and amount of time spent outdoors.

Stress Management
ThunderShirts, Calming Caps, and blends of calming herbs and scents12

II HH AA CC

Training Materials
ClickerClickers for positive reinforcement training. May be distracting if being used byseveral handlers in a small space, or may be banned by the facility.

Training Treats and Treat Bag
Small treats for training (e.g., Zuke’s Mini Naturals Training Treats)

Agility Equipment
Hoops, tunnels, small jumps, ramps, and stackable boxes. Agility work should bedone either in an unpaved outdoor space or on a cushioned floor to protect thedogs from injury.

Service Dog Training Equipment
Programs that train service dogs need to acquire materials to recreate, or mimic
as closely as possible, the circumstances in which the dog will be asked toperform. Common equipment includes wheelchairs, walkers, light switches, fakecounters, and empty pill bottles.

Dog Training Information
Books, magazines, manuals, worksheets, handouts, videos, etc. Different typesof training materials help accommodate different learning styles of the handlers.

13

IHAC

PROGRAM BENEFITS
Benefit to Dogs

Benefit to Handlers

14

IHAC

15

IHAC

Other Benefits

16

IHAC

POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES
The use of clear and well-documented policies and procedures helps set appropriate
expectations and promotes communication among those involved in PDPs. Presenting
detailed and specific plans for how a PDP will be run is invaluable when soliciting
support from correctional institutions. It is essential that established policies andprocedures are continually applied and revised as needed to fit the context in which the
PDP operates.

COMMUNICATION PRACTICES
Effective communication within PDPs supports program outcomes and helps promote
safety within the institution. Some programs have structures in place that allow handlers
to have direct communication with dog program staff when they are not at the facility,
while others require communication with program staff to go through correctional
officers. When possible, it is recommended that handlers be able to communicate anyneeds or concerns directly to program staff, as this encourages timeliness in reporting
and addressing issues. If communication must go through prison staff, policies thathave been agreed upon by both dog program and prison staff should be in place. These
policies should dictate the timeliness of reporting based on the urgency of the issue. For
example, general concerns unrelated to the dogs’ safety or welfare that have beenreported to correctional officers must be communicated to program staff within 48
hours, while illness or injury to the dogs that could be life-threatening must be reported
to program staff immediately upon being communicated to correctional officers.
Written documents are necessary to clearly outline the roles, responsibilities, andexpectations of those involved in PDPs. Important documents include policies andprocedures manuals, handler release forms, training manuals, and memoranda ofunderstanding (MOUs). MOUs are particularly useful when developing partnerships
because they help ensure that all parties are in agreement about their expected
contributions to the PDP. Investment in good communication practices with all
stakeholders from the beginning of the process sets the stage for successful program
coordination across multiple complex systems and results in improved outcomes in thelong term.

17

IHAC

RECORD KEEPING

18

IHAC

SAFETYThe safety and well-being of the dogs, handlers, other inmates, and staff is a top priorityof PDPs. Appropriate sanitation and veterinary care are critical in minimizing the spreadof infectious diseases and parasites. See Sanitation and Dog Welfare sections for
additional information. To minimize the risk of bite injuries, dogs should be screened for
aggressive behaviors prior to participation in the program. In most situations, PDPs are
not appropriate settings for dogs who have a history of involvement in dogfighting
and/or who display aggressive behaviors. Often, these programs do not have theappropriate resources nor do handlers have the highly specialized knowledge required
to effectively and safely manage these extremely difficult cases. Further, prison policy
typically does not permit dogs who display aggressive behaviors into the facility. See
Dog Selection section for additional information. For dogs who display aggressive
behaviors, namely biting, while in the program, they may be removed as a general rule,or they may be allowed to stay in the program if it is determined that they wereunreasonably provoked by another inmate or dog and if the injury is not severe. In
these cases, the handler should receive additional training to help manage thesesituations. As an additional safety measure and to protect the well-being of the dogs,
inmates and prison staff should not approach or pet the dogs unless given permission
by the handlers.
Materials commonly used in PDPs can present some safety risks. As a result,consideration of the use and management of these objects is warranted. Further, staff
must closely track all tools and supplies and secure items that may pose an additional

19

IHAC

risk. To the extent possible, accommodations should be made to align the materials andpolicies of the PDP with those of the institution. For example, if banned by institutional
policy, Kongs can be replaced by a slow-feeder bowl if used for feeding purposes or asnuffle mat if used for enrichment.
All parties must come to an agreement regarding how the use of materials will be
regulated as well as who will be responsible for regulating their use. Nail clippers are
typically not allowed in many correctional settings, but trimming nails is important to thehealth of the dogs. So, one option is for dog program staff to bring nail clippers withthem to the institution at set intervals to trim the dogs’ nails on site and to take theclippers with them when they leave. Another option is for the nail clippers to be kept onsite in a secure area. Here, program staff may trim the dogs’ nails, or either dog
program or prison staff may be present when handlers trim the dogs’ nails to ensurethat the clippers are used appropriately and are secured after use. A third option is fordog program staff to transport the dogs outside of the facility to trim their nails, though
this option presents its own challenges and safety risks related to moving the dogs inand out of the facility. In cases where grooming is an additional component of the
program, a check-in/check-out system may be used to track supplies.
Medications and grooming tools if left on site should be stored in a secure location anddistributed by dog program or prison staff to prevent potential misuse. Additionally,
supplies should be inventoried at the end of each shift and reported to dog program
staff. This ensures that staff are made aware of any discrepancies in a timely mannerand also notifies them when supplies are low and need to be re-ordered.
Every setting presents unique challenges, so it is important that policies regulate thetypes of tools used by the program and that resource tracking and management policies
are developed that best fit the particulars of the location. The potential benefit ofincorporating a material or tool should always be weighed against its potential risk. As a
final safety consideration, PDPs should develop emergency protocols for facility
lockdowns or natural disasters common to their specific region that details how dogs
will be moved in and out of the facility if needed.

20

IHAC

RESTRICTED ACCESS
In general, dogs are allowed in most areas of the institution. This is beneficial because
it allows them to have additional socialization opportunities through exposure to diverse
situations, stimuli, and people. In some cases, dogs are not permitted in the dining or
kitchen areas due to health codes or the infirmary for hygienic reasons. Dogs may also
be prohibited from the metal shop, the wood shop, or the gym for the safety of bothdogs and humans. Some facilities do not allow dogs in the visiting area as a safety
precaution since it is difficult to predict or control how visitors might respond to orinteract with the dogs.

SANITATION

21

IHAC

FACILITYREQUIREMENTS
Facilities differ in their available space; however, PDPs need a minimum amount of
space to function effectively. Programs need space to house, train, and exercise thedogs and areas for the dogs to eliminate. Without the appropriate space, the welfare of
the dogs and the integrity of the program may be compromised.

PROGRAM OFFICE AND SUPPLY STORAGE
If a PDP has a full-time dog program staff member who is employed by the institution,then a dedicated office space that allows for the secure storage of records and otherdocuments should be provided. Because dog program staff who are not employed by
the institution often have another office space where records and documents can be
securely stored and because they are not at the facility as often as a full-time staff
member, they may or may not need their own office.
If program spaces are shared with others, equipment should not be left and instead
must be stored in a secure area. Storage space for equipment and other program
materials is necessary so that dog program staff and trainers do not have to bringmaterials in and take them out each time they visit the institution. This places anadditional burden on those staff and may discourage their continued participation in the
program. Secured storage spaces should also keep medications and other materials
with the potential for misuse.

HOUSING
Dogs are commonly housed with their handler either in cells or in a group dorm setting.
Programs with primary and secondary handlers often share a cell to support training of
the dogs. For programs that rotate dogs among different handlers, the dogs’ sleeping
arrangements also rotate so that they are housed with their current handler. Dogs thatlive in cells are housed in crates that are placed either next to or underneath theirhandlers' bed. The exact placement of the crates is often dictated by institutional policy.

22

IHAC

Programs must consider the minimum amount of free space needed for both dogs andhandlers to move around. If allowed, beds can be raised to meet minimum free spacerequirements. Institutional policy and free space requirements should be considered
because it can limit the size of dogs that programs are able to accept.
Programs that operate in jail settings often have group dorms. In these cases, dogs
may live in a communal space with their handler and other inmates who may not be in
the program. This environment may prove too stressful for some dogs due to theincreased amount of activity in the space that limits their ability to rest.
Programs may house handlers and dogs separately if space does not permit them tolive together, but this is not ideal. Housing them in the same space allows handlers to
be responsive to the dogs’ needs and can aid in socialization. Dogs who are in service
training, in particular, should be housed with their handlers since it is more likely tosimulate their living conditions as service dogs. There, the dogs may be expected tomaintain close proximity to their owner while sleeping to be able to respond to theirneeds at any moment. In instances when programs act as a shelter, dogs are housed inanother building on facility grounds.

TRAINING SPACE
Programs should have access to indoor training space in addition or as an alternative
to outdoor space. Indoor space allows for training when the weather outside is too hot
or too cold to permit safe training. For programs that do not have an additional outdoor
space, the training space may also act as an exercise space. In these cases, special
pads may be needed to allow the dogs to gain sufficient traction. Programs that train
service dogs may require additional space due the materials needed for training.
Handlers may also use this space for their classes, or they may have a separate space.

23

IHAC

OUTDOOR SPACE
Outdoor spaces are used for exercise, training, and elimination. PDPs may have theirown dedicated outdoor space, or it may be shared with other inmates. If shared, dogs
must remain on leash when other inmates are present as a safety precaution. Sufficient
outdoor space is necessary because it allows for multiple dogs to share the area atonce and for handlers to practice recall with the dogs. If the area is large enough, it
may be beneficial to fence off a smaller section for dogs who are older or who havemobility issues that would make interacting in the larger group challenging. If outdoor
space is not available, indoor spaces may be used for the dogs to train and recreate.
Programs that do not allow handlers to have free access to outdoor areas and do not
permit the dogs to eliminate indoors should have correctional officers available to grant
access to outdoor space when needed.

24

IHAC

DOG INFORMATION
DOG WELFARE

25

IHAC

26

IHAC

DOG SELECTION PROCESS

27

IHAC

TRANSPORTATION OF THE DOGSPDPs that receive dogs from another part of the country need to make additionalarrangements to transport the dogs over great distances. Programs often choose toreceive dogs from farther away based on relationships developed with shelters andrescues in a particular area or because of a specific event that may have displaced alarge number of dogs. More common transportation purposes include transporting thedogs for veterinary care, socialization outings, and adoption events. Transportation inthese cases is almost exclusively provided by dog program or shelter staff. In rarecases, an emergency veterinarian may make a trip to the institution. In any case, clear
policies and procedures should be in place regarding how and when dogs may betransported.

28

IHAC
TRAINING METHODOLOGYADOPTION PROTOCOL
For most programs, the primary goal is for the dogs to be adopted upon completion of
the program, either through a general adoption process or through placement as aservice dog. When developing an adoption protocol, PDPs should consider institutional
policies regarding visitors as well as the feasibility of taking dogs into the community tomeet potential adopters. If working with a shelter, their adoption policies should also betaken into account.
Adoption of the dogs can be promoted through community events, social media, orother online platforms. For example, Petfinder and Facebook are two online platforms
that can be used to reach a broader pool of potential adopters and to provide moredetailed information on each dog in the program. When possible, it is beneficial for
programs to host or to participate in adoption events in the community where potential
adopters can meet dogs who are still in the program. These practices support efforts tosecure placements so that the dogs can move directly into their new homes rather than
to a shelter before transitioning into their new home. This also reduces the amount ofadditional resources that are required to care for the dogs beyond their time in the
training program.

29

IHAC

30

IHAC

HANDLERINFORMATIONHANDLER ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIESAt the core of PDPs are handlers who are responsible for the training and general
welfare of the dogs. Programs typically maintain a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio of handlers to dogs.
This ratio is dependent upon the staff’s capacity to monitor handlers, the availability ofdogs, and the program’s structure. Programs with a 2:1 ratio often use primary andsecondary handlers, with primary handlers maintaining responsibility for the dogs andsecondary handlers providing support. Primary handlers tend to be more experienced,
perform the bulk of caretaking and training tasks, and may mentor secondary handlers.
Secondary handlers may step in when primary handlers are unavailable, when they
have gone to a part of the facility where the dogs are not allowed, or when primary
handlers need a break. They may have another job assignment but often live in thesame housing unit as the other handlers. Some programs also utilize lead or seniorhandlers who facilitate training groups and help monitor other handlers. Someinstitutions do not allow one inmate to have authority over another, so in cases where
there is a 2:1 handler-to-dog ratio, each handler shares equal responsibility for the dog.
One of the main priorities for handlers is basic caretaking, which includes feeding,pottying, exercising, bathing, and grooming the dogs. Bathing is the best way tominimize odors that may be bothersome to prison staff and other inmates who share
space with the dogs. Depending on the climate of the area, handlers may need tobathe the dogs more or less frequently to minimize odors. The other main priority forhandlers is training, though their responsibilities will vary by program purpose.
Other handler responsibilities include attending classes (if offered by the program),
maintaining appropriate documentation (e.g., incident reports and training journals),
communicating any issues or needs to the appropriate staff, and maintaining theequipment and program spaces through cleaning, sanitation, and proper waste
disposal. Handlers are also expected to provide education to other inmates and staff
about how to properly interact with the dogs, which may be different depending onwhether the dogs are being trained for general obedience and socialization or forservice tasks. In any case, handlers must be able to set limits and appropriate

31

IHAC

boundaries with others and to remove dogs from unsafe situations. Handlers also needto monitor interactions between the dogs and others within the institution to prevent
possible injury to both dogs and humans. Handlers may also evaluate the dogs to help
in finding a good adoption fit. While providing this training to handlers might be an initialburden, it would benefit shelters and rescues by saving them money in the long term.
Programs may choose to rotate dogs among different handlers to support their ability tolearn across different situations. This may also be done when there are concerns that a
dog will bond with only one person and potentially have difficulties when transitioning to
its new home. Frequently rotating dogs who have difficulties with transitions is notrecommended. Being overly stressed can be detrimental to a dog's general well being
and can interfere with its training.
It is recommended that programs review and have handlers sign a document explicitly
stating expectations of their behavior while in the program and reasons for removalfrom the program to help prevent any possible misunderstandings related to their
responsibilities and conduct. Reasons for removing handlers from the program should
include mistreatment or abuse of the dogs, mishandling of supplies, and disciplinary
issues. Programs may choose to have some flexibility in the type or frequency of
disciplinary issues that are cause for removal from the program. Each PDP should
evaluate their own needs and develop policies that best fit their environment and alignwith the desired outcomes of the program. Because of the important role handlers playin PDPs, special attention should be paid to their selection, training, and evaluation.

HANDLER QUALITIESIn working with handlers, staff have identified several qualities that are characteristic of
successful handlers. Some qualities may be personal attributes of the handlers, whileothers are developed through participation in the program. These qualities are usedboth to select inmates whom staff believe will be successful in the program and toevaluate their performance in the program.
Staff often look for handlers who have a love of animals, as this relates to theirmotivation for participating in the program. Being a handler is not an easy task. Staff
routinely state that handlers train their dogs 24/7, so having the appropriate motivation
not only helps handlers stay committed to the demanding training requirements but
also encourages them to behave accordingly to remain in the program.

32

IHAC

HANDLER SELECTION PROCESSA standard process is used to select inmates for participation in the PDP. This includes
recruitment and screening of the inmates along with an application and interview
process. It is critical to the success of the program that both dog program and prison
staff agree upon what the selection process will entail and that both parties have someinfluence in choosing participants. Some challenges related to limited cooperation
between parties include an inefficient selection process that wastes valuable time andresources, inappropriate selection of handlers who are motivated by additional
privileges only, and an inability to reliably ensure the safety of the dogs. If a joint effort is
not possible, at minimum, each party should have a clear understanding of their role in
the process through written policies.

33

IHAC
Typically, staff recruit inmates to participate in PDPs by posting sign-up sheets,
distributing informational materials about the program, or by identifying potential
candidates through caseworkers and correctional officers. Next, inmates complete andsubmit applications to determine if they meet basic program requirements and to help
staff gauge their motivation, character, and level of interest in participating in the
program. If an inmate passes the initial application screening, they are theninterviewed by dog program staff, prison staff, or both to assess whether the inmate
has the potential to make constructive contributions to the collaborative, peer-based
program. As an additional measure, inmates may be asked to provide a reference
and/or the selection committee may consult with prison staff who are familiar with theinmate. This is useful when more information is needed to determine whether theinmate is likely to have the responsibility, maturity, and trustworthiness required to be
successful in the program. On a practical level, this mirrors a typical job application
process, which can be useful in preparing inmates to engage in this process upon
release.

HANDLER SELECTION CRITERIA

34

IHAC

35

IHAC

HANDLER TRAINING
Handler training is an integral component of any PDP. The training structure, content,
and level of support that handlers receive greatly influence program outcomes and aredetermined by the availability of staff and resources. While many programs are unable
to employ full-time dog trainers, funding this position is critical. The knowledge andexpertise they hold may be needed to achieve training outcomes, particularly for PDPs
that train service dogs.
Programs may require handlers to receive training prior to receiving their dogs. These
trainings can cover topics related to the care and training of the dogs or related topersonal development (e.g., anger management). This advanced preparation may bedone to help handlers be successful in the program or may be done as a way ofassessing whether handlers have the motivation required for the program.
Handlers receive much of their training by attending classes. Few programs have astructured training curriculum and schedule, but those that do tend to have paid full-time
staff who are available to assist in curriculum development and implementation.
Classes are typically held once a week but might be held as often as 5 days a week or
as little as once every other week depending on the capacity and goals of the program.
Classes cover a range of topics, including canine body language, dog bite prevention,
breaking up dog fights, name recognition, house training, and how to communicate withyour dog. Classes for vocational programs may cover additional topics (e.g., canine
diseases and disorders or AKC dog breeds) that are aimed at providing handlers further
knowledge to support their professional development. Programs may also offer pet firstaid and CPR as an added safety measure. If obtaining certification, there will likely be
specific curriculum requirements as well as a final test that handlers must
pass. Because many programs allow indefinite participation of handlers, it may bebeneficial to have different levels of training curriculum. Advanced curriculum allows
handlers to gain a sense of mastery over the topic and encourages continued growth
while in the program.
Outside of class, dog trainers make themselves available to handlers to address
training challenges when possible; however, their capacity to do so is often limited ifthey are working on a volunteer basis. Handlers also have access to a variety ofmaterials, including books, magazines, manuals, worksheets, handouts, or a video
library, that they can use when they are unable to receive direct support from a dog
trainer. Various types of training materials are helpful in accommodating different

36

IHAC

learning styles and can be offered as an alternative or in addition to classes. Handlers
may also receive personalized training binders for each dog that detail their specifictraining cues and other pertinent information. Binders are an especially important tool
for training models that regularly rotate dogs to new handlers because they help
promote continuity in the care and training of the dogs across multiple handlers.
Peer mentoring is another key element used to enhance the training process. Though
not ideal, this structure can be used as an alternative to direct guidance by a dog
trainer. Preferably, peer mentoring is used in addition to working regularly with a dog
trainer so that the dogs and handlers may benefit from the unique learning opportunities
that each provides. Through peer mentoring, handlers can reinforce new skills byteaching others, which may accelerate the learning process. Additionally, this structureassists handlers in developing collaborative skills by working through common
challenges together. As handlers progress in the training program, a peer mentoring
structure offers opportunities for leadership roles that can strengthen a handler’s senseof competence, confidence, and agency. Lead handlers may further develop
professional skills in management, teamwork, and communication, which can serve tobuild their resumes and increase job prospects upon release.

HANDLER MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Effective handler monitoring helps ensure adherence to policies and training
requirements and promotes safety in the facility. Video surveillance is often used tomonitor handlers since it is a resource that is readily available. Prison staff oversee thissystem but will often share concerning or questionable video recordings with dog
program staff and trainers. When dogs are housed in a dorm setting with other inmates
who are not in the program, dogs and their crates should be strategically placed relative
to the cameras and monitoring station for supervision.
Monitoring also occurs in person by dog program staff, prison staff, and other handlers.
Dog program staff supervise the care and training of the dogs, while prison staff
oversee institutional rules. When there is limited in-person monitoring by dog program
staff, prison staff take on those additional responsibilities. Even when this is not thecase, prison staff often communicate any concerns they have about the dogs’ care and

37

IHAC

training to dog program staff. As such, a good working relationship and open
communication between staff is imperative. In addition, programs frequently use
informal peer-to-peer monitoring; however, lead handlers tend to have a more formalrole in monitoring other handlers. While programs have formal mechanisms in place forone handler to report another for misconduct, this rarely occurs unless there issuspected abuse of a dog. Dog program staff and dog trainers must understand the actof reporting in the larger context of the institutional environment. Prison culture dictatesthat inmates should not inform on one another. As a result, the reporting process should
be confidential to protect the safety of the reporting party and to increase the likelihoodthat handlers will communicate any concerning behaviors to staff.
The most common measure of adherence to training is assessment of the dog. Dog
program staff evaluate handlers through progress their dog has made as well as the
dog’s response to the handlers. If dogs are not making the progress that is
expected, then program staff know that handlers have not been following the training
schedule. Staff then must determine the reason why handlers are not complying withthe training. If the handler is lacking skill, then dog program staff, lead handlers, or otherhandlers should provide additional training. They should also discuss with the handler
the importance of communicating their needs in order to best help the dog progress inthe program. If the handler is lacking commitment, then program staff will need todecide whether to document the incident or to remove the handler from the program. If
dogs seem fearful of or ignore their handler, dog program staff know that therelationship between the dog and the handler is not strong. This may be due tochallenges the dog or the handler has in developing a bond with the other or because ahandler might be too harsh in their tone or approach. Programs that rotate handlers
allow for additional evaluation by comparing the dog’s response to different handlers.
Again, depending on the cause of the challenge in the handler-dog relationship, thismight require additional training, sanction, or removal from the program.

38

IHAC

recommendations
Based on the protocol, we have identified the following recommendations:
1) Programs should clearly define their purpose, goals, and objectives to help guidedevelopment and implementation of the PDP.
2) Programs should engage a variety of funding sources and be creative in utilizing theresources at their disposal for improved financial security.
3) Programs should educate themselves on issues related to working in a correctionalsetting, including safety considerations and institutional culture, and orient themselvesto the specific policies and procedures of the institutions in which they will operate.
4) Programs should involve prison administration and staff in the development of policies
and procedures when possible to encourage strong internal support and buy-in and to
facilitate effective communication. In the very least, policies and procedures must be
agreed upon by all parties.
5) Programs should have clear policies and procedures that detail, among other things,
staff roles and responsibilities, communication practices, documentation, sanitation,
movement of the dogs in and out of the facility, care and training of the dogs, andhandler selection and termination from the program.
6) Programs should attend to the training, monitoring, and evaluation of handlers to
support successful outcomes for dogs and handlers.
7) To promote the success and sustainability of the PDP, program staff should be paid.

As a final note, while informal support networks for those involvedin PDPs are in place, a formal support network through an online
website or registry may be beneficial in increasing access to
support for those in isolated areas. Additionally, this network canserve as a resource for ongoing information sharing that engages
the expertise of those involved in the work.

39

IHAC

REFERENCES
1. Strimple, E. O. (2003). A history of prison inmate-animal interaction programs. American Behavioral
Scientist, 47(1), 70-78.
2. Furst, G. (2006). Prison-based animal programs: A national survey. The Prison Journal, 86(4), 407430.
3. Britton, D. M., & Button, A. (2005). Prison pups: Assessing the effects of dog training programs incorrectional facilities. Journal of Family Social Work, 9(4), 79-95.
4. Bachi, K. (2013). Equine-facilitated prison-based programs within the context of prison-based
animal programs: State of the science review. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52(1), 46-74.
5. Cooke, B. J., & Farrington, D. P. (2014). Perceived effects of dog-training programmes incorrectional settings. Journal of Forensic Practice, 16(3), 171-183.
6. Minton, C. A., Perez, P. R., & Miller, K. (2015). Voices from behind prison walls. Society & Animals,
23(5), 484-501.
7. Moneymaker, J. M., & Strimple, E. O. (1991). Animals and inmates: A sharing companionshipbehind bars. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 16(3-4), 133-152.
8. Koda, N., Watanabe, G., Miyaji, Y., Kuniyoshi, M., Miyaji, C., & Hirata, T. (2016). Effects of a dogassisted intervention assessed by salivary cortisol concentrations in inmates of a Japanese prison.
Asian Journal of Criminology, 11(4), 309-319.
9. Cooke, B. J. & Farrington, D. P. (2016). The effectiveness of dog-training programs in prison: A
systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. The Prison Journal, 96(6), 854-876.
10. Huss, R. J. (2014). Canines (and cats!) in correctional institutions: Legal and ethical issues relating
to companion animal programs. Nevada Law Journal, 14, 25-62.
11. Smith, J. & Unti, B. (2016). Second chances: Pen Pals, Inc., the Dixon Correctional Institute andLouisiana’s post-Katrina animal rescue legacy. Corrections Today, January/February, 40-44.
12. Fournier, A. K., Geller, E. S., & Fortney, E. V. (2007). Human-animal interaction in a prison setting:
Impact on criminal behavior, treatment progress, and social skills. Behavior and Social Issues,
16(1), 89-105.
13. Furst, G. (2007). Without words to get in the way: Symbolic interaction in prison-based animal
programs. Qualitative Sociology Review, 3(1), 96-109.

40

IHAC
14. Hogle, P. S. (2009). Going to the dogs: Prison-based training programs are win-win. Corrections
Today, 71(4), 69-71.
15. Lai, J. (April 1998). Literature review: Pet-facilitated therapy in correctional institutions. Retrieved
from http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/publications/fsw/pet/pet-eng.shtml
16. Minke, L. K. (2017). Normalization, social bonding, and emotional support—A dog’s effect within aprison workshop for women. Anthrozoös, 30(3), 387-395.
17. Haynes, M. (1991). Pet therapy: Program lifts spirits, reduces violence in institution's mental healthunit. Corrections Today, 53(5), 120-122.
18. Osborne, S. J., & Bair, R. (2003). Healing inmates' hearts and spirits with man's best friend.
Corrections Today, 65(2), 122-123.
19. van Wormer, J., Kigerl, A. & Hamilton, Z. (2017). Digging deeper: Exploring the value of prisonbased dog handler programs. The Prison Journal. 97(4), 520-538.
20. Furst, G. (2016). Helping war veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: Incarcerated individuals'role in therapeutic animal programs. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services,54(5), 49-57.
21. Conklin, T. (2014, February 25). An animal welfare history lesson on the Five Freedoms. Retrieved
from http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/an_animal_welfare_history_lesson_on_the_five_freedoms
22. International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants. (n.d.). IAABC position statement on LIMA.
Retrieved from https://m.iaabc.org/about/position-statements/lima/
23. 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.
24. Fernandes, J. G., Olsson, I. A. S., & de Castro, A. C. V. (2017). Do aversive-based training methods
actually compromise dog welfare?: A literature review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 196, 112.
25. Hennessy, M. B., Morris, A., & Linden, F. (2006). Evaluation of the effects of a socialization programin a prison on behavior and pituitary–adrenal hormone levels of shelter dogs. Applied Animal
Behaviour Science, 99(1-2), 157-171.
26. Bergamasco, L., Osella, M. C., Savarino, P., Larosa, G., Ozella, L., Manassero, M., & Re, G.
(2010). Heart rate variability and saliva cortisol assessment in shelter dog: Human-animal
interaction effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 125(1), 56-68.
27. Conley, M. J., Fisher, A. D., & Hemsworth, P. H. (2014). Effects of human contact and toys on thefear responses to humans of shelter-housed dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 156, 62-69.

41

IHAC
28. Haubenhofer, D.K., & Kirchengast, S. (2007). Dog handler’s and dog’s emotional and cortisol
secretion responses associated with animal-assisted therapy sessions. Society and Animals, 15(2),127-150.
29. Hennessy, M. B. (2013). Using hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal measures for assessing andreducing the stress of dogs in shelters: A review. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 149(1), 1-12.
30. Deaton, C. (2005). Humanizing prisons with animals: A closer look at "cell dogs" and horse
programs in correctional institutions. Journal of Correctional Education, 56(1), 46-62.
31. Gordon, H. R., & Weldon, B. (2003). The impact of career and technical education programs on
adult offenders: Learning behind bars. Journal of Correctional Education, 54(4), 200-209.
32. Seiter, R. P., & Kadela, K. R. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what ispromising. Crime & Delinquency, 49(3), 360-388.
33. Wilson, D. B., Gallagher, C. A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based
education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, 37(4), 347-368.
34. Hopper, J. D. (2013). Benefits of inmate employment programs: Evidence from the Prison Industry
Enhancement Certification Program. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 11(5), 213-222.
35. Nally, J. M., Lockwood, S., Ho, T., & Knutson, K. (2014). Post-release recidivism and employment
among different types of released offenders: A 5-year follow-up study in the United States.
International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 9(1), 16-34.
36. Cooke, B. J., & Farrington, D. P. (2015). The effects of dog-training programs: Experiences ofincarcerated females. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(2), 201-214.
37. Hairston, C. F. (1991). Family ties during imprisonment: Important to whom and for what. Journal of
Sociology & Social Welfare, 18(1), 87-104.
38. Hill, S. E., & Murphy, N. C. (2016). Analysis of dog adoption success and failure using surveys withvignettes. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 19(2), 144-156.
39. Association of Shelter Veterinarians (2010). Guidelines for standards of care in animal shelters.
Retrieved from https://www.sheltervet.org/assets/docs/shelter-standards-oct2011-wforward.pdf
40. Protopopova, A. (2016). Effects of sheltering on physiology, immune function, behavior, and thewelfare of dogs. Physiology & Behavior, 159, 95-103.
41. Titulaer, M., Blackwell, E. J., Mendl, M., & Casey, R. A. (2013). Cross sectional study comparing
behavioural, cognitive and physiological indicators of welfare between short and long term kennelled
domestic dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 147(1-2), 149-158.

42

IHAC
420 Part, C. E., Kiddie, J. L., Hayes, W. A., Mills, D. S., Neville, R. F., Morton, D. B., & Collins, L. M.
(2014). Physiological, physical and behavioural changes in dogs (Canis familiaris) when kennelled:
Testing the validity of stress parameters. Physiology & Behavior, 133, 260-271.
43. Burrows, K. E., Adams, C. L., & Millman, S. T. (2008). Factors affecting behavior and welfare ofservice dogs for children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science,
11(1), 42-62.
44. Sandri, M., Colussi, A., Perrotta, M. G., & Stefanon, B. (2015). Salivary cortisol concentration in
healthy dogs is affected by size, sex, and housing context. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: ClinicalApplications and Research, 10(4), 302-306.
45. Hewison, L. F., Wright, H. F., Zulch, H. E., & Ellis, S. L. (2014). Short term consequences of
preventing visitor access to kennels on noise and the behaviour and physiology of dogs housed in a
rescue shelter. Physiology & Behavior, 133, 1-7.
46. Normando, S., Contiero, B., Marchesini, G., & Ricci, R. (2014). Effects of space allowance on the
behaviour of long-term housed shelter dogs. Behavioural Processes, 103, 306-314.
47. Kiddie, J. L., & Collins, L. M. (2014). Development and validation of a quality of life assessment toolfor use in kennelled dogs (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 158, 57-68.
48. Wells, D. L. (2004). A review of environmental enrichment for kennelled dogs, Canis familiaris.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85(3-4), 307-317.
49. Patronek, G. J., & Bradley, J. (2016). No better than flipping a coin: Reconsidering canine behavior
evaluations in animal shelters. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research,
15, 66-77.
50. Bir, C., Widmar, N. J. O., & Croney, C. C. (2017). Stated preferences for dog characteristics andsources of acquisition. Animals, 7(8), 59.
51. O'Connor, R., Coe, J. B., Niel, L., & Jones-Bitton, A. (2016). Effect of adopters' lifestyles andanimal-care knowledge on their expectations prior to companion-animal guardianship. Journal ofApplied Animal Welfare Science, 19(2), 157-170.
52. Diesel, G., Pfeiffer, D. U., & Brodbelt, D. (2008). Factors affecting the success of rehoming dogs in
the UK during 2005. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 84(3-4), 228-241.
53. Schoberl, I., Wedl, M., Beetz, A., & Kotrschal, K. (2017). Psychobiological factors affecting cortisol
variability in human-dog dyads. PLoS ONE. 12(2), 1-18.
54. Dreschel, N. A., & Entendencia, K. (2013). Stress during certification testing in prison drug detection
dogs and their handlers. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 8(4),e28.

43