THE USE OF DOGS IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS: CURRENT USE .

THE USE OF DOGS IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS: CURRENT USE, SUPPORTFOR, POTENTIAL CONCERNS AND EDUCATOR FAMILIARITY WITH POTENTIALBENEFITSByHolly McLean RyanA Research PaperSubmitted in Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements for the Education Specialist DegreeWith a Major inSchool PsychologyApproved: 6 Semester CreditsDenise Maricle, Ph.D,MaryBeth Tusing, Ph.D,Ed Biggerstaff, Ph.D,The Graduate CollegeUniversity of Wisconsin-StoutJune, 2002The Graduate CollegeUniversity of Wisconsin-StoutMenomonie, WI 54751

ABSTRACT(Writer)Ryan(Last Name)Holly(First)M(Initial)The Use of Dogs in Selected California Schools: Current Use, Support For, Potential(Title)Concerns and Educator Familiarity with Potential BenefitsSchool Psychology(Graduate Major)Denise Maricle, Ph.D. June/2002(Research Advisor) (Month/Year)71(No. of Pages)Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association - Fifth Edition(Name of Style Manual Used in this Study)The purpose of this study was to determine the current use of dogs in California publicschools, to determine the familiarity of various educators, in particular school psychologistsand school counselors with pet facilitated therapy, to determine the support for pet facilitatedtherapy and to determine potential concerns of educators in implementing a pet facilitatedtherapy program in their school and/or district. A survey was sent to 560 guidance departmentsrepresenting 388 districts and 154 counties in the state of California. A response rate of 14.9%was achieved. Of respondents surveyed, 17.5% of them currently use dogs in their school,while only 7.2% of respondents reported using dogs in a "therapeutic program." Additionally,6.2% of respondents reported knowing of another school other than their own that currently usedogs in a therapeutic program. As a group, the two concerns rated most frequently as veryimportant were legal issues and liability, and potential allergic reactions of students and staff.If all concerns were met, 92.8% of respondents reported they would be in favor of using dogsin their school or district.

TABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract . . iTable of Contents . iiList of Tables vI. INTRODUCTION 1Pet Facilitated Therapy1Benefits and Limitations of Pet Facilitated Therapy2Pet Facilitated Therapy in Schools5Rational, Purpose, and Significance of Study7Research Questions9II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . 10The History of Pet Facilitated Therapy11Facilities Using Pet Facilitated Therapy14Psychiatric Institutions14Nursing Homes15Prisons16Individual and Group Therapy16Institutions and Rehabilitation Centers18Schools20Advantages of Pet Facilitated Therapyii23

Self-Esteem23Empathy24Education24Anxiety and Rapport Development24Pets as Social Catalysts26Pets as Mediators in Therapy26Disadvantages of Pet Facilitated Therapy27Populations Served by Pet Facilitated Therapy28Children with Autism28Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder29Juvenile Delinquents30Language Disorders and Disabilities32Mentally Disabled32Conclusion33III. METHODOLOGY 35Subject Selection35Procedures35Data Analysis37IV. RESULTS . 39Sample Group40School Settings41Knowledge Level Ratings41iii

Single Group Comparisons42Concerns of Overall Respondents42Support for Use of Dogs in Schools43Interest Level44Current Use46Summary48V. DISCUSSION 51Critical Analysis53Limitations56Suggestions for Future Research57Conclusion59References 61Appendices . 69Appendix A Survey69Appendix B70Survey Letteriv

LIST OF TABLESTable 1Frequency and Percentages of Sample Group by Educational Position . 40Table 2.Frequency and Percentages of Respondents in Sample Group by SchoolSetting 41Table 3.Knowledge Level of Various Areas of Pet Facilitated Therapy . 42Table 4.Concerns About Pet Facilitated Therapy . 43Table 5.Support for Use of Dogs . 44Table 6.Interest Level in Pet Facilitated Therapy and the Use of Dogs in Schools . 44Table 7.Current Use of Dogs in a Sample of California Public Schools . 46Table 8.Average Time Using Dogs in Schools . 46Table 9.Population of Students with which Dogs are Used . 47Table 10.Therapeutic Use of Dogs Based on School Type 48v

CHAPTER ONEIntroductionSeverely disturbed and at risk children present a variety of challenges to schoolsand educators. Students defined as severely disturbed or at risk often include children withautism, learning disabilities, emotional or behavioral disturbances, attention deficit –hyperactivity, and children with physical and/or mental disabilities. In addition, educatorsare faced with the daily task of motivating their students to perform required work. Often,it can be even harder to find adequate motivators for students with learning disabilities thanit can for children who are more severely disabled. Several studies have shown minimalsuccess rates(Dunn, 1996; Tindal, 1985; Waters, 1990) and high burnout amongprofessionals working with these populations (Johnson, 1981; Zabel, 1981). There is a realneed for new and creative therapy techniques in working with these challengingpopulations.Pet Facilitated TherapyPet facilitated therapy, particularly using dogs, is an increasingly used therapeutic approachin working with several special populations. The Delta Society has estimated that there are2000 Animal Assisted Therapy programs in operation throughout the United States (Fine,2000). According to Fine (2000), Animal Assisted Therapy is most commonly utilized inphysical rehabilitation programs, but there is evidence to suggest positive effects usingdogs with children who have autism, emotional or behavior disturbances, physically andmentally disabled individuals, and as a facilitator in traditional talk therapy (Arkow, 1981;

2Katcher & Beck, 1983; Corson & Corson. 1977; Jenkins, 1986; Katcher & Wilkins, 1994;Levinson, 1971, 1978; Marino, 1995; Redefer & Goodman, 1989).The available literature shows that dogs can be used effectively in working withpopulations that pose challenges to educators; however, there are very limited publishedreports of using dogs in traditional school settings. We can assume that if dogs havepositive benefits in working with these populations in other facilities (e.g. residentialtreatment centers, psychiatric hospitals), they are likely to have some of the same benefits ifused in a traditional school setting. Furthermore, of the few studies found (Kaye, 1984;Condoret, 1983; Owens & Williams, 1995) that have been published regarding the benefitsof using dogs in a traditional school setting, none could be found that offered results whichwere obtained empirically. Rather, benefits obtained in implementing pet facilitatedtherapy programs are generally gathered anecdotally rather than in a controlled study. Thepurpose of this study is to determine the current use of dogs in "therapeutic" programs inCalifornia's public schools, define the potential concerns in using dogs in schools and todetermine the support for the use of dogs in a therapeutic program within the school.Benefits and Limitations of Pet Facilitated TherapyNumerous studies have been done assessing the benefits of Pet Therapy, AnimalAssisted Therapy, Animal Facilitated Therapy, Pet Facilitated Psychotherapy, PetMediated Therapy, Pet-Oriented Psychotherapy, and Pet Facilitated Therapy in addressingneeds of at risk populations including: adolescent delinquents, children with autism,cognitive delays, physical challenges, depression and the medically ill (Arkow, 1981; Beck

31985; Beck & Katcher 1983, 1985; Beck & Katcher, 1984; Corson & Corson. 1977;Dickstein, 1997; Jenkins, 1986; Katcher & Wilkins, 1994; Levinson, 1971, 1978; Marino,1995; Redefer & Goodman, 1989) There are even more pet facilitated therapy programsthat report success with these populations but do not offer empirical evidence or publishresults. Such programs are often heard about on television news shows, in the local paper,or other non-academic publications. If you were to walk into a nursing home, it would beunusual if you were not to see some type of animal present that has an intended therapeuticpurpose for the residents. If you were to talk to a residential treatment center that workswith at risk adolescents, you would likely be told that most use animals for sometherapeutic purpose even in the most informal ways. Some facilities and programs do notcall what they are doing pet facilitated therapy, nor do they formally recognize their use ofpets as an official form of therapy. However, many programs and facilities use animals inmore informal ways such as having a staff member bring their own pet to work onoccasion. It is not known how pervasive the informal use of animals is in various facilities.It can however be concluded that there are many more programs and facilities that useanimals therapeutically than there is research conducted.Research indicates that pet facilitated therapy activities appear beneficial, however,an accurate definition of benefits, mechanisms, hazards, and potential problems has yet tobe scientifically defined. As Arkow (1980) states "while the theoretical basis of petfacilitated therapy has not been established and precise reasons for pet's therapeutic effectsremain unclear, many noteworthy programs have been introduced and others planned" (p.3). "In general, the people interested in animal-assisted therapy don’t do research and the

4people doing research aren’t interested in pet facilitated therapy" (Rackl, 2001 p. 3).Empirical research that has been conducted provides mixed results. Numerous studiesshow evidence of positive effects when using pets in various therapeutic milieus (Arkow,1981; Beck 1985; Beck & Katcher 1983; Corson & Corson 1977; Jenkins, 1986; Katcher &Wilkins, 1994; Levinson, 1971, 1978; Marino, 1995; Redefer & Goodman, 1989). Otherstudies however, show little to no therapeutic value (Arkow, 1981; Beck & Katcher, 1984;Dickstein, 1997; Marino, 1995). Still other published reports speak of observable benefitsof pet facilitated therapy (Arkow, 1981; Corson & Corson. 1977; Levinson, 1971, 1978;Redefer & Goodman, 1989). However, there is a shortage of empirical research supportingsuch intriguing therapeutic case studies. If advancement is to be made in this area, it willbe necessary for more empirically designed studies to be conducted, and ultimatelypublished. As Dickstein (1997) states, "empirical research is needed to document theeffectiveness of pet facilitated therapy and identify mechanisms by which animals exerttheir therapeutic effects" (p.18).Empirical evidence has shown that pets provide people with many therapeuticbenefits: companionship, love, humor, play, exercise, a sense of power, and outlets fordisplacement, projection, and nurturance. Talking to animals and the tactile experience ofpetting animals has been shown to reduce stress and enhance longevity and physical health(Katcher, 1981; Jenkins, 1986).Animals can enhance children's psychologicaldevelopment, improve social skills, increase self-esteem, and teach basic facts of biologysuch as the nature of birth, sex, anatomy, excretion, and death (Katcher & Beck, 1983)."Pets do not react to the color of a child's skin, his uncombed hair, dirty clothes, bad report