Prison Dog Programs: Renewal and Rehabilitation in Correctional Facilities

335 Pages·2019·5.617 MB·English

by  Mary Renck Jalongo

Mary Renck Jalongo Editor
Prison Dog
Programs
Renewal and Rehabilitation in
Correctional Facilities
Prison Dog Programs
Mary Renck Jalongo
Editor
Prison Dog Programs
Renewal and Rehabilitation in Correctional
Facilities
123
Editor
Mary Renck Jalongo
Emerita,IndianaUniversityofPennsylvania
Indiana, PA,USA
ISBN978-3-030-25617-3 ISBN978-3-030-25618-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25618-0
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregard
tojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
To those who are employed and volunteer in
the justice field and remain committed to
rehabilitation and restitution and second
chances despite obstacles and
disappointments.
Mary Renck Jalongo
Foreword
Introduction
Theinterdisciplinarygroupofscholarsassembledforthisvolumehavecontributed
to the development of an evidence-based understanding of canine training and
rehabilitation programming in correctional institutions. As prison-based dog pro-
grams have grown in popularity, it is important to reflect on what is known about
their development, implementation, successes, and opportunities, and always with
aneyetowardhowtheymaycontinuetodevelopinthefuture.Tosetthestagefor
these discussions, this foreword will briefly survey the context of the American
correctional system (in which most of the programs in this volume are set) and its
goals,andthereasonsforbelievingthatcanineprogramshavesignificantpotential
for shaping corrections—and society—positively.
“Pep” Goes to Prison
On the morning of Tuesday, August 12, 1924, many readers of the Philadelphia
Inquirer newspaper were likely following the current “crime of the century”
(Higdon 1999), the story of teens Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb and their
murder of neighbor Bobby Franks. Defended by legendary attorney Clarence
Darrow,thecasewasfrontpagenews,abovethefold,andonAugust12,1924,the
Inquirer included a photograph and transcript from the trial as it was unfolding in
Chicago (“Alienist says…,” 1924).
Readerswhocontinuedthroughthepapertopage3wouldfindanothercriminal
justice story, unique for its time and perhaps an early forbearer of the programs
noted in this text, under the headline, “Gov. Pinchot’s Dog Sentenced to ‘Pen’.”
The article read, in part,
vii
viii Foreword
The lovingest dog in Pennsylvania has been sent to the State’s biggest prison for life
becauseofhissuperhumanaffectionforhumankind…Pephasdonenothingwrongtobring
upon him this sentence…He has an overwhelming love for everybody and he wants
everybody to love him. Which explains why they are sending Pep to the Pen. The
Governor,inhisseveralvisitstothegreatwalledprisononwhatwasonceknownasCherry
Hill,hasfoundmenwhofeltthattheywereabandonedoftheworld…Nodespairingman
broodinginhiscellcanfeelthatheisforgottenbyGodandman,whowillfeelPep’sloving
tonguecaressinghislanguidhand.(Beamish1924,p.3)
This early effort with a canine “aid to the rehabilitation” of offenders (Beamish
1924, p. 3) was not an isolated case. The Pennsylvania Governor had reportedly
beeninspiredbyGovernorBaxterofMaine,whosedogearnedafull-pagespreadin
the Baltimore Sun. Governor Baxter’s dog was a collie eponymously named
Governorandwhowasalsosenttoprison,withresultsreportedbytheinstitution’s
chaplain, Percy Clifford:
There’sanoldlifercallshimPrince,andanothercallshimJack.He’sCarlotosomeand
Dontoothers.He’sDukeandRoverandBusterandMasterandFido.Theycallhimbythe
namesofthedogstheyusedtohaveandtheylovehimastheylovedthosepetsofold.He
bringsbacktothemthedreamsandmemoriesofthedaysbeforetheysteppedoffthepath.
Andthat’sgoodforthem…Hehasmadelifehappierforallthemenhere,eventhelifers,
whohaveverylittletobecheerfulabout(“Thedog…,”1924).
While it is unknownhow many suchprograms operated, or the extent to which
inmates truly had interactions with prison dogs Pep and Governor as opposed to
whatwasreportedinnewsoutlets(e.g.,Dolan2007),thesestoriesremainanearly
indicator of recognition for the potential impact of the human–animal bond (for a
historical overview, see Hines 2003) in correctional settings.
Inparticular,asmoreisknownabouttherelationshipbetweenhumansanddogs
(e.g., Payne et al. 2015), perhaps it is only natural to consider how programming
that draws upon this bond may be formally incorporated into correctional institu-
tions. But what of the correctional context into which programs are incorporated?
After a review of contemporary corrections—the environment into which the
chapters of this volume are situated—discussion will return to the human–canine
bond and its potential for correctional programming.
The Context of American Corrections
Corrections is a big business in the USA. Annual expenditures exceed $86 billion
(Bronson2018),andthereareapproximately6.7millionadultsundersomeformof
correctional control—that is 2.6% of the adult population (Kaeble and Cowhig
2018). With the exception of approximately 482,000 persons held in jail while
awaiting trial (Zeng 2018), having been denied or unable to afford bail or other
pretrial releases (see Scott-Hayward and Fradella 2019), those supervised by cor-
rectionalagencieshaveeitherpledguiltytoorhavebeenfoundguiltyattrialofone
or more criminal offenses.
Foreword ix
However,thereisasignificantrangeintheseverityandtypesofoffensesandin
the criminal histories, motivations, and backgrounds of offenders. For this reason,
there isalso a significant range in the types ofcriminal sanctions imposed through
thecorrectionalsystem.Sanctionscanbethoughtofasexistingalongacontinuum,
ranging from less to more severe, with the criminal court system assigned the task
ofdeterminingwhichsanctionismostappropriateforwhichoffense,committedby
which offender. Of course, this is an inexact science.
Atoneendofthecontinuumisprobation,asentenceinwhichoffendersremain
inthecommunitywithrequirementstoabidebythelawandmaintaincontactwitha
probation officer, who not only monitors their behavior but also helps to identify
areas of risk and need that may be addressed through programming. At the other
end of the continuum is long-term incarceration in a state or federal prison, which
may provide some measure of rehabilitative programming, but which is primarily
focused on security both within and beyond the institution. In between are a range
of other alternatives, such as drug courts, community service requirements, elec-
tronic monitoring, house arrest, day reporting centers, halfway houses, and more
(see generally Owen et al. 2019).
Asthefocusofthisbookisonprogramshousedincorrectionalinstitutions,the
balanceof discussionof correctionalcontextwill focus on jailand prison facilities
and approximately 2.1 million inmates (Kaeble and Cowhig 2018). It is, however,
important to acknowledge one very important disclaimer, which is that it is very
difficult to do more than draw broad generalities. This is because there is not one
single correctional system in the USA; rather, there are multiple systems operated
discretely from one another, resulting in significant variations in approach, orga-
nization, and focus.
There are three levels of correctional institutions in the USA. First, the federal
government operates its own institutions, for persons who have violated federal
law, through the Federal Bureau of Prisons (see Bosworth 2002). Second, each
of the 50 states operates its own institutions, for persons who have violated state
law,throughtheirowndepartmentsofcorrections.Federalandstateinstitutionsare
classifiedasprisons,thatis,institutionsforthelong-termconfinementofoffenders,
usually those who have committed felonies and have been sentenced to a year or
moreofincarceratedtime.Third,localgovernmentsoperatejails,usuallyunderthe
direction of a local sheriff or a regional jail authority, which generally house per-
sonssentencedformisdemeanors,usuallyforlessthanoneyearofincarceration,as
well as housing persons who were not released prior to their trials (see Cornelius
2008).
Further variation is evidenced when considering that, within the federal cor-
rectional system, fifty state systems, and multiple local systems, there are different
types of institutions constructed for different purposes. This is generally reflected
through security levels, which can be summarized as minimum, medium, and
maximum,whilerecognizingthatthereisevenvariationamongthoseandthatthere
are also specialized housing units serving other purposes (e.g., medical units,
protective custody, disciplinary custody, supermax). Minimum security facilities
generally hold lower risk inmates and have fewer security features, security
x Foreword
hardwareandbehavioralcontrols.Minimumsecurityinmatesmayliveincellsorin
dormitory-style settings. Medium and maximum security facilities generally hold
higher risk inmates and have more security features, security hardware and
behavioral controls. The typical arrangement for a contemporary medium or
maximumsecurityfacilityistohaveanopendayroomsurroundedbyindividualor
shared inmate cells (Owen 2016).
Whilethisdoesindeedprovideconsiderablevariationinthetypesofcorrectional
institutions and the practices within them, there are some broad perspectives that
can shape an understanding of them. Significant among these are the waxing and
waning offocus on one key correctional goal: rehabilitation.
Perspectives on Correctional Institutions and Rehabilitation
WhileprobationisthemostcommonsentenceissuedinAmericancriminaljustice,
the USA has the world’s highest incarceration rate (Walmsley 2018). This is not
attributable to the level of crime in the USA as compared to other nations
(Gottschalk 2006), but appears to be more directly related to politics and public
policies promoting “get tough” approaches to issues of crime and justice (Clear
2007), such as the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Crime” that influenced
criminal justice policy in the late twentieth century (see Beckett and Sasson 2004;
forathoughtfuldeconstructionofthe“waron”metaphor,seeBest1999,Chap.7).
Others have suggested that contemporary corrections may be philosophically
shaped by notions rooted in Foucault’s (1977) Discipline and Punish, suggesting
the use of the prison to exert total control and create “docile bodies” (p. 135). For
instance, Garland (2001) suggests that corrections seeks “security,orderliness, and
control, for the management of risk and the taming of chance” (p. 194). These
sentiments also lean toward the use of incarceration as a dominant form of pun-
ishment, as it exerts the most substantial and direct control.
Historically,however,ahighprevalenceofincarcerationhasnotalwaysbeenthe
case. In fact, the incarceration rate in the USA was once substantially lower, with
approximately 100 persons per 100,000 incarcerated in the nation’s prisons and
jails. With a small amount of variation, this rate was relatively stable between the
mid-1920s(whendatawereinitiallyavailable)andthemid-1970s.Itwasduringthe
late1970sandintothe1980sand1990swhenasurgeinincarcerationtookholdof
American corrections (Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 2013, Table 6.28.
2012), reaching a high point in both population and incarceration rates (1000
persons incarcerated per 100,000 in the population) in 2008, after which a slight
decline has followed (Gramlich 2018).
This reflects changes in the goals of corrections, which in turn drive not only
correctional policies, but also the types and extent of programming likely to be
found in correctional institutions. Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia—the
same institution to which the dog Pep was sent as a gesture of hope from the
Foreword xi
Governor to the inmates—is generally recognized as the first contemporary prison
intheUSA,anditwasfoundedonanotionofrehabilitation.Ofcourse,thenotion
ofrehabilitationonwhichitwasfoundedwasonewhichemphasizedtotalisolation
from other human contacts, to encourage inmates to seek religious repentance
(Friedman 1993). Charles Dickens visited the prison and assessed its rehabilitative
scheme as follows in his American Notes (1842): “I believe that very few men are
capableofestimatingtheimmenseamountoftortureandagonywhichthisdreadful
punishment, prolonged for years, inflicts upon the sufferers” (p. 238). Even today,
debates about the negative impacts of solitary confinement continue (e.g., Haney
2003) continue. The solitary program at Eastern State was discontinued, and
rehabilitationwastransformedovertimeintoamoreproactiveandpsychologically
informed strategy.
With the Progressive Era and new understandings of the mind, rehabilitation
becameanacceptedcorrectionalgoalinthelate1800sandintothe1900s.Whilean
oversimplification of a more complex history, cracks in the rehabilitative veneer
began to manifest in the mid-twentieth century, focused on concerns about how
rehabilitativestrategieswere(orwerenot)implemented,thejusticeandequitability
of a state correctional bureaucracy attempting to deliver rehabilitative behavioral
treatments, a move toward getting tough in the wars on crime and drugs, and
questions about the effectiveness of rehabilitative programs (see Cullen 2013).
Regarding the latter point, in particular, a study by Robert Martinson (1974) was
interpretedassuggestingthatrehabilitation couldnotwork,stating thefinding that
“withfewandisolatedexceptions,therehabilitativeeffortsthathavebeenreported
so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism” (p. 25). Granted, this was a
sweeping and bold statement, and certainly one which did little to advance the
rehabilitative cause.
It was at this time that the prison population in the USA began its dramatic
increase. Without rehabilitation as a central focus of corrections, what was left?
CriminologistsMalcolmFeeleyandJonathanSimon(1992)observedthatwhatwas
left might be classified as a new model, a “new penology,” focused on simply
warehousingoffendersawayfromsocietyinhopesthatdoingsowouldincapacitate
their ability to commit further offenses. While Spelman (2006) found that the
notable decline in crime—especially violent crime—that began in the 1990s was
partially attributable to increases in incarceration, he was also quick to note that
“otherfactorsareresponsibleforthevastmajorityofthe[crime]drop”(p.123),and
posed the unanswered question, perhaps as a value-based policy proposition,
“whether the key to further reductions lies in further prison expansions, or (more
likely) in…other factors” (p. 125).
Among those “other factors” may be a resurgence in rehabilitation. Research
suggeststhatrehabilitationissupportedbythepublic(e.g.,Thieloetal.2016),and
empirical evidence indicates that it can indeed be effective. Weisburd and col-
leagues (2017) marshaled extensive evidence demonstrating that numerous reha-
bilitative interventions were effective, and went so far as to note that “Martinson’s
critiquejust40yearsagoandhisconclusionthatweshouldabandonthesearchfor
programmatic responses to crime and criminality are simply wrong” (p. 437).