894657
research-article2019

TPJXXX10.1177/0032885519894657The Prison JournalFlynn et al.

ArticleMeasuring thePsychological Impactsof Prison-Based Dog
Training Programs and
In-Prison Outcomes for
Inmates

The Prison Journal
﻿1­–16© 2019 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519894657
DOI: 10.1177/0032885519894657
journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

Erin Flynn1, Katie Massey Combs2,
Jaci Gandenberger1, Philip Tedeschi1,
and Kevin N. Morris1

Abstract
As interest grows in programs that improve prison inmates’ behavior
and psychosocial well-being, any such interventions must be rigorously
examined and their underlying mechanisms for change must be understood.
This pilot study examined the use of prison-based dog training programs
across Washington State Department of Corrections facilities for theirimpacts on inmates’ infraction rates. The study also compared levels of
empathy, self-efficacy, and anxiety between program participants andnonparticipants. Findings indicated that prison dog program participants’
infraction rates improved and that participants had lower levels of anxiety
than nonparticipants.
Keywords
prison, prison-based animal programs, prison dog programs, infraction rates

1University of Denver, CO, USA
2University of Colorado Boulder, USA

Corresponding Author:
Kevin N. Morris, Institute for Human-Animal Connection, Graduate School of Social Work,
University of Denver, 2148 High Street, Denver, CO 80208, USA.
Email: kevin.morris@du.edu

2

The Prison Journal 00(0)Introduction
An estimated 2.3 million people were incarcerated in the United States in
2016, a significantly higher number than that of any other country in theworld (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018; Warren et al., 2008). Although efforts areunderway to reduce prison populations, it is essential that any such efforts
maintain safety for staff, inmates, and the wider population (Gelb &Stevenson, 2017; Grawert et al., 2017). Programs that reduce inmate inprison infraction rates, particularly those that also improve inmates’ psychosocial well-being, can be an effective way to maintain staff and inmate safety
within correctional facilities while also reducing the likelihood of recidivism
upon release (Cochran et al., 2014; Fournier et al., 2007; Steiner & Meade,2016). Approximately 95% of prisoners are eventually released from prison,so successfully addressing inmate infraction and psychosocial well-being is
an important component in improving the safety of both correctional facilities and broader society (Hughes & Wilson, 2018).
Policymakers have explored a variety of approaches to achieve thesegoals, including more conventional programs such as mental health therapy
and addictions treatment as well as alternative programs ranging from meditation retreats to Shakespearean theater (Council of State Governments
Justice Center, 2014; Heard et al., 2013; Perelman et al., 2012). One promising but understudied approach is the implementation of prison-based dog
programs (PDPs), in which inmates become dog handlers who train the animals for adoption or service work (Van Wormer et al., 2017). Current research
indicates that these programs improve inmates’ well-being and reduce bothinfraction rates and recidivism (Cooke & Farrington, 2016; Van Wormer
et al., 2017). However, that research has been limited by a number of factors,
including small sample sizes, single-site studies, the use of nonvalidated
measures, heavy reliance on qualitative data and anecdotal reports, omissionof details regarding research processes that makes replication difficult, andthe complexity of performing randomized controlled trials in prison settings(Cooke & Farrington, 2014b, 2016; Fournier et al., 2007; Mulcahy &McLaughlin, 2013; Van Wormer et al., 2017).
One recent study addressed some of these concerns using a larger sample
size (n = 1,001) to compare infraction rates of participants in PDPs and agroup of nonparticipating inmates statistically matched across several criteria, including average incarceration length, custody level, and baseline levelsof outcome variables (Van Wormer et al., 2017). This study, the largest andone of the few to use a statistically matched comparison group to date, foundthat inmates who participated in PDPs had significantly lower serious andviolent infraction rates than matched inmates who did not participate in them.

Flynn et al.

3

These findings support the use of such programs to create “safer and healthier” prison environments by reducing infraction rates (Van Wormer et al.,2017, p. 537). However, the underlying psychosocial mechanisms affecting
the improved infraction rates are still poorly understood and warrant further
study so that the impacts of PDPs can be optimized.

Literature Review
Although the incorporation of animals in prisons and other institutional settings is frequently considered innovative, it is not new. The first documented use of animal-assisted therapy (AAT) occurred in 1792, in which
farm animals were used to teach mental patients self-control (Furst, 2011).
Animal programs were introduced into prisons in 1981, starting at the
Washington State Corrections Center for Women, and now exist in all 50
states in the United States as well as several foreign countries (Cooke &Farrington, 2014b; Strimple, 2003). Today, prison-based animal programs(PAPs) vary widely in scope, aim, eligibility, and even the species of animals involved. Although this variety poses challenges to studying the efficacy of PAPs, it is likely a contributing factor to their popularity (Cooke &Farrington, 2014b).
The Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) continues tobe a leader in implementing these programs. Every WADOC facility has atleast one animal training or adoption program, which are intended to provide
dog training, care, and adoption services to local communities while improving inmates’ responsibility and lowering their rates of violence and recidivism (LeRoy et al., 2012; WADOC, 2016).
WADOC’s dog programs are not designed to be therapeutic in nature, butrather to teach inmates skills in dog training, grooming, and general care (VanWormer et al., 2017). However, findings from exploratory and qualitative
studies suggest that PDPs may yield positive therapeutic impacts, such asincreased self-efficacy, empathy, and emotional well-being (Cooke &Farrington, 2014b; Minton et al., 2015; Richardson-Taylor & Blanchette,2001). Although intriguing, the current research on the potential therapeutic
benefits of PDPs—like the research on PAPs more generally—has multiple
limitations, as described above, particularly single-site studies and the use ofnonvalidated measures. This pilot study aims to partially address current gaps
by applying widely used, highly validated measures of empathy, self-efficacy, and anxiety to compare PDP participants and nonparticipants in 10
WADOC prisons. The three psychosocial variables examined in this study
were chosen due to their inclusion in previous studies of participants in PDPs
and association with inmates’ infraction rates and rehabilitation.

4

The Prison Journal 00(0)Programs that aim to increase empathy, defined here as “the ability tounderstand and share the feelings of another” (Yogev, 2012, p. 61) among
inmates are common in many prisons because this psychosocial parameter isa central component of prosocial behavior and is inversely related to violence, criminal offenses, and recidivism (Bock & Hosser, 2014; Hepper et al.,2014; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004; Miller & Eisenberg, 1988; Van Langen
et al., 2014). Although it remains unclear whether interactions with an animal
increase empathy, human bonds with animals are positively correlated with
empathy (Beetz et al., 2012). Furthermore, increased empathy toward dogs
and other humans seems to occur among participants in PDPs and is a perceived benefit found in many surveys of both inmates and prison staff (Cooke& Farrington, 2014b, 2016; Furst, 2011; Minton et al., 2015).
Self-efficacy, or the “belief in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands” (Gist & Mitchell, 1992, p. 184), is frequently noted as abenefit of PDPs in qualitative interviews (Cooke & Farrington, 2016; Furst,
2011; Lai, 1998; Richardson-Taylor & Blanchette, 2001; Strimple, 2003).
For example, in an exploratory study conducted by Cooke and Farrington(2014b), five of the 11 PDP staff stated that self-efficacy was improved byparticipating in these programs, despite that their questionnaire did not
directly ask about self-efficacy. Similar findings emerged from interviews
with inmates who participated in PDPs (Cooke & Farrington, 2014a; Leonardi
et al., 2017). General self-efficacy gained through prison programs is a powerful behavior change determinant because an individual’s expectations of
their own ability inform their decision to perform a behavior, expend effort,
and persevere in the face of adverse conditions (Bandura, 1977, 1982). If
PDPs are particularly effective in increasing inmate self-efficacy, it could
have significant implications for inmate rehabilitation efforts.
High levels of anxiety or “tension, apprehension, nervousness, and worry,”
accompanied by “arousal of the autonomic nervous system” (Spielberger,
1983, p. 4), among inmates can lead to increased conflicts with correctional
officers and other inmates (MacKenzie, 1987). Contact with animals correlates positively with improved human health and reduced stress, which tend
to influence levels of anxiety (Beetz et al., 2012, Grinde & Patil, 2009;
Wilson, 1984). PDPs have been frequently reported as increasing happinessand reducing stress among program participants as well as reducing the overall stressfulness of prison environments (Cooke & Farrington, 2014a, 2016;
Furst, 2011; Harkrader et al., 2004; Richardson-Taylor & Blanchette, 2001;
Strimple, 2003). In one survey, 76% (n = 23) of participants reported a clear
reduction in stress, although others noted that their stress was sometimes
increased due to having to care for dogs in lockdown situations (Minton

Flynn et al.

5

et al., 2015). Furthermore, anecdotal reports have linked PDPs to improvements in individual participants’ anxiety symptoms as well as other potential
anxiety markers such as high blood pressure (Osborne & Blair, 2003).
Further research is needed regarding the psychosocial impacts of PDPs
(Cooke & Farrington, 2016; Van Wormer et al., 2017). The aim of this pilot
study was to further examine the impact of PDPs on infraction rates as well
as psychosocial outcomes, specifically empathy, self-efficacy, and anxiety,and to explore whether validated self-report instruments can be used to examine the efficacy of dog programs within a prison setting. If so, this supports
further research to implement these tools on a broader scale, allowing for amore consistent and reliable set of data to be used to analyze the impacts ofthese programs over time.

MethodParticipant Selection
This pilot study included 229 male and female inmates from 10 of 12 WADOC
facilities across all security levels. To be eligible to participate, inmates wererequired to be at least 18 years of age and proficient in reading English. The
recruitment and consent process consisted of two phases. First, 1 month prior
to data collection, approximately 450 inmates were identified by the researchteam as potential participants. Each inmate was sent a recruitment flyer by
WADOC staff; individuals were able to ask the staff questions prior to theresearcher being on site. The second phase took place on the day of the survey session. Inmates eligible to participate responded to a voluntary call out
to the survey session. Respondents were gathered in groups and guided
through a recruitment and consent script and allowed to ask questions regarding their potential participation. Those who agreed to participate and signed
the consent form were included in the study. Participants were tracked bytheir WADOC identification numbers. Prior to data analysis, these numbers
were replaced with randomly assigned study identification numbers.
Of the total of 229 inmates in the study, 150 were in the PDP group and 79
were included as comparison nonparticipants. For the sake of the study,
inmates designated as participants were those who were ever in a PDP; they
may not have been actively participating at the time of the survey data collection. Descriptive statistics of the sample by intervention and comparisongroups were collected (Table 1). Of the participants, 85.6% identified as
White, 9.6% as Black, and 4.4% as Other (Asian and American Indian.) Oneof the 10 prisons studied was a women’s facility, with women making up
6.60% of the total participants. Inmates’ risk levels were determined using

6

The Prison Journal 00(0)Table 1. Descriptions of Participant Demographics.

Race
White
Black
Other (Asian,
American Indian)Gender—Female
Age at survey datacollection
Risk level
Low
ModerateHigh
Pre-PDP infraction
rate (Mdn)Median post-/during-PDP
infraction rate (Mdn)

Total (229),%/M (SD)

Intervention(n = 150),%/M (SD)

Comparison(n = 79),%/M (SD)

Chisquare/U
test

85.6%
9.6%
4.4%

86.0%
10.0%
4.0%

84.8%
8.9%
6.3%

4.99

6.6%
39.9 (12.3)

9.3%
39.4 (13.0)

1.3%
40.9 (11.0)

5.50*

33.60%
14.40%
51.90%
0.68

37.30%
13.30%
49.40%
0.54

26.60%
16.50%
57.00%
0.68

2.79

3,939.00

0.59

0.34

1.01

4,155**

Note. PDP = prison-based dog program.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

standard WADOC protocol, which calculates scores based on a variety ofweighted offender risk factors and classified inmates based on the scoreachieved (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2008). Of the total
participants, 33.6% were rated as low risk, 14.4% as medium, and 51.9% ashigh. The categories of “high violent,” “high property,” and “high drug” risk
levels were collapsed into “high.” The infraction rates listed represent the
number of infractions divided by the number of days in prison. No significant
differences were found between the intervention and comparison groups interms of race, risk level, or preprogram infraction rates.

Measures
Infractions
Change in infraction rates before and during the PDP was assessed using
administrative data from WADOC. These data included infractions and entry
and exits for each participating inmate from June 2011 to June 2017.
Infraction rates were calculated, with the total number of infractions divided

7

Flynn et al.
Table 2. Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks Tests on Pre- and Postinfraction Rates.

Intervention
Comparison

Preprogram:
Medianinfraction rate

Post-/duringprogram: Medianinfraction ratez-testSignificance

0.68
0.54

0.34
1.01

–2.52
–1.47

.012
.141

by the total number of days in prison during the two periods of the study (prePDP and during-PDP). Because participants had varying start dates in the
PDP and may have exited and reentered prison between June 2011 and June
2017, the number of days in the program was calculated based on individual
PDP start dates and actual days in prison. For the comparison group, since thefirst implementation of the PDP was June 22, 2014, with 25% of the intervention group starting on this date, June 22, 2014, was used as the cutoff between
pre-PDP and “during” PDP. The mean number of infractions pre-PDP was
1.55 (SD = 2.14) and during the PDP was 1.60 (SD = 2.66). The infractions
rates were not normally distributed, thus medians are reported, and nonparametric tests were utilized for infraction rate analyses. The comparative preand postinfraction rates between the dog and no dog groups were compared(Table 2).

Empathy
The Brief Interpersonal Reactivity Index (B-IRI) was used to measure empathy level (Ingoglia et al., 2016). The full-length Interpersonal Reactivity
Index (IRI) consists of 28 Likert-type scale questions covering four subscales—Fantasy, Empathic Concern, Perspective Taking, and PersonalDistress—that measure both cognitive and affective empathy (Davis, 1980,1983). It is the most widely used self-report measure of empathy over the last
20 years and has been employed in prison populations (Gerdes et al., 2010;
Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004; Loinaz et al., 2018). However, several studies
have indicated that inmates, particularly those with lower IQs and weaker
verbal skills, may have difficulty with some of the questions to an extent thatlowers the IRI’s reliability with those populations (Beven et al., 2004;
Lauterbach & Hosser, 2007). To address those concerns, Ingoglia et al. (2016)
developed the 16-question B-IRI as a shorter, more accessible version for
special populations with low literacy skills. A series of studies across three
independent samples demonstrated that the B-IRI preserves “a reasonable
scale reliability and validity” compared with the full-length IRI (Ingoglia

8

The Prison Journal 00(0)et al., 2016, p. 9). Strong reliability was indicated for Empathic Concern(α = .757), Perspective Taking (α = .798), and Fantasy (α = .760). Reliability
was not as strong on the Personal Distress subscale (α = .570), thus it was
not included in the analysis.

Self-Efficacy
The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) was used to measure self-efficacy(Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). It contains 10 statements, written to a basic
literacy level that the respondent scores on a Likert-type scale from “not true”
to “completely true,” and is designed to broadly assess a person’s belief intheir ability to cope with daily challenges and to adapt after experiencing
common stressful events. The GSES is designed for a broad adult populationand has been validated and implemented in a variety of environments, including prison education programs (Allred et al., 2013; Luszczynska et al., 2005;
Luszczynska et al., 2010; Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995). The GSES hadstrong reliability within this sample (α = .884).

Anxiety
The State/Trait Anxiety Index for Adults (STAI-AD) was used to measureanxiety (Spielberger, 1972, 1983; Spielberger et al., 1970). The STAI-AD,
which is written to a sixth grade reading level, has been validated for measuring temporary, or “State,” versus inherent, or “Trait,” anxiety levels in individuals. It has been successfully employed in a wide variety of environments,
including prisons (Barnes et al., 2002; Chen et al., 2016; Kabacoff et al.,1997). The State items (α = .942) and the Trait items (α = .920) had verystrong reliability.
Participants completed the B-IRI, GSES, and STAI-AD at a single point in
time, 3 years after the start of the study period (Figure 1).

Analysis
The change in infraction rates from pre-PDP to during-PDP was also assessed.
Because the rate of infractions was not normally distributed, nonparametrictests were employed. The Mann–Whitney U test for nonparametric variables
was used to examine differences pre-PDP between the infraction rates
between the two groups, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to examine change
in infraction rates from pre-PDP to during-PDP for each group. Independent
sample t-tests were conducted to examine differences in psychosocial measures between the intervention and comparison groups. Differences inFlynn et al.

9

Figure 1. Infraction rate analysis timeline.

infraction rates were examined between the intervention and comparisongroups pre-PDP.

Results
Infraction Rates
A Mann–Whitney U test indicated that infraction rates prior to anyone experiencing the PDP were similar for the intervention and the comparison groups,
U = 3,939.00, p = .577, although the intervention group had significantly
lower infraction rates post-/during-PDP, U = 4,155.00, p < .001 (Table 2).
Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests indicated that intervention participants had asignificant decrease in infraction rates from pre-PDP to post-/during-PDP,
whereas inmates not in the dog program experienced no significant change
during these two periods (Table 2).

Psychosocial Measures
Inmates in the two groups had similar scores in all but one of the B-IRI subscales; however, PDP participants had higher scores on the empathy subscale

10

The Prison Journal 00(0)Table 3. Independent Samples t-tests on Psychosocial Measures.

GSES
S_MeanT_MeanB-IRI Empathy
B-IRI Perspective Taking
B-IRI Fantasy

Intervention

Comparison

n

M

SD

n

M

SD

t-test149 3.23
149 1.54
149 1.91
150 4.00
150 3.42
150 3.09

0.47
0.48
0.49
0.75
0.94
1.00

78
78
78
78
78
78

3.15
1.70
1.98
3.81
3.42
3.09

0.55
1.16
0.61 −2.09*
0.56 −0.89
0.88
1.73***
0.93
0.01
0.96
0.04

Cohen’s d
0.156
0.292
0.133
0.232
0
0

Note. GSES = General Self-Efficacy Scale; B-IRI = Brief Interpersonal Reactivity Index.
*p < .05. ***.5 > p < .1.

of the B-IRI that approached significance (p = .09). No differences were
found between the two groups on the GSES scores or the Trait anxiety subscale, but PDP participants reported statistically significant lower scores on
the State subscale (p = .03) (Table 3).

Discussion
This study replicated previous findings across a different time frame indicating that participation in PDPs lowers infraction rates among participants
compared with inmates who are not in the programs. The similar infraction
rates between the two groups prior to entering PDPs and the maintenance of
these rates in the non-PDP group across the entire study period indicate that
programs involving dogs decrease problem behaviors. In this regard, it isimportant to note that infractions often lead to dismissal from PDPs. The
study also demonstrated that psychosocial data that might further explain themechanisms of change for PDPs can be collected in prison environments
using validated instruments. No statistically significant difference was measured in self-efficacy between the participants and nonparticipants in PDPs,
but the dog program inmates had lower anxiety (p = .03) and were approaching statistical significance for higher empathy (p = .09). The effect sizes forboth differences were small. Because these data were only measured at asingle time point, further research is necessary to state whether PDP participation lowers anxiety or if inmates with lower levels of anxiety are more
likely to participate in PDPs. However, the fact that there was no differencein the Trait anxiety scores between the two groups suggests that PDPs may beeffective in lowering anxiety for participants.

Flynn et al.

11

Limitations
This study has several strengths, including the inclusion of both male andfemale inmates from multiple prisons across security levels, as well as the useof well-validated psychosocial instruments. Although the participants did not
differ on most major demographic variables (see Table 1), other unobserved
differences likely existed related to risk, motivation, or other factors.
Furthermore, the single time point does not allow determination of whether
inmates in PDPs experience changes in psychosocial health or if individuals
with these characteristics are attracted to such programs. However, the pilot
findings support the expansion of these types of studies to better understandthe impacts of PDPs on inmate outcomes.
Because all inmates are typically exposed to dogs within prisons that have
PDPs, it is possible that some of the impacts of these programs were obscured:
the mere presence of dogs may affect all inmates being studied, including
those in the comparison group. The data may be further obscured because
those in the intervention group did not necessarily have a dog at the time ofdata collection. This further bolsters the value of future research that uses
these or similar well-validated measures to examine psychosocial data acrossmultiple time points—to gather and assess data on both dog handlers andnonhandlers exposed to PDPs.
An additional point of note is that, while many of the inmates were eager
to discuss their experiences with the PDPs, participants frequently expresseddisappointment or frustration when the research consisted of psychosocial
assessments rather than more qualitative opportunities to speak directly about
the programs. Although further high-quality quantitative research is nonetheless called for, it would ideally be paired with qualitative approaches using
mixed methods designs that also capture a nuanced understanding of theinmates’ perceptions of PDPs.

Summary and Future Directions
The demonstration that potential psychosocial change mechanisms can be
identified using validated instruments for inmates participating in PDPs supports further research aimed at delineating those mechanisms. By developinga better understanding of how PDPs impact participants, those leading ordeveloping these programs can better optimize their impacts on inmate outcomes. Although these programs are increasingly common across the UnitedStates and internationally, little work has been done to establish best practices
for the inmates, staff, or dogs involved. Such future work should include thefurther use of validated psychosocial measures, ideally across a greater number of sites and over multiple time points.

12

The Prison Journal 00(0)Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: The authors received financial support for the research,authorship, and publication of this article through a University of Denver Professional
Research Opportunities for Faculty grant (DU Award 89959).

References
Allred, S. L., Harrison, L. D., & O’Connell, D. J. (2013). Self-efficacy: An important
aspect of prison-based learning. The Prison Journal, 93(2), 211–233. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0032885512472964
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
Barnes, L. B., Harp, D., & Jung, W. S. (2002). Reliability generalization of scores on
the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Educational and Psychological
Measurements, 62(4), 603–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402062004005
Beetz, A., Uvnas-Moberg, K., Julius, H., & Kortschal, L. (2012). Psychosocial andpsychophysiological effects of human-animal interactions: The possible roleof oxytocin. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 234. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2012.00234
Beven, J. P., O’Brien-Malone, A. O., & Hall, G. (2004). Using the Interpersonal
Reactivity Index to assess empathy in violent offenders. International Journal of
Forensic Psychology, 1(2), 33–41.
Bock, E. M., & Hosser, D. (2014). Empathy as a predictor of recidivism among young
adult offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1
080/1068316X.2012.749472
Chen, X. J., Hannibal, N., & Gold, C. (2016). Randomized trial of group music
therapy with Chinese prisoners: Impact on anxiety, depression, and self-esteem.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(9),1064–1081. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15572795
Cochran, J. C., Mears, D. P., Bales, W. D., & Stewart, E. A. (2014). Does inmate
behavior affect post-release offending? Investigating the misconduct-recidivism
relationship among youth and adults. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 1044–1073.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.736526
Cooke, B. J., & Farrington, D. P. (2014a). The effects of dog-training programs:
Experiences of incarcerated females. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(3), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2014.909763

Flynn et al.

13

Cooke, B. J., & Farrington, D. P. (2014b). Perceived effects of dog-training programmes in correctional settings. The Journal of Forensic Practice, 16(3), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-08-2013-0041
Cooke, B. J., & Farrington, D. P. (2016). The effectiveness of dog-training programsin prison: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. The Prison
Journal, 96(6), 854–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885516671919
Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2014). Reducing recidivism: Statesdeliver results. https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Reducing
Recidivism_StatesDeliverResults.pdf
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence fora multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
Fournier, A. K., Geller, E. S., & Fortney, E. E. (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.
Furst, G. (2011). Animal programs in prison: A comprehensive assessment. Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Gelb, A., & Stevenson, P. (2017). U.S. adult incarceration rate declines 13% in 8 years.
The Pew Charitable Trusts. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/
analysis/2017/01/12/us-adult-incarceration-rate-declines-13-percent-in-8-years
Gerdes, K. E., Segal, E. A., & Lietz, C. A. (2010). Conceptualizing and measuring empathy. British Journal of Social Work, 40(7), 2326–2343. https://doi.
org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq048
Gist, M., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1992.4279530
Grawert, A., Camhi, N., & Chettiar, I. M. (2017). A federal agenda to reduce mass
incarceration. Brennan Center for Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/federal-agenda-reduce-mass-incarceration
Grinde, B., & Patil, G. G. (2009). Biophilia: Does visual contact with nature impact
on health and well-being? International Journal of Environmental Research andPublic Health, 6(9), 2332–2343. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph6092332
Heard, E. M., Mutch, A., Fitzgerald, L., & Pensalfini, R. (2013). Shakespeare inprison: Affecting health and wellbeing. International Journal of Prisoner Health,9(3), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-03-2013-0013
Harkrader, T., Burke, T. W., & Owen, S. S. (2004). Pound puppies: The rehabilitative uses of dogs in correctional facilities. Corrections Today Magazine, 66(2),74–79.
Hepper, E. G., Hart, C. M., Meek, R., Cisek, S., & Sedikides, C. (2014). Narcissism
and empathy in young offenders and non-offenders. European Journal of
Personality, 28(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1939
Hughes, T., & Wilson, D. J. (2018). Bureau of justice statistics: Reentry trends in the
U.S. https://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/reentry.cfm

14

The Prison Journal 00(0)Ingoglia, S., Coco, A. L., & Albiero, P. (2016). Development of a Brief form of theInterpersonal Reactivity Index (B-IRI). Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(5),461–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1149858
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(5), 441–476. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001
Kabacoff, R. I., Segal, D. L., Hersen, M., et al. (1997). Psychometric properties anddiagnostic utility of the Beck Anxiety Inventory and the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory with older adult psychiatric outpatients. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,
11(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6185(96)00033-3
Kaeble, D., & Cowhig, M. (2018). Correctional populations in the United States,
2016. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus16.
pdf
Lai, J. (1998). Pet facilitated therapy in correctional institutions. Office of the Deputy
Commissioner for Women, Correctional Services of Canada. http://www.cwhn.
ca/en/node/25021
Lauterbach, O., & Hosser, D. (2007). Assessing empathy in prisoners—A shortened
version of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66,
91–101. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.66.2.91
Leonardi, R. J., Buchanan-Smith, H. M., McIvor, G., & Vick, S. J. (2017). “You think
you’re helping them, but they’re helping you too”: Experiences of Scottish maleyoung offenders participating in a dog training program. International Journalof Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(8), 945–972. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph14080945
LeRoy, C. J., Bush, K., Trivett, J., & Gallagher, B. (2012). The sustainability in prisons project: An overview (2004-2012). Gorham Publishing.
Loinaz, I., Sanchez, L. M., & Vilella, A. (2018). Understanding empathy, selfesteem, and adult attachment in sexual offenders and partner-violent men.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260518759977
Luszczynska, A., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). General selfefficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence from fivecountries. International Journal of Psychology, 40(2), 80–89. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00207590444000041
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2010). The General Self-Efficacy Scale:Multicultural validation studies. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary
and Applied, 139(5), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457
Mackenzie, D. L. (1987). Age and adjustment to prison: Interactions with attitudes
and anxiety. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14(4), 427–447.
Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive andexternalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 324–344.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.324
Minton, C. A., Perez, P. R., & Miller, K. (2015). Voices from behind prison walls:
The impact of training service dogs on women in prison. Society & Animals,
23(5), 484–501. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341379

Flynn et al.

15

Mulcahy, C., & McLaughlin, D. (2013). Is the tail wagging the dog? A Review of the
Evidence for Prison Animal Programs. Australian Psychologist, 48(5), 369–378.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12021
Osborne, S. J., & Bair, R. (2003). Healing inmates’ hearts and spirits with man’s bestfriend. Corrections Today, 65(2), 122–124.
Perelman, A. M., Miller, S. L., Clements, C. B., Rodriguez, A., Allen, K., &Cavanaugh, R. (2012). Meditation in a deep south prison: A longitudinal studyof the effects of Vipassana. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 51(3), 176–198.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2011.632814
Richardson-Taylor, K., & Blanchette, K. (2001, September). Results of an evaluation of the Pawsitive Directions Canine Program at Nova Institution for Women.
Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada. https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/
research/092/r108_e.pdf
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J.
Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A
user’s portfolio—Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-Nelson.
Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety: Current trends in research. Academic Press.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the StateTrait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press.
Steiner, B., & Meade, B. (2016). Assessing the link between exposure to a violent
prison context and inmate maladjustment. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 32(4), 328–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986216660009
Strimple, E. O. (2003). A history of prison inmate-animal interaction programs. American
Behavioral Scientist, 47(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203255212
Van Langen, M., Wissink, I. B., Van Vugt, E. S., Van der Stouwe, T., & Stams,
G. (2014). The relation between empathy and offending: A meta-analysis.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
avb.2014.02.003
Van Wormer, J., Kigerl, A., & Hamilton, Z. (2017). Digging deeper: Exploring thevalue of prison-based dog handler programs. The Prison Journal, 97(4), 520–
538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517712481
Warren, J., Gelb, A., Horowitz, J., & Riordan, J. (2008, February). One in 100: Behindbars in America 2008 (Pew Charitable Trust Report). https://www.pewtrusts.
org/-/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2008/one20in20100pdf.pdf
Washington State Department of Corrections. (2016). Current programming. http://
www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/programs/descriptions.htm
Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2008). Washington’s offender accountability act: Department of Corrections’ Static Risk Instrument. http://www.
wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/977/Wsipp_Washingtons-Offender-AccountabilityAct-Department-of-Corrections-Static-Risk-Instrument_Full-Report-UpdatedOctober-2008.pdf

16

The Prison Journal 00(0)Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In: S. Kellert S & E. O.
Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (p. 57). Harvard University Press.
Yogev, H. (2012). The development of empathy and group analysis. Group Analysis,
46(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0533316412448312

Author Biographies
Erin Flynn, MSW, is a research associate at the Institute for Human-Animal
Connection, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver. Her researchinterests include corrections, quantitative methods, and positive development, with afocus on human–animal interactions (HAIs).
Katie Massey Combs, PhD, is a research associate with the Center for the Study andPrevention of Violence, University of Colorado Boulder. Her research focuses on thehealth and well-being of vulnerable young and on evaluation, prevention, and intervention programs.
Jaci Gandenberger, MSW, MAIS, is a research fellow at the Institute for HumanAnimal Connection, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver. Her
research interests lie at the intersections between human security, human rights, andanimal and environmental well-being, particularly in cross-cultural contexts.
Philip Tedeschi, MSSW, is a clinical professor and executive director for The
Institute for Human-Animal Connection, Graduate School of Social Work, Universityof Denver. His research and scholarship interests in the bio-affiliative connection
between people and animals has spanned more than 27 years, focusing on many
aspects of HAIs.
Kevin N. Morris, PhD, is a research associate professor in the Graduate School of Social
Work, University of Denver. As the director of research for the University of Denver’s
Institute for Human-Animal Connection, he leads clinical research efforts to rigorously
measure the impacts of animal-assisted interventions in environments such as family
prevention services, residential treatment centers for adolescents, and prisons.