Research Reports

Results of an Evaluation of the Pawsitive Directions Canine Program at Nova Institution for Women

Kelly Richardson-Taylor and Kelley Blanchette
Research Branch
Correctional Service of Canada
September 2001

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report would not have met its full completion without the assistance of the following people, and we therefore extend our utmost gratitude. First and foremost, to the program evaluation advisory committee consisting of: Marc Brideau, Carolyn Clark, Donna McDonagh, Hilda Vanneste and Steve Wormith, for the invaluable and insightful feedback that you have provided. To Heather Logan who, through phone conversations and interviews, offered her full cooperation and made this procedure a smooth one. To Janet Lai, for the thorough literature review regarding Pet Facilitated Therapy, without which the timeframe of this project would have surely been extended.

Throughout the development of the evaluation framework Mark Nafekh and Brigitte Dublois graciously provided relevant statistical data, we thank you for your assistance with the project. Thanks also to Paul Verbrugge and Joy Irving for their assistance with the data analyses. A preliminary visit to Nova Institution allowed us to fine tune aspects of the evaluation, during which time Mary Ennis, Ellen Langille, Anne Marie McDonald, and Diane Yetman not only provided feedback regarding the evaluation but made special arrangements to accommodate the visit. We thank you for your kindness and generosity. A special thanks to the staff and women at Nova Institution for your involvement and feedback, particularly to the program participants from the Pawsitive Directions Canine Program for allowing the researchers to see the program in action, and to your canine counterparts for allowing us to share in some of your daily routines. Finally, we send a special thank you to Marnie MacDonald for her essential aid with the data collection; her commitment to the project went above the call of duty and was greatly appreciated.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents results of an evaluation of the Pawsitive Directions Canine Program at Nova institution for Women. It is a canine-handler training program that introduces women inmates to the basics of dog husbandry and training, and relies on the principles of pet-facilitated therapy. It also specializes in the placement of dogs with adoptive families in need of a well-trained pet or assistance dog. The Pawsitive Directions Canine Program is exclusive to Nova Institution and has been accredited with local, provincial, national and international media exposure.

The comprehensive evaluation included both quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques. The canine program clearly serves its own function and has its own place at the facility, while at the same time contributing positively to other institutional programs. The staff and offenders are aware of, and largely satisfied with the program's accomplishments. Pawsitive Directions Canine Program provides the dogs with a loving home, and the offenders with the opportunity to take on a significant responsibility. It builds the offenders' self-esteem, produces positive changes in the institutional environment, and changes the community's perception of women inmates at Nova Institution.

Results of the evaluation suggest that program improvement could be achieved in the following areas. First, it is recommended that the program steering committee be actively reinstated; second, staff training sessions should be implemented in order to effectively inform them regarding the program's operations; third, a formal "re-screening" process should be added to the standing order for the canine program; fourth, it is recommended that a small kennel be constructed for housing the dogs under extreme circumstances; and fifth, it is recommended that the goal objectives in the standing order for the canine program be amended to accord with the re-integration plans and the Mission statement of Correctional Services Canada.

Overall, the Pawsitive Directions Canine Program received a positive evaluation. It offers all involved parties an unquestionable opportunity. It is successful in attaining its set goals and objectives; while at the same time going above and beyond these objectives to offer further program advancement for its participants. The program facilitator's commitment to the program and influence on its success are well noted.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• LIST OF TABLES
• LIST OF FIGURES
• INTRODUCTION
  • Women's Corrections in Canada: A Brief History
  • Nova Institution for Women
  • Pawsitive Directions Canine Program (PDCP)
    • Goals of the PDCP
    • Stakeholders
    • History of the program
    • Inmate Involvement
    • Canine Involvement
• METHOD
  • Evaluation Framework
  • Instruments
    • Rosenberg's Self-esteem Scale
    • Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D)
    • UCLA Loneliness Scale
    • Spheres of Control Battery (SOC)
    • Sociometric Test
    • The Correctional Environment Status Inventory (CESI)
    • Staff and Offender Surveys
    • Staff and Offender Interviews
  • Procedure
  • Sample
• RESULTS
  • Measurement Package
    • Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale
    • Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression
    • UCLA Loneliness Scale
    • Spheres of Control Battery
    • Sociometric Test
    • Correctional Environment Status Inventory
  • Offender Surveys
  • Staff Survey
  • Staff and Offender Interviews
  • Evaluation Issues and Questions
    • Program Rationale: Is there a need for the program?
    • Are there adequate resources and support for establishing the PDCP?
    • Are the activities of the program organized in a way that it's goals can be achieved?
    • Is the program effective?
    • Does the program create any positive or negative unintended effects?
• CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • Summary of Findings
  • Recommendations for Potential Program Improvement
  • Study Limitations
• REFERENCES
• APPENDIX A: ROSENBERG'S SELF-ESTEEM SCALE
• APPENDIX B: CES-D SCALE
• APPENDIX C: UCLA LONELINESS SCALE
• APPENDIX D: SPHERES OF CONTROL BATTERY
• APPENDIX E: SOCIOMETRIC TEST
• APPENDIX F: CESI 64
• APPENDIX G: ITEMS IN CESI SCALES AND SUBSCALES
• APPENDIX H: SURVEY FORMATS
• APPENDIX I: GUIDELINES FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

LIST OF TABLES

• Table 1. Mean CESI Scale and Subscale Scores: Distribution by Program Participants and Non-Participants
• Table 2. Changes in General Atmosphere at the Facility: Program Participants and Non-Program Participants
• Table 3. Positive Feedback Regarding the Canine Program: Program
• Table 4. Negative Feedback about the Canine Program: Program Participants and Non-Program Participants

LIST OF FIGURES

• Figure 1. Pawsitive Directions Canine Program Logic Model
• Figure 2. Canine Program Involvement
• Figure 3. Sociogram: Nova Institution for Women

INTRODUCTION

The Pawsitive Directions Canine Program (PDCP) was developed and established at the Nova Institution for Women (Truro, Nova Scotia) in 1996. It is a canine-handler training program which introduces women inmates to the basics of dog husbandry and training, and relies on the principles of operant conditioning¹ and pet-facilitated therapy (PFT), "an applied science that uses animals to solve human problems" (Gammonley & Yates, 1991). Participation in the program is voluntary and handlers are selected based on an assessment of their genuine interest in the project.

Advocates of PFT argue that it has the ability to provide a more relaxed atmosphere, an improved sense of patient/offender self-worth, a diversion, increased self-esteem and finally, companionship within a correctional environment. In addition, the animals provide non-threatening, non-judgmental affection, stimulate a responsible attitude within a pet caretaker, and provide a catalyst for communication both amongst inmates and between inmates and staff. Finally, PFT may enhance vocational opportunities through self-motivation, training and certification for employment. Potential benefits of pet-facilitated therapy within a women's institution are supported by research regarding the desirability of pet-facilitated therapy, and by its successful implementation throughout correctional institutions in various countries including Canada, United States, England, Scotland, Australia and South Africa (Lai, 1998).

Within Canada, the following PFT programs have been implemented (Lai, 1998):

1. Pawsitive Directions Canine Program: Truro, Nova Scotia (still active today)
2. Canine Program: Burnaby, British Columbia (still active today)
   
3. Prison Programs Involving Animals: Maple Ridge, British Columbia
   
4. Wildlife Rehabilitation Society: Calgary, Alberta

1 Operant conditioning utilizes both positive and negative reinforcement techniques. The canine program focuses on the reinforcement of positive behaviour through shaping.

As mentioned, pet-facilitated therapy has been implemented in, but is not limited to, various correctional institutions worldwide (please refer to Lai, 1998 for an in-depth review). It is also commonly used in nursing homes, psychiatric hospitals and rehabilitation centers. Research suggests that the "human-animal bond" has positive physiological, sociological and psychological impacts in a number of different contexts.

Women's Corrections in Canada: A Brief History

The first Canadian federal correctional facility for women, the Prison for Women, opened in Kingston, Ontario in 1934. Within four years of its opening, the Archambault Commission became the first of many Commissions to recommend its closure (Arbour, 1996; Vachon, 1994). The institution was repetitively criticized on numerous grounds, including: overly austere security measures, poor programming, and inability to adequately address the needs of Aboriginal and Francophone women.

In 1989, a Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women was established to address longstanding concerns with the inequitable treatment of women offenders, which resulted in the April 1990 Report entitled Creating Choices. This report represented a new definition of effective corrections for women offenders and recommended that the Prison for Women be closed, and that four new regional facilities for women and a healing lodge for Aboriginal women offenders should be created. Notably, it was suggested that these facilities would operate using a 'community-living' model, where the women offenders would reside in houses and be responsible for their daily meals, laundry, cleaning, and leisure time. In addition, these regional facilities were to ensure the implementation of women-centered programs and promote responsivity to women's needs.

In keeping with Task Force recommendations, between 1995 and 1997 five new women's facilities began operations. These regional facilities are located in Truro, Nova Scotia (Nova Institution, 1995), Joliette, Quebec (Joliette Institution, 1997), Kitchener, Ontario (Grand Valley Institution, 1997), Edmonton, Alberta (Edmonton Institution for Women, 1995), and Maple Creek, Saskatchewan (Okimaw Ochi Healing Lodge, 1995). Within these facilities, most women offenders live in house-style accommodations that emulate, as much as possible, community living. In April of 2000, Solicitor General Lawrence MacAulay announced that the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) was advancing the planned closure of the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario and, on July 6, 2000, the Prison for Women officially closed.

Nova Institution for Women

Nova Institution opened in October 1995, and is a multi-level facility. It consists of four self-contained living units each containing seven bedrooms. Collectively, these living units have the capacity to house 28 women. In addition, there is one 'enhanced security' unit that has four cells. There is an administrative sector and areas for program and service delivery, leisure activities, health care, spirituality and a family-visiting unit. At the time of this evaluation, Nova's population was 42 women, 2 of whom were Aboriginal (one Inuit and one North American), 3 Black, 35 Caucasian, and 2 who had not self-identified. The average age of the women at Nova was thirty-five, ranging from 19 to 60.

Pawsitive Directions Canine Program (PDCP)

Five principles lay the foundation for the development of a programming strategy for federally sentenced women (Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women, 1990). They are: 1) empowerment, 2) meaningful and responsible choices, 3) respect and dignity, 4) supportive environment and 5) shared responsibility. Logan (1997)² argues that each of these principles is addressed by the PDCP. More specifically, she maintains that the program considers: empowerment as it raises the self-esteem of the offenders through accomplishments resulting directly from their efforts; responsible choices as each woman is accountable for, and faces consequences relating to the dog under her care; respect and dignity as participants learn to respect the efforts and successes of others in the program; supportive environment as dog handlers live amicably with the other women in the houses by adhering to house rules for their dogs; and shared responsibility as a result of the program involving members of the community.

The Pawsitive Directions Canine Program is exclusive to Nova Institution and has not been implemented at other Canadian women's facilities or men's federal correctional institutions. It is a unique program that involves inmates helping the community and a responsibility on behalf of its participants that many other correctional programs are unable to offer. The program runs on a budget of less than $51,000 per year, and the majority of the costs are allocated contract dollars. To date, the program has gained a great deal of media attention. There has been exposure and support, locally (newspaper articles, speaking engagements), provincially (Halifax Chronicle Herald Newspaper), regionally (annual presentation to the Atlantic Vet College, CBC Radio-'Maritime Magazine', ATV News Special), nationally (program facilitator's presentation to the Human-Animal Bond Association in Toronto, Ontario, 'Basic Black'-CBC), and internationally ('Dogs with Jobs'-Life Network, Reader's Digest).

The program encompasses three phases in all. Phase 1 involves classroom instruction and focuses on the history of the dog and basic husbandry techniques, including health care and grooming. The goal of this phase is to prepare each handler to care for and train her own dog. Phase 2 is canine obedience training, which employs operant conditioning techniques. The handlers are encouraged to keep their dogs with them whenever possible to facilitate training and social interactions. In addition, handlers are expected to apply operant conditioning in the training of their dogs and to have developed a caring and mutually respectful relationship with their dog. Phase 3 is reserved for those dogs and handlers, whom have excelled in the first two phases, and are therefore seen as being capable of advanced assistance-dog training.³ These dogs learn special skills such as picking up dropped articles, alerting hearing impaired persons to specific noises, or physically assisting persons who have limited mobility. During phase 2 and phase 3, the women are responsible for their dogs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Furthermore, these participants are required to maintain a daily journal documenting their training progress, and their dog's activities. Such documentation adds further responsibility for the program participants, and is beneficial for both practical and medical (on behalf of the dogs) reasons.

Goals of the PDCP

In November 1996, the warden of the Nova Institution, Christine Manuge declared the following as a "policy objective" for the PDCP (C. Manuge, personal communication, November 20, 1996):

• To provide shelter for homeless dogs which have the potential to be trained as family pets and as assistants to persons with physical disabilities;
  
• To make trained dogs available for adoption by the above mentioned;
  
• To teach inmates the skills associated with canine care and training;
  
• To foster responsibility and nurturing for the dogs in a manner that promotes the inmate's self-esteem and provides therapeutic benefit; and
  
• To promote ties with the community and to provide a valuable service to the community.
  

These goals and objectives can also be grouped in terms of their immediate and long-term impacts (Figure 1). The immediate impacts refer to the physical and psychosocial benefits for program participants, changes in the institutional environment and relationships that develop with the community. The long-term impacts refer to the placement of dogs into the community, the process of empowerment, and changes in the perceptions of the offender population.

Figure 1. Pawsitive Directions Canine Program Logic Model

As mentioned above, the PDCP implemented at Nova Institution relies on the principles of PFT, and Logan (1996) identified the following benefits as specific to the implementation of the PDCP at Nova Institution:

1. The opportunity to make a contribution to society
   The program provides shelter for homeless dogs and eventually places the dogs within the community, with individuals, or families or disabled persons in need of an assistance dog. It is expected that this will be seen as a valuable contribution, as the women involved with the program have the opportunity to "give back" to the community.
2. Exposing these women to another disenfranchised group in society
   The program will provide the inmates with the opportunity to observe others such as the dogs and the recipients of the dogs, that are also coping with disadvantages in turn providing insight into their own circumstances.
3. A completely accepting, non-judgmental relationship
   As the inmates take full responsibility for the caring of their dog, including food, shelter, grooming, exercise, and everyday needs, a bond will develop through this accepting, non-judgmental relationship.
4. Alleviation of feelings of isolation and loneliness
   Feelings of isolation and loneliness that often accompany incarceration are lessened as the canine human bond develops.
5. Improvement in morale among inmates and staff
   The joy an animal can bring to the institutional environment should not be underestimated. Along with the joy of having a dog at the facility, an improved morale is anticipated.
6. Teaching participants responsibility, empathy, sharing and patience
   Responsibility, empathy, sharing and patience are all requirements of the program. As participants enter phase two of the PDCP the dog becomes their full responsibility; the empathy, sharing and patience are anticipated consequences.
7. Gaining skills in operant conditioning
   Operant conditioning is a non-punitive and rewards-based teaching method. It has demonstrated success in achieving positive results not only in dealing with dogs but also in dealings with other inmates, staff, and fellow human beings outside of the institutional setting.
8. Learning good citizenship
   Because the program involves setting boundaries for both the inmate participants and the dogs, it is required that handlers will learn responsibility, self-discipline, general care, and new methods of training; all of which contribute to the learning of good citizenship.
9. Learning to end a relationship
   Once the dog is fully trained and prepared to enter the community, the inmate is forced to say good-bye to them. Saying good-bye is often difficult for those in society who have been in unsatisfying relationships or abusive situations. Women offenders have often come from such relationships and this type of process will benefit them immensely.
10. Positive impact on their interactions with other people
    It is believed that there is an association between the way a person treats animals, and the way they treat fellow human beings (Moneymaker & Strimple, 1991). It is therefore anticipated that the program will contribute to increases in positive interactions with fellow human beings.
11. Nova Institution may become a leader in the development of pet-facilitated programs
    If the program is implemented successfully, it may make contributions to the rehabilitation literature as researchers conduct an empirical evaluation of the program.
12. Nova Institution will become a valuable and respected member of the community
    As the program services are provided to the community and positive changes continue to result from such services, it is anticipated that the institution will become more respected and valued by members of the community.
    This evaluation will consider these possible benefits as well as the program's specific goals and objectives.

Stakeholders

Stakeholders include all parties involved in the program: program facilitator, other staff from Nova Institution, inmates involved in the program, inmates who are non-participants and community members. The program facilitator should have no fewer than ten years experience in the management of a breeding and boarding facility, should demonstrate an ability in the instruction of obedience classes and display an ability to manage groups of various sizes. Other staff involved are those that are members of the program steering committee which consists of the project coordinator, two Nova Institution staff, a veterinarian, and one member of the community. The program steering committee contributes to the overall success of the program by evaluating how well it is meeting the needs of the offenders, the institution, and the community. The standing order for the Canine Program states that the program steering committee should meet no less than once each quarter.

Another group of program participants consists of community members who have been asked by the program facilitator to assist with various aspects of the program. This group includes professionals who provide educational sessions during phase 1 of the program and children who provide assistance in the socialization and crowd training of dogs to be placed in the community.

History of the program

The PDCP was established in June of 1996 after Logan (1996) submitted a program description to the CSC claiming that academic research provided support for the value of an animal-oriented therapy program within a women's correctional facility. She maintained that the PDCP would provide benefits to the inmates' physical and mental health, teach participants useful skills, enhance their self-esteem, improve inmate-staff relations and improve the community's relationship with the institution. After reviewing Logan's program description, the Service implemented the PDCP as a 1-year pilot project. Following a successful first year, a three-year contract was awarded to Logan, the original and current program facilitator.

As of June 2000, 49 women have been involved in the program at Nova Institution (please refer to figure 2). Of these 49 women, 14 continue to be involved in the program, one participant was unsuccessful in completing the program, 4 withdrew from the program, 3 had left the program because they had been paroled and 27 have successfully completed at least one phase of the program. Eighteen women have successfully completed phase 1, six have successfully completed phase 2 and three have successfully completed phase 3. It is not uncommon for women to be assigned to the program more than once. Some of the women are now training their second or third dog after having already successfully trained previous dogs and some women are re-admitted to the program after having their parole revoked or after withdrawing from the program.

As of June 2000, 28 dogs had been involved in the program (please refer to figure 2). Six of the dogs belong to the program facilitator and are on going participants for the phase 1 classes. Four dogs are currently in phase 2 or 3 of the program, 1 dog acts as a demonstration dog for hospital and retirement home visits, 3 dogs have been euthanized,⁴ and 14 dogs have been successfully released to the community. The adopting community members are varying in type and are as follows: 6 dogs have been adopted as family pets, 3 as companion dogs for senior citizens, 2 as assistance dogs for cerebral palsy patients, 1 as an assistance dog for a disabled stroke victim, 1 as a companion dog for a learning disabled child, and finally 1 dog was adopted by a youth facility.

Figure 2.Canine Program Involvement

Inmate Involvement
(As of June, 2000)

Canine Involvement
(As of June, 2000)

METHOD

Evaluation Framework

The methodology outlined by Richardson and Blanchette (2000) was developed through examination of relevant literature, consultation with the program evaluation advisory committee and consultation with staff from Nova Institution and was applied to the evaluation of the canine program at Nova Institution. The framework discusses three evaluation options (basic, moderate, and comprehensive). The comprehensive option was selected because it provides the most thorough and in-depth evaluation as it investigates perspectives of all parties at the institution (program participants, other offenders, and staff). In addition, the perspectives of people outside of the institution that have been involved with the program (adoptive families, and community professionals) are also examined. The above mentioned parties are provided with the opportunity to contribute to the evaluation by expressing personal insights and feelings about the program. A comprehensive evaluation also incorporates multi-method assessment strategies. These techniques include: file review documentation, surveys, face-to-face interviews, and measures of self-esteem, group dynamics, depression, loneliness, perceived control and offenders' perception of their correctional environment.

Instruments

Both the Program Evaluation Advisory Committee and selected staff members from Nova Institution chose the following assessment instruments with the goals and objectives of the canine program in mind.

Rosenberg's Self-esteem Scale

Rosenberg's Self-esteem Scale (Appendix A) is a ten item self-report measure used to assess personal perceptions of self worth (Rosenberg, 1965). The scale is a global measure of self-esteem that is predictive of behaviour across a range of situations (O'Brien, 1985). Each of the ten items is rated on a four-point Likert scale with ratings ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Five of the items are reverse scored (2, 5, 6, 8, 9), so that "strongly disagree" was given a score of 1, and "strongly agree" was given a score of 4. Lower scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Rosenberg's Self-esteem Scale was administered as part of a measurement package to all interested offenders. This provided an overview of the self-esteem of offenders at the time of testing.

Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D)

The CES-D (Appendix B) scale is a twenty item self-report scale designed to measure depressive symptomatology in the general population (Radloff, 1977). It is constructed to assess the current frequency of depressive symptoms, with emphasis on depressed affect or mood (Robinson, Shaver & Wrightsman, 1991). Each item is rated on a four point Likert scale with ratings ranging from 'rarely or none of the time', to 'most or all of the time'. Items 4, 8, 12, and 16, are reversed scored, and higher scores indicate higher frequency in depressive symptoms. The scale was administered as part of the measurement package. This provided an overview of frequency of depressive symptomatology at the time of testing.

UCLA Loneliness Scale

The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell & Cutrona, 1988; Appendix C) is a twenty item scale which measures loneliness in terms of the discrepancy between desired and achieved levels of social contact. Each item is rated on a four point Likert scale with ratings ranging from 'never' to 'always'. Nine of the twenty items are reversed scored (1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19, 20), and higher scores reflect higher levels of loneliness. This scale formed part of the measurement package that was completed by all interested offenders and provided a general overview of the loneliness experienced by the women inmates at Nova institution.

Spheres of Control Battery (SOC)

The SOC Battery (Paulhus, 1983; Appendix D) is a three-dimensional battery of measures pertaining to the three domains of personal efficacy, interpersonal control, and sociopolitical control (Robinson, Shaver & Wrightsman, 1991). There are ten items in each scale, each of which are rated on a seven point Likert scale, with ratings ranging from 'agree' to 'disagree'. For the purposes of the evaluation, the first two domains (personal efficacy and interpersonal control) were chosen for assessment. The following items are reversed scored: personal efficacy scale (3, 6, 8, 10); interpersonal control scale (1, 3, 6, 8, 9). The battery assesses perceived control in each of the domains and each domain can be evaluated in isolation. This scale provided an overview of the locus of control beliefs for women at the institution.

Sociometric Test

Sociometric tests (Appendix E) are used to assess personal and group dynamics of a population (Northway & Weld, 1957). A sociogram, created with the results of a sociometric test provides a graphic representation of the personal and group dynamics of the population tested. The sociometric test for this evaluation assessed the social dynamics at Nova Institution. All responses indicated on the Sociometric test, up to a maximum of three responses, are illustrated in a sociogram (see results section). The sociogram presents group structure, popularity of particular individuals (e.g. Canine Program participants), and presence of 'cliques' and/or interactions among Canine Program participants and staff. Offenders were asked to complete the sociometric test as part of the measurement package.

The Correctional Environment Status Inventory (CESI)

The CESI (Appendix F) measures an inmate's perceptions of the quality of their environment, and the correctional facility in which they are incarcerated (Wolfus & Stasiak, 1996). The measure includes six scales, identified through factor analysis:

1. Offender Relationships
2. Staff Involvement
3. Staff Treatment Focus
4. Clarity and Organization
5. Staff Cohesion
6. Offender Treatment Orientation

Four of the six scales contain subscales. There are three subscales in the Offender Relationships scale: Mutual Caring, Peer Support, and Absence of Hostility. Responsiveness, Caring, and Interest in Offenders are three subscales in the Staff involvement scale. There are two subscales in the Staff Treatment Focus scale: Encouragement and Open Communication. Finally, the Offender Treatment Orientation scale includes two subscales: Problem Solving and Change Orientation. Please see Appendix G for a list of items in scales and subscales of the CESI. Eleven items were reverse-scored before the scaled scores were calculated (1, 3, 8, 19, 25, 26, 48, 56, 60, 61, and 64). The CESI was administered to assess inmates' perceptions of their correctional environment.

Staff and Offender Surveys

Both staff and offender surveys (Appendix H) assessed awareness of the Pawsitive Directions Canine Program at Nova, as well as perceptions of the role and function of the program.

Staff and Offender Interviews

Staff and offender interviews (Appendix I) served as an essential source of qualitative data in this evaluation. Semi-structured interviews provided respondents with an opportunity to confidentially express personal views, feelings, and ideas about the Canine Program.

Procedure

This evaluation necessarily deviated somewhat from the evaluation framework proposed (Richardson & Blanchette, 2000). The framework suggests that the quantitative tests be given pre-program and post-program, thereby allowing the researcher to determine specific program impacts. However, time constraints and the fact that the program was already in progress precluded the collection of pretest data. Alternatively, the steering committee advised that for the purposes of this evaluation, potential differences between offenders in the program, and those offenders not in the program should be examined. It should be noted, however, that any observed between-group differences may not be directly attributable to the program. Rather, while the study design prevents causal attribution, between-group comparisons were performed for descriptive purposes. To further justify the validity of these comparisons, statistical tests (t-tests and chi-square tests) were analyzed on several other variables to look for significant differences between the two groups. No significant differences between the groups in age, race, overall suicide risk, security risk, substance abuse, community functioning, criminogenic need, or employment, family/marital, attitudes, and personal/emotional status were detected.

All quantitative and qualitative measurements were administered and collected within a one-week timeframe. Quantitative tests were distributed to all offenders at the institution who were willing to complete them. Interested respondents were provided with a package containing all of the quantitative measures (Rosenberg's Self-esteem Scale, CES-D, UCLA Loneliness Scale, Spheres of Control Battery, Sociometric Test, and the CESI). Confidentiality was ensured, as the respondents were not required to identify themselves on the package. The only identification requested was self-identification as a canine program participant or non-participant.

The above mentioned package also included a survey. The offenders were informed that they had the option of completing the survey, the quantitative measures, or both. In addition, they were informed that they did not have to complete the entire measurement package if they did not feel comfortable with particular measures. Despite this, 100% of the packages accepted by offenders were returned with both the survey and quantitative tools completed (one offender chose not to complete the Spheres of Control Battery).

Surveys were also made available to all interested staff. Ten staff members who responded to the survey indicated they were willing to participate in an interview (63% of respondents). To increase this sample size, staff were randomly recruited to participate in interviews when the investigators arrived at Nova Institution. Inmates were also randomly recruited for interviews at that time. Interviews with adoptive families and community professionals were arranged over the phone, prior to the evaluation week. Semi-structured interviews (as outlined in the framework) were conducted in private locations at Nova Institution and all inmates signed informed consent forms prior to their participation. Consent was also obtained for audio recordings; 97% of those interviewed agreed to this.

The comprehensive evaluation outlined in the framework described a series of focus groups as a part of the program assessment. However, scheduling focus group proved to be an unrealistic task due to the varying schedules of those involved. As a result, no focus groups were completed during the evaluation week.

Sample

Sample size varied based on differential completion rates of the various evaluation measures. Some offenders responded to the measurement package, and participated in an interview, while others only responded to the measurement package. Other offenders chose to participate in the interview only. Similarly, some staff members completed a survey and participated in an interview, while others responded to only one measure.

There were approximately 42 women incarcerated at Nova Institution at the time of the data collection (July 2000). Twelve of these women were participants of the canine program. Some of the other 30 women may have been previous participants in the program, or may have been waiting to be accepted to the program. During the evaluation, there were approximately 67 staff employed at Nova Institution. However it is estimated that about 55 staff were on the premises at some point throughout the evaluation week, thereby having the opportunity to contribute. In turn, any percentages reported will be based on the latter figure.

In total, 19 offender interviews (45% of the population) were conducted, including 10 program participants and 9 non-participants. Semi-structured interview protocols for offenders provided general guidelines for the interviews. In one instance, a non-program participant was given the interview protocol for participants of the program due to the fact that she had been actively involved in the program for a significant period of time earlier in her sentence. Others interviewed, that were involved in the program at a previous time, but not to the same magnitude were interviewed with the protocol for those not in the program.

Staff interview respondents represented a variety of professions within Nova Institution. A total of 36 employees were interviewed (65% of the available staff population), including: warden (1), deputy warden (1), psychologist (1), canine program facilitator (1), program facilitators (7), primary workers (12), reintegration operation supervisors (4), parole officers (2), unit manager (1), chaplain (1), teacher (1), maintenance technician (1), unit assistant in operations (1), program coordinator (1), and clerk for health services (1). The variety of professions represented in the sample was beneficial in accounting for a range of employee perspectives regarding the canine program.

RESULTS

Measurement Package

The measurement package distributed to all interested offenders contained the following quantitative scales and tests: Roseberg's Self-Esteem Scale, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, UCLA Loneliness Scale, Spheres of Control Battery, Sociometric Test, and The Correctional Environment Status Inventory.

Names of respondents were excluded from tests in order to maintain confidentiality. However, the respondents did specify whether they were a participant or non-participant of the canine program. In addition, program participants specified which phase of the program they were currently in, and those not in the program clarified if they had been in the program in the past. In total, 23 out of a potential 42 offenders (55% of the population) completed the tests in the measurement package, 12 were program participants and 11 were non-participants (one women chose not to fill out the spheres of control battery, thereby leaving that test with a sample size of 22).

Although small, the above two groupings (participants and non-participants) are very close to equal in size, facilitating the analysis of differences between groups. However, due to the small sample size, analyses were not conducted with length of time in program in mind, and therefore the results are reflective of a snapshot of the program and the degree of participation is not taken into consideration.

Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale

Items on the scale are rated on a four point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). Lower scores suggest higher levels of self-esteem. The average total score for the respondents in this sample was 18.65 (SD = 6.6). The average score for program participants was 19.17 (SD = 6.1), and the average score for non-participants was 18.09 (SD = 7.4). There are no significant differences in these scores, thereby suggesting that self-esteem is similar for those involved with the program and those not involved with the program.

Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression

This 20 item scale is rated on a continuum from 1 (rarely or none of the time) to 4 (most or all of the time), higher scores indicate higher frequency in depressive symptoms.

The average score for the entire sample was 38.17 (SD = 12.5). For those in the program, the average score was 34 (SD = 8.8), and those not in the program had an average score of 42.73 (SD = 14.7). These scores reflect a trend for those in the program to be lower in depressive symptomatology than the non-participants (p =.12). Although not statistically significant, this finding is noteworthy due to the small sample size.

UCLA Loneliness Scale

The UCLA Loneliness Scale is rated from 1 (never) to 4 (always) on twenty items indicative of loneliness, and higher scores reflect higher levels of loneliness; where loneliness is defined as a discrepancy between desired and achieved levels of social contact (Shaver & Wrightsman, 1991). The overall average score was 46.35 (SD = 9.2). Program participants had an average score of 42.33 (SD = 8.3) and non-participants scored 50.73 (SD = 8.4) on average. These scores indicate that those in the program do not experience as much loneliness as those not in the program, and this is a statistically significant finding (p <.03).

Spheres of Control Battery

This scale consists of two subscales, one measuring control beliefs with regards to personal efficacy, and one measuring control beliefs with regards to interpersonal control. Both subscales have 10 items, which are rated on a scale from 7 (agree) to 1 (disagree) and higher scores reflect a tendency towards an internal locus of control. When considering the entire sample, the average score on the personal efficacy scale was 55.90 (SD = 6.4) and the average score on

the interpersonal control scale was 50.61 (SD = 8.7). Program participants scored 57.36 (SD = 7.1) and 53.46 (SD = 7.5) respectively. Non-participants scored 54.44 (SD = 5.4) and 47.78 (SD = 9.2) respectively. There were no significant differences between groups with regard to this locus of control measure.

Sociometric Test

As mentioned earlier, 12 program participants and 11 non-participants had completed the measurements discussed above. However, four women chose not to complete the sociometric test, including two program participants and two non-participants. Therefore, a total of ten participants and nine non-participants completed this measure.

The respondents were asked to list three people that they "like to spend their free time with the most". The sociogram (Figure 3) presents the respondents' top two choices. Some respondents identified non-respondents, staff, family or program dogs as chosen companions therefore the pictorial representation in Figure 3 includes these groupings. Several interesting findings of the sociogram were noted.

First, participants in the canine program seem to prefer to spend their free time together (6/10), conversely, very few non-participants (1/9) chose to spend their free time with program participants. In fact, a number of the non-participants (5/9) didn't list any co-inmates (participant or non-participant) as companions. However, it seems that a few of the participants enjoy spending their free time with non-participants, as 3 out of the 10 respondents listed them as preferred companions.

With only one exception, there were no reciprocal relationships. Only two women referred directly to each other as preferred companions. Several of the program participants listed wanting to spend time with "other canine women", however they did not make reference to specific individuals.

It is interesting to note as well that 7 out of the 10 program participants listed their dogs as being their companion of choice. Six of them had their dog listed as a first choice, and one listed her dog third to her self (first) and her family (second). In addition, even one of the non-participants listed a dog as being the one she enjoys spending time with, second to her family.

The majority (55%) of the non-participants (5/9) included their family as the people they enjoy spending free time with, whereas only 20% of the participants (2/10) listed their families. Moreover, for the non-participants, family was often listed as the only people they would like to spend time with, on one occasion, a dog joined this company and in one case 'friends' (in a non-specific sense) joined this grouping. Finally, it is interesting to note that two of the participants prefer to spend time with staff, and yet no non-participants identified staff as their choice.

It is important to note that the results of the sociogram must be interpreted with some caution as inmates' responses may have been influenced by the social desirability confound. This confound occurs when study participants respond to a test in a manner that they feel will please the researchers.

Figure 3. Sociogram: Nova Institution for Women

Correctional Environment Status Inventory

Twenty-three offenders completed the CESI; 12 were participants of the program and 11 were non-participants. Respondents completed all items for the scales and subscales. Higher scores on all scales and subscales indicate more positive perceptions of the correctional environment than lower scores. To standardize CESI measures, average scores (from 1 - 5) were computed for all scales and subscales. Table 1 provides scores for all scales and subscales for those in the canine program and those not in the program. For consistency, the subscales, 'hostility' and 'disinterest' were renamed 'absence of hostility' and 'interest'. No significant differences were found between groups for any CESI scales or subscales listed in Table 1.

Offender Surveys

Twenty-three offenders (55% of offender population) responded to the survey; half were participants of the canine program. Most of the respondents (19/23, 83%) reported being aware of the program, and knew how to become involved. One of the 23 respondents has been denied a position in the program. Non-participants provided reasons regarding why they are not involved in the program. Four of the respondents (17%) said it was because they were too occupied for the extra responsibility, while six reported other reasons, such as:

• being denied a position
  
• need to complete other programs on correctional plan
  
• not ready to take on the responsibility
  
• don't want to become attached to a dog
  
• on the waiting list
  

Fourteen of the 23 respondents (61%) said that there were changes in the general atmosphere at the facility that they would attribute to the canine program. This issue is considered in various areas throughout the results section. It is important to note that the Canine Program was implemented shortly after Nova's opening, and in turn the program has grown with the institution, any changes observed in the general atmosphere could also be a result of facility maturation. With this in mind, Table 2 shows the items derived directly from the inmate surveys.

The majority of respondents have contact with the dogs (21/23, 91%), and most (22/25, 95%) of those relayed that the dog trainers are willing to show them tricks and routines they have been working on with their dogs. In addition, 86% of the respondents (19/23) relayed that they have a favourite dog. Seventeen of 22 respondents (77%) reported that they have been invited to events surrounding the canine program.

Overall, 100% of the respondents reported positive feedback about the program, and believe that the program is successful. Table 3 shows examples derived directly from the offender surveys.

However, a few respondents (6/22, 27%) have noticed resistance to the program (due to allergies, staff that don't support the program, and fear or dislike of dogs) and 4 of the women (17%) say that they have general complaints about the program (see Table 4).

Staff Survey⁵

Sixteen of 55 staff members (29% of available staff population) completed the survey. All respondents are aware of the canine program and five out of eight of them (63%), have women from the program on their caseload. Eighty percent (12/15), claim to know the goals of the program, and all but one (94%) claim to have noticed changes in the general atmosphere at the facility that they would attribute to the program. Positive examples, derived directly from the staff surveys, include:

• cohesiveness among those in the program
• staff-inmate interaction is better, more communication
• dogs are a topic of interest for communication
• dogs lighten the atmosphere
• friendlier, more positive because of interest in dogs
• women learn responsibility
• women learn commitment
• great icebreaker
• inmates more patient
• inmates with institutional adjustment problems are more respectful of rules
• not so much a prison with dogs around
• positive relationships between staff and inmates
• atmosphere is less tense
• inmates develop a skill and positive outlook
• women are proud to be seen with their dogs
• women are more cooperative with each other, sense of empathy is greater

Negative examples include:

• some inmates don't like dogs
• conflict over cleaning up after dogs

Twelve of the 15 staff (80%) that responded to this question noticed personal changes in the program participants. When asked to provide examples, the following feedback was offered:

• women act more responsibly
• they think more about consequences prior to acting
• increases in self-esteem
• improved attitudes
• they're happier
• they feel appreciated
• they have a reason to stay drug free
• they get more physical exercise
• supportive of each other
• inmates more respectful
• perseverance, more self discipline
• more caring for others
• smiling again
• opens lines of communication
• start to think of others and have responsibility for others
• they don't tend to demand instant wants that they have
• tolerance level increases

Ten of the 16 respondents (62%) reported crises or problems that they attribute to the program, including:

• a child being hurt by a dog that was adopted out
• allergies
• inmate upset when dog was put down
• program taking priority over other programs
• inmates let dogs chew picnic tables and dig holes in the ground
• potential problem if woman is extracted from her room and dog has nowhere to go
• operationally difficult due to house moves (where to place people)
• no double-bunking for program participants, which causes operational (equity) problems
• when women participants are segregated, the care of the animal is a problem

However, 7 of the 10 respondents who stated such problems maintained that the crisis/problem had been resolved. Problems not resolved seem to be operational in nature, and will be addressed later in this document.

The majority of the staff respondents have contact with the dogs (13/15, 87%), and all of these reported that the trainers share and display the skills they've acquired with their dogs. Only 5 of 15 respondents (33%) claim to have a favourite dog. The majority of staff respondents feel that the program is effective in the placement of dogs with both families and disabled members of the community, and most of the respondents believe that the canine program reinforces the positive effects of other programs offered.

Staff and Offender Interviews

The interviews provide an opportunity for all individuals impacted or involved to express their views about the canine program. Due to the fact that so many individuals participated in this process, it has become the largest component of the evaluation. A total of 68 interviews were completed. Interview respondents included 36 staff members, 10 program participants, 9 non-participants, 11 community professionals and 2 adoptive homes.

The staff interviews included those done with the warden, deputy warden, psychologist, canine program facilitator, chaplain, unit manager, teacher, unit assistant in operations, clerk for health services, program coordinator, maintenance technician, program facilitators, primary workers, parole officers, and reintegration operation supervisors. The interviews with community professionals included individuals such as veterinarians and other "dog professionals". Adoptive homes refer to those individuals that have adopted dogs that have been trained by the women at Nova Institution.

The interviews provide important information in responding to evaluation questions and issues outlined in the framework (Richardson & Blanchette, 2000, p.25-27) and the interview data will therefore be discussed according to this framework.

Evaluation Issues and Questions

Program Rationale: Is there a need for the program?

Are the program's activities and outputs linked to achieving its effects in a valid and logical way?

Richardson and Blanchette (2000, p.14) outline a program logic model of the Pawsitive Directions Canine Program (please refer to Figure 1), in which activities, products, immediate impacts and long term impacts are inter-linked. The model is based on material regarding the program's implementation and anticipated expectations as outlined by the program evaluation advisory committee and by Logan (1996, 1997).

Interviews confirm that the activities and products as outlined in the logic model are in place and being exercised at Nova Institution. In addition, immediate and long- term impacts appear to be fulfilled through the operations of the canine program. However, interviews with some of the community professionals revealed that potential exists for the breakdown of products. That is, there is concern with the practices of the current program steering committee. This issue will be discussed at length later in this document. Overall, the program's activities and outputs appear to be linked to achieving its goals in a valid and logical way.

Does the program have its own place and function at the facility?

Due to the uniqueness of the program, and the interview results, there is evidence to suggest that the program does have its own place and function at the facility. All interviewees recognize the value of the program, as it has the potential to provide individuals from outside of the institution with a well-trained dog, an accomplishment that could not be achieved through any other program at the facility.

Furthermore, the responsibility accepted by the program participants is exceptional. Interviews with program facilitators revealed their acknowledgement of this, as several of those interviewed stated that most programs end when the participants leave the room, however with the canine program, there is "no end", the responsibility is one which continues 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This too, is something that no other program demands of its participants.

Finally, it is important to note the impressive relationship that the canine program has with other programs at the facility. This is the case particularly with the cognitive skills program, where the facilitators of the two interventions work together to ensure that the programs compliment one another. Cognitive skills taught in the program such as; problem solving, alternative thinking, responding to the feelings of others, verbal communication, and consequential thinking are reinforced in the canine program. Staff interviews confirm that the majority of staff acknowledge this connection.

Does the PDCP serve the targeted population?

As of June 2000, 49 women and 27 dogs have been involved in the canine program (please refer to Figure 2). Of the 49, 27 have successfully completed at least one phase of the program, including 18 at phase 1, 6 at phase 2, and 3 at phase 3. At the time of the evaluation, there were 14 women in the program, including 5 in phase 1, 5 in phase 2, and 4 in phase 3. Three women left phase 1 of the program because they were paroled, 4 women withdrew from the program for personal reasons, and one woman was not successful in completing the program. Shaded boxes represent the reasons women did not go on to the next phase of the program.

Of the 28 dogs involved with the program, 14 have been released to various adoptive families including: a learning disabled child, a youth facility, a disabled stroke victim, cerebral palsy patients, senior citizens, and family pets. Of the remaining 13 dogs, four are currently in phase 2 or 3 of the program, 6 belong to the program facilitator, one acts as a demonstration dog, and 3 have been euthanized.

Overall, it appears that the program serves its targeted populations, which include the women, the adoptive homes, and the dogs. In addition, the institution benefits as the environment changes and both staff and inmates notice the positive impact. The program is still young and its accomplishments to this point speak highly of its productivity and future potential.

Are there adequate resources and support for establishing the PDCP?

Does the facilitator have sufficient time, acknowledgment and support for activities regarding the program?

Requests and opinions, budget concerns, and evidence of resistance to the program were considered when answering this question. The interview with the program facilitator suggested that the current budget fails to cover the "everyday things" as well as it should (e.g., clickers, shampoo, flea bath, dog toys). This creates a struggle when attempting to raise funds for some of the basics. The program facilitator suggested that when acquiring these items, creativity is helpful, as they "squeeze" the budget, sacrificing a few new leashes in order to obtain a new crate for example. The facilitator did note, "the only thing we never squeeze is the food budget". In addition, the facilitator indicated that the largest item missing from the budget is continuing education, which leaves her financially responsible for any training that she undertakes.

When considering the issue of sufficient time, the facilitator indicated that she is on call 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, and an assistant would be a very valuable addition to the program. Furthermore, the facilitator suggested that other aspects of the program's operations could also benefit if an assistant was available.

When asked the question "do you feel that the PDCP is considered important by the following staff at the facility", on a scale from 1 'not important at all' to 10 'very important', the facilitator gave mental health professionals, primary workers and the warden ratings of six. Finally, the facilitator indicated that she had noticed resistance to the program, with the following examples being provided:

• health issues
• initial resistance regarding the program's implementation
• some staff feel the offender needs are better met by other programs

Is training of the program participants sufficient?

When asked how helpful the training for the program was, 8 out of 10 participants interviewed rated this as ten on a scale from 1 (not helpful at all) to 10 (very helpful). The final 2 participants rated in the range of 8 - 9. In addition, when asked if there were enough topics covered during the training, all respondents maintained that there were, and most went on to explain that the program facilitator goes out of her way to meet the needs of the participants. That is, if there is an area of interest that is not being covered in the classes, the facilitator will take it upon herself to research the area and bring in relevant literature for the women to read.

Furthermore, interviewees were asked if the time dedicated to training was sufficient, and if the sessions were well paced and easily understood. Once again, all interviewees were satisfied with the time dedicated to the training and argued that all sessions were well paced and easily understood. If there were sections that needed more emphasis, due to learning difficulties or questions, the facilitator would ensure that more time was dedicated to the relevant areas. In addition, the women confirmed that questions were readily clarified when and if they arose.

Finally, it became obvious through interviews with the program facilitator, community professionals and documents summarizing the program's progress, that the women are trained in a very professional and reputable manner, in turn supporting the efficiency of the program training. Examples of topics covered by the program facilitator, veterinarians and dog professionals from outside of the institution, include:

• the science of operant conditioning
• non-verbal communication
• basic obedience
• canine nutrition
• grooming
• canine reproduction
• first aid for animals
• common health problems
• most common inherited diseases
• diagnosing canine disease
• the immune system: bacteria vs. virus
• internal and external parasites
• vaccines and vaccinating programs
• anatomy and how anatomy affects disease
• basic genetics, including "ultra sound x-rays of puppies in utero"
• genetics and the family pet
• applying genetics in a breeding program
• structure of dogs: growth periods and resulting health issues
• dominance hierarchy of canines
• animal behaviour: expressions of dominant and subordinate relationships & alternatives to punishment
• handling stress, house rules & municipal by-laws
• chaining behaviours, shaping plans and precision heeling
• breeding whelping and rearing puppies
• the vet's role

It is interesting to note that the program facilitator indicated that the original proposal is a skeleton for the program structure and new training topics are often implemented. In addition, the facilitator strives to give the program a "community base" by keeping track of "dog trade magazines, local newspapers, and newscasts" and dealing with current issues in class.

Are program participants' involvement in establishing the program acknowledged and balanced with other duties/programs etc.?

The following factors were considered while examining this issue: is attendance in the program supported; do staff expectations conflict with program requirements; is there a good balance between canine programs and other programs; and do the women have assistance when trying to fit numerous programs into their schedules?

Interview results revealed that most of the participants (9/10) feel their attendance with the program is supported. The interviews suggested that the staff don't usually expect the women to be somewhere else during programming. The exceptions were medical appointments and engagements involving eyewitness testimony. The program facilitator rated this as 5.5 on a scale from 1 'not at all' to 10 'entirely'. Eight out of the ten interviewees maintained that they don't have any problems fitting the canine program in with other programs, and a number of the respondents (7/10) said if they run into any complications, they receive enough assistance and support regarding appropriate re-scheduling. They state that the program facilitator will do what she can to work around core programs⁶, thereby allowing participants to remain in the canine program. Moreover, the participants understand that their core programs are of priority and being unsuccessful in these programs may result in their removal from the canine program.

The interview with the program facilitator indicated that there is a specific period of time that the program participants may have some difficulty balancing their canine program responsibilities with other duties or programs. More specifically, this may occur during a "two week adjustment period" during which women are making the transition from phase 1 to phase 2. It is at this time that they take on their own dog 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and the facilitator suggested that during this time frame, she is more likely to hear complaints from other staff regarding this issue.

Are the activities of the program organized in a way that its goals can be achieved?

Is the prison community familiar with the program and its activities?

As mentioned, all of the staff who completed the survey stated they were aware of the program, and 80% (12/15) claimed to know the goals of the program. Interviews with the staff revealed that all staff are familiar with the program and its activities. These results were expected, due to the small size of the facility and the uniqueness of the program. On a daily basis there are generally a minimum of 6 to 8 dogs at the facility. As such, the program's presence is apparent.

Is the canine program meeting the needs of the participants and the adoptive families?

Interviews with the program participants revealed that expectations they had regarding the program have been fulfilled. For instance the women generally expressed that they are happy with the program, and how the facilitator organizes it. Phase 1 of the program allows the women to familiarize themselves with appropriate training techniques; thereby properly preparing them to train their own dog in phase 2. In addition, expectations that aren't met (a smooth transition from phase 1 to phase 2 for example) are often viewed from a positive perspective (e.g., "this is a great challenge"). Furthermore, "surprises" experienced by the program participants often result in positive practices like perseverance and cooperation. This is exemplified by women who become frustrated when their dog can't learn as quickly as they expect it to, but persevere, and by the women who learn to delicately deal with their housemates who may have issues with a dog living in their home. Unfulfilled expectations are often a result of rules (as set out by the program facilitator) being broken. For example, a couple of women complained about having their dogs taken away from them, however they also acknowledged that losing their dog was a direct result of their own actions.

With regards to the adoptive families, interviews suggest that their needs are being appropriately met. They expressed great satisfaction with the training process that they are required to go through prior to receiving their dog. They see the program as extremely beneficial and they feel a great deal of closeness to the women responsible for training their dog. They recognize the benefits that the women receive; and they maintain that even after they receive their dog the program facilitator is still available to answer questions and deal with any concerns. As stated by one of the interviewees: "It's certainly a program that I would enforce and support one hundred and ten percent: For us, for the animal, but foremost for the inmate".

Are the facilitator, other staff involved and participants providing sufficient support and exchange of information?

When considering support and exchange of information regarding the program, it appears that the majority of parties are well informed regarding activities, events and expectations. However, some concerns raised by a few staff members force us to consider the issues of information exchanges and communication.

Specifically, some of the issues raised may be due to a lack of knowledge regarding the program's expectations and requirements, such as the concern that core programs are being evaded in order to take part in the canine program. Interviews with the program facilitator and program participants indicate that the core programs are treated as a priority. Women who fail to complete these programs, or exhibit poor performance are usually not permitted to take part in the canine program.

Is the program effective?

To what extent does the program help in the placement of dogs?

When considering this issue, two approaches are used. First, actual figures regarding the placement and involvement of dogs are considered, and second, the opinions of staff, inmates and community professionals are examined. As discussed above, as of June 2000, 28 dogs have been involved with the canine program. Of these dogs, 14 have been released to various adoptive families including; a learning disabled child, a youth facility, a disabled stroke victim, cerebral palsy patients, senior citizens, and family pets. Of the remaining 14 dogs, 4 are currently in phase 2 or 3 of the program, 6 belong to the program facilitator, 1 acts as a demonstration dog, and 3 have been euthanized (please refer to Figure 2).

When considering the opinions of various parties involved, the following observations were made. The staff survey addressed this issue by asking about the effectiveness of the placement of dogs (two of the respondents did not feel qualified to respond to this question). On scales ranging from 1 (poor) to 10 (very good), when asked about the effectiveness of the placement of dogs with families in the community, 29% of staff (4/14) responded with values ranging from 2 to 5 and 71% of staff (10/14) responded with values ranging from 8 to 10. When asked about the effectiveness of the placement of dogs with disabled members of the community, again 29% of staff (4/14) responded with values ranging from 3 to 6, while the remaining 71% (10/14) responded with values ranging from 8 to 10.

Interviews with program participants addressed the same questions, using the same scale. They were asked about the effectiveness overall, for families, and for disabled members of the community, and the following results emerged. Ninety percent of respondents (9/10) rated the overall effectiveness between 8 and 10, while 10% (1/10) did not feel qualified to respond. With regards to placement with families, 60% (6/10) rated this as a 10, whereas 40% (4/10) again did not feel qualified to respond. When considering the placement with disabled members of the community, 70% (7/10) rated this as 8 or 10, and 30% (3/10) did not feel qualified to respond. It should be noted that a few offenders questioned the maintenance of training on behalf of the adoptive family, after the dog has been released to them. Overall, it seems that the offenders are somewhat more optimistic than the staff, however, both staff and offenders generally feel that the dogs are being effectively placed with adoptive families. Interviews with adoptive families concur with the above findings.

The interview with the program facilitator included the same questions. On scales ranging from 1 "not helpful at all" to 10 "entirely/very helpful", she rated the smoothness of the process as a 9, but indicated that she has great difficulty finding appropriate adoptive homes,⁷ in turn making the process somewhat difficult. As discussed above, according to the facilitator, this is an area that an assistant would be very beneficial. Effectiveness with both families in the community and disabled members of the community were rated as 10.

Did the environment at the facility change after implementation of the PDCP?

Fourteen of the 23 offenders (61%) who responded to the survey said they believe there were changes in the general atmosphere at the facility that they would attribute directly to the canine program (please see specific examples, Table 2). In addition, 15 of the 16 staff (94%) surveyed claim that they have noticed changes in the general atmosphere that they would attribute directly to the canine program. Interview results from staff and offenders not in the program confirm this as the majority of interviewees listed similar examples to those provided above.

The most apparent change in the atmosphere is with regards to socializing. That is, both offenders and staff maintain that the dogs act as social facilitators, fostering relationships among offenders, and between the offenders and staff.

Furthermore, many of the staff argue that the environment is a calmer and more relaxed one, which in turn facilitates the smooth operation of the institution. It is important to note that several staff members acknowledged that the program has been operating at Nova for a number of years, so it is difficult to judge how the program has impacted the environment.⁸

Are the inmates in the program empowered by it or experiencing changes in self-esteem?

As indicated above, results of Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale indicate that there are no significant differences in self-esteem between those involved in the program and those not involved in the program. However, it is important to note that no pre and post-tests were performed to address this issue, and therefore it is difficult to rule out the possibility that self-esteem and empowerment are impacted by involvement in the program. In fact, interviews and surveys from staff and offenders suggest that participants of the program are empowered, and do experience increases in self-esteem. Comments such as the women experience "increases in levels of confidence", "increases in self-esteem", and "a sense of pride and accomplishment" were numerous and are reflective of both empowerment and changes in self-esteem. As a session facilitator said, "the women are proud of themselves, it's empowering for them".

Are there any changes in physical or psychological aspects of the inmate's life?

Staff interviews revealed that several women were identified as being physically unable to walk a dog, for a period of an hour/day prior to their entrance to the program. However, commitment to the program comes with changes in their physical being, as the women are motivated to gain the physical strength to appropriately care for their dog. The program facilitator expressing a story regarding one of the women stated "the change in her physical energy in a two-month period is astounding. And it wasn't because it was Monday morning, it's because she's in better physical shape now", when speaking of a different women she said, "she went from being totally un-physically fit to being able to walk upright". This represents only a couple of specific examples, however various individuals throughout the interview process made similar statements.

In addition, interviews with staff suggest that psychologically, program participants seem better able to deal with their emotions. As stated by staff members, "they talk to their dogs about issues, the dogs just listen, they love them. The women trust their dogs, some have never trusted before, it may be their first experience with this type of relationship". Another interviewee complemented this statement; "…intake assessment showed that she did not show emotion. She had come to the point that she was able to talk about how the dog feels, and then she was able to make the leap about how she feels about the dog, and now she talks about how she feels about someone else who is a dog trainer. So not only is she showing emotions, but she's able to articulate and put it into a context that's out there in the community". Moreover, another staff member said; "I must say that I have worked with one woman in particular who felt that the canine program had the biggest impact on her emotionally and mentally". Finally, as stated by the psychologist, "I think some (emphasis added) of the women have had lots of experience, and lots of personal growth through the program…I’ve seen a lot of women who have anti-social or psychopathic personality disorder going to the group (the program), and do that quite well and sometimes (the program facilitator) will consult with me".

Are there changes in community support of Nova or perceptions of the offender population?

All interviewees were provided with the opportunity to comment on this question and generally the feedback was consistent regardless of who was being interviewed. As discussed in the introduction to this paper, it is clear that the program has provided Nova Institution with a great deal of positive exposure, locally, nationally, and internationally. Examples of community involvement and support are plentiful. From local donations and involvement, to province wide enthusiasm, it is evident that the program has aided in promoting changes in community support.

Interviews with community professionals and adoptive homes suggest that this community involvement has a direct impact on the perceptions of offender populations. Granted, interviewees were not timid about expressing their original hesitation with regards to the offenders, however exposure to the women and their activities has impacted their preconceived notions regarding federally sentenced women. The program facilitator stated "the fact is…they see hardened criminals doing something so gentle and so kind, it just gives them a new understanding of who the women really are".

Does the program create any positive or negative unintended effects?

Does training for the PDCP reinforce effects of other programs that the participants are taking part in and help determine their interests?

Interviews with other program facilitators support the contention that the PDCP reinforces effects of other programs that the participants are taking part in. More specifically, the program has a strong link with the cognitive skills program. As previously mentioned, skills such as; problem solving, alternative thinking, responding to the feelings of others, verbal communication, and consequential thinking are taught in the cognitive skills program and reinforced in the canine program. Staff interviews confirm that the majority of staff recognize this connection.

Furthermore, other program facilitators argue that the program has positive implications for their programs, as changes in the women are apparent, and progress in programs is inadvertently impacted. As facilitators stated, "my own program is positively affected by it", "it's self-rewarding and it impacts other programs", "there is a lot of interaction between the programs. The programs reinforce one another, what happens in one is reinforced in another". Another facilitator emphasized a different set of implications, "I think that because they have to earn the right to have a dog, it’s not a natural progression in the program, they have to prove themselves, I see that as a real benefit in terms of them understanding that their behavior matters".

In addition, interviews revealed that a number of the women's interests are impacted by their involvement with the program. Several women have expressed interest in directly related fields of work; veterinary or grooming work for example. And, there is evidence of women attending community college in related programs in hopes of achieving their goals. Moreover, a few women have volunteered within the community for veterinarians, and interviews with the community professionals suggest that they are very impressed by the level of training and expertise the women have to offer.

Do participants experience changes in future aspirations or plans as a result of the program?

Although this question was not directly addressed in the interviews or surveys, it seems apparent that future aspirations develop as a result of the program. Several program participants expressed vocational goals related to the program and this accomplishment appeared to be a consequence of their increased empowerment and esteem.

Do the program participants experience separation anxiety as a result of their dog being adopted?

Interviews with the program participants suggest that the process of releasing dogs to the adoptive families is a difficult one, however the women appear to accept this as a responsibility of being a participant of the program. Any separation anxiety or grief associated with the process appears to be met with great support. Both the program facilitator and the chaplain were mentioned as strong sounding boards and support systems during this difficult transition. Many women also expressed that they consider this their opportunity to give back to the community. Overall, it appears that this is a difficult transition for the women, but one that results in a great deal of emotional support from various parties at the institution.

Does the program contribute to animosity in any way?

Even those women not involved with the program are highly supportive of it. Expected animosity would have been that created amongst the offenders, however interviews suggest that this is not the case. In fact, to the surprise of the investigators, if any antagonism is apparent it stems from the publicity and attention that the program is accorded. This was reflected in interviews with a few staff members who feel that sometimes other programs and productive work currently being undertaken at Nova go unrecognized as a result of the enthusiasm directed towards the canine program. In addition, as previously mentioned, there appears to be antagonism between some management at Nova and selective members of the steering committee. These issues will be discussed in the following section.

Additional Unintended Effects

During the evaluation week the researchers were made aware of the fact that an inmate had been recently readmitted to the institution for an offence which involved a dog (pitbull). Although this woman had previously been a participant of the canine program, a definite link between her involvement in the program and her offence should not be made. In addition, while it is important to acknowledge this event, it is also necessary to recognize that the program is about teaching and rewarding positive behaviour. As with any skill acquired by an inmate while institutionalized, it is his/her obligation to apply new skills responsibly.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings

The Pawsitive Directions Canine Program is unique and exclusive to Nova Institution. No other program of its nature is currently being offered in any other correctional facility in Canada. Although a great deal of anecdotal evidence has been offered to date, no official reports have complimented this evidence. This evaluation provides documented evidence regarding the programs operations and impacts. Five evaluation issues were considered: Is there a need for the program? Are there adequate resources and support for establishing the PDCP? Are the activities of the program organized in a way that it's goals can be achieved? Is the program effective? and Does the program create any positive or negative unintended effects?

When considering if there is a need for the program, it is clear that the canine program provides certain services that other programs can't possibly offer. One of its goals is to release dogs to members of the community, it is obvious that other current programs would be unable to provide this service. It is also clear that the adoptive families involved with the program are extremely happy with the service, and the program is successfully satisfying this goal. Furthermore, all parties involved in the evaluation recognize the responsibility taken on by the women in the program as exceptional. Learning to take on such responsibility is a life skill, one that is often lacking in federally sentenced women, and this program clearly demonstrates the advantages of taking on this level of responsibility. Finally, due to the connection between the canine program and other programs at the facility (cognitive skills in particular), the program not only serves its own function, but appears to positively impact the operations of other programs.

The second evaluation issue is with regard to adequate resources and support for the program. The program facilitator expressed concern regarding the ability of the budget to cover the costs of the "everyday things" and continuing her own related education. In absence of a cost benefit analysis, it's beyond the scope of this report to make recommendations regarding the current budget. When considering time, the program facilitator also expressed that an assistant for the program would be a valuable addition. With regard to support, the facilitator appears to have some reservation regarding the supportiveness of staff, however it does seem that initial reservations have subsided as time passes and the program establishes itself, in turn satisfying and addressing initial concerns raised by staff members.

The women in the program are satisfied with the level and amount of training and support they are receiving. The training received by the participants is rated as excellent and the impact this may have on future aspirations cannot be underestimated. Operant conditioning is one of the most important skills acquired through the program and often its philosophies extend to other aspects of the women's lives, including how they handle and consider their plans for the future. In addition, the women appear to be confident in the support offered by staff members as they successfully balance this program with other programs in their schedule.

The third evaluation issue addresses the activities of the program and its organization and success in reaching its goals. It is clear that the program is successful in meeting the policy objective (Manuge, 1996) and achieving proposed program benefits (Logan, 1996). In addition, the program has its own place and function at the facility, and clearly serves the targeted population while at the same time, effectively meeting their needs and expectations.

The fourth evaluation issue considers the program's effectiveness. The involvement of offenders, adoptive families and dogs is well documented and reflective of the effectiveness of the program. There is also evidence to support positive physical and psychological changes in the women. Finally, there are increases in community support and positive changes in the community's perceptions of federally sentenced women. There is also evidence suggesting positive changes in the social environment within the facility.

The final evaluation issue considers positive or negative unintended effects of the program. As previously mentioned, although not specified as an objective of the program, it is clear that the canine program reinforces effects of other programs. In addition, the participants involvement with the program has the potential of helping them determine future interests. There is evidence to support the argument that some women's future aspirations or plans have evolved as a direct result of the program. Finally, although not intentional, there is obvious separation anxiety when a woman is faced with parting with her dog, however the women appear to grow from the experience and accept it as part of the their responsibilities.

As anticipated by Logan (1997), the principles that lay the foundation for the development of a programming strategy are clearly being accomplished. Empowerment, meaningful and responsible choices, respect and dignity, supportive environment and shared responsibility are all exemplified in the canine program. The program's ability to meet such standards is reflective of the commitment to the program on behalf of the staff, inmates and community, at and surrounding Nova institution.

The quantitative measurements examining self-esteem, and locus of control did not reveal significant differences between those women who participate in the program and those whom do not. The depression measurement tool revealed a trend for those in the program to experience lower levels of depressive symptomatology, however again, this result was not statistically significant. It is important however to recognize that the results are based on a very small sample size, and are not based on pre and post-test measurements. Had the investigators had the opportunity to examine pre and post-test data, different findings may have emerged. The loneliness scale did reveal significant differences between the women involved in the canine program and the women not involved in the program. This finding is no surprise given the solitary nature of an institutional environment, and the proven abilities of pet facilitated therapy (Lai, 1998), and its impact on recipients of such programs.

The Correctional Environment Status Inventory also failed to reveal any significant differences between those women in the program and those women not in the program. However, comments provided throughout the measurement tool provide evidence for potential negative aspects of the institutional environment itself. The objective of this evaluation however is not to evaluate the institution and therefore, further discussion regarding this issue is beyond the scope of this report.

A significant impact of the program is the social facilitation that is experienced as a result of the dogs being at the institution. This finding was confirmed by the sociometric test, which revealed interesting findings with regards to the interaction patterns between the offenders, and between the offenders and staff. There were compelling differences between the women in the program and those not in the program, and it is clear that the program results in increases in both the quantity and quality of interactions amongst these groups.

As discussed above, a great deal of positive feedback was accessed during the evaluation, however a few significant concerns were also raised. The majority of original concerns have been addressed, allergies⁹ or initial fear of dogs ¹⁰ for example, however a few concerns still need to be attended to. One is with regard to the program steering committee and the lack of continued involvement, and contribution. The standing order for the canine program recommends that the program steering committee meet no less than once each quarter, however his condition is not currently being met, in turn the functions¹¹ of the committee are no longer being achieved.

Another concern is with regard to the "exchange of information", as previously mentioned, it does not appear that all of the staff are fully informed regarding the expectations of the program. In turn, complaints voiced by some of the staff are a function of lack of knowledge. For example, "the canine program takes priority over core programming" was a concern expressed which would not exist if information sessions announced the requirement of "success in core programs for eligibility with the canine program".

Furthermore, some staff expressed that those women released on parole, and re-admitted to the institution are far too readily accepted back into the program. Their concern is that the women see the program as a "comfortable place to be" and may lack the incentive or motivation to remain "outside", because they know they can "jump right back into the program" upon their return. In addition, a few staff voiced concerns regarding the criminogenic value of the program.

Furthermore, some staff raised the issue of segregation and problems that arise with the women living with dogs. That is, if a woman needs to be segregated, and she has a dog, it is difficult operationally to segregate the woman. Current practices include contacting the program facilitator and having her make arrangements for the dog's removal and care. Finally, there is great concern with the issue of double bunking. That is, those women in the canine program can not be double bunked, in turn this causes difficulty with space issues, particularly during times of over population.

Of note is the overwhelming response regarding the current program facilitator, it is clear that the majority of individuals who took part in the evaluation attribute the success of the program directly to the program facilitator and her commitment to and enthusiasm for the program. In fact, most argued that without the current facilitator, the program "would not be what it is today". The emphasis on the importance of the selection of an appropriate facilitator is clear and should not be underestimated when such selection processes are underway.

Recommendations for Potential Program Improvement

Based on the above summary, the following recommendations are suggested for program improvement. First, it is recommended that the program steering committee be actively reinstated. Concerns expressed by the program coordinator regarding budget and time constraints could be reviewed by the committee and addressed as they see appropriate. Furthermore, the original proposal suggestion of yearly internal evaluations could be conducted by the steering committee, in turn allowing not only ongoing feedback regarding the program and its activities, and collection of pretest data, but also allowing for valuable documentation of the programs continued accomplishments.

Second, it seems that the implementation of some mode of staff training sessions in order to effectively inform staff regarding the program and its operations would be of great value. Such sessions would be appropriate for imparting information not only for the canine program, but also for other programs at the institution. In turn, concerns and complaints raised by staff members could be addressed before becoming a larger issue.

Third, given the concerns about offenders being readily admitted to the program upon their return to the institution, it is recommended that a formal "re-screening" process be added to the standing order for the canine program. The program facilitator and program steering committee should jointly determine the criteria for this process.

Fourth, it is recommended that a small kennel be constructed for housing the dogs under extreme¹² circumstances. A kennel was called for in the original proposal, however at the time of the program's start date the kennel had not yet been constructed. The success of the dogs living with the women in their houses was so overwhelming that the kennel construction was never completed.

However, given the concerns regarding segregation and double bunking, a kennel would not only resolve such issues, but also provide the opportunity for a new segment of the program to be implemented. ¹³

Finally, it is recommended that the policy objective in the standing order for the canine program be amended to accord with the re-integration plans and the mission statement of Correctional Services Canada. This may alleviate concerns regarding the criminogenic value of the program. Furthermore, an evaluation component should be built into the program, thereby allowing for ongoing collection of pre and posttest evaluation information; this component should also be added to the standing order.

Study Limitations

It is necessary to discuss some of the limitations of this study. First, time constraints and the fact that the program was already in progress precluded the collection of pretest data. This inevitably excluded the examination of direct program impacts regarding within-group differences with respect to the quantitative measurements. Future evaluations should strive to attain both pre and post-test data.

Second, given the fact that some of the interview participants were recruited by the researchers upon their arrival to the facility, potential for bias exists, as it is possible that those supportive of the program were more likely to become involved with the evaluation. Moreover, because of this recruitment procedure, a social desirability¹⁴ confound may have influenced the interview results.

Third, the small sample size may have resulted in low significance levels throughout the various statistical analyses conducted. Implementation of a 'builtin' evaluation component to the program would aid in resolving this limitation in future evaluations of the program.

REFERENCES

Arbour, L. (1996). Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston. Ottawa, ON: Public Work and Government Services Canada.

Gammonley, J., & Yates, J. (1991). Pet Projects: Animal Assisted Therapy in Nursing Homes. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 17(1), 12 - 15.

Lai, J. (1998). Literature Review: Pet Facilitated Therapy in Correctional Institutions. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

Logan, H. (1996). Nova Institution Canine Program: Pawsitive Directions, Proposal. Truro, NS: Nova Institution.

Logan, H. (1997). Nova Institution Canine Program Pawsitive Directions, Year End Report. Truro, NS: Nova Institution.

Northway, M. L. & Weld, L. (1957). Sociometric Testing. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

O’Brien, E. (1985). Global self-esteem scales: unidimensional or multidimensional? Psychological Reports, 57, 383-389.

Paulhus, D. L. (1983). Sphere-specific measures of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1253-1265.

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

Richardson, K., & Blanchette, K. (2000). Evaluation Framework for the Pawsitive Directions Canine Program at Nova Institution for Women. Unpublished draft. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service of Canada.

Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1991). Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes: Volume 1 in Measures of Social Psychological Attitude Series. California: Academic Press Inc.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Self Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Russell, D., & Cutrona, C. E. (1988). Development and evolution of the UCLA

Loneliness Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Health Services Research, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women (1990). Report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women: Creating Choices. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of the Solicitor General.

Vachon, M. M. (1994). It's about time: the legal context of policy changes for female offenders. Forum on Corrections Research, 6(1), 3-6.

Wolfus, B., & Stasiak, E. (1996). The Correctional Environment Status Inventory: A Tool for Measuring the Quality of Correctional Environments. Research Report 96-8. Brampton, ON: Ontario Correctional Institute, Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

APPENDIX A: ROSENBERG'S SELF-ESTEEM SCALE

Instructions:

Please indicate your degree of agreement with each of the following statements by circling the appropriate option for each statement.

SA = Strongly Agree A = Agree D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree

1. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
   
   
   SA
   A
   D
   SD
   
   
   
2. At times I think I am no good at all.
   
   
   SA
   A
   D
   SD
   
   
   
3. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
   
   
   SA
   A
   D
   SD
   
   
   
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
   
   
   SA
   A
   D
   SD
   
   
   
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
   
   
   SA
   A
   D
   SD
   
   
   
6. I certainly feel useless at times.
   
   
   SA
   A
   D
   SD
   
   
   
7. I feel that I’m a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
   
   
   SA
   A
   D
   SD
   
   
   
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
   
   
   SA
   A
   D
   SD
   
   
   
9. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
   
   
   SA
   A
   D
   SD
   
   
   
10. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
    
    
    SA
    A
    D
    SD
    
    
    

APPENDIX B: CES-D SCALE

CES-D Scale
(Radloff, 1977)

Below is a list of the ways you might have felt or behaved recently. Please tell me how often you have felt this way during the past week.

During the past week:

1. I was bothered by things that usually don't bother me.
2. I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor.
3. I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with help from my family or friends.
4. I felt that I was just as good as other people. _____ (R)
5. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing.
6. I felt depressed.
7. I felt that everything I did was an effort.
8. I felt hopeful about the future. _____ (R)
9. I thought my life had been a failure.
10. I felt fearful.
11. My sleep was restless.
12. I was happy. _____ (R)
13. I talked less than usual.
14. I felt lonely.
15. People were unfriendly.
16. I enjoyed life. _____ (R)
17. I had crying spells.
18. I felt sad.
19. I felt that people dislike me.
20. I could not get "going".

Note: "R" indicates that an item is reverse-scored.

APPENDIX C: UCLA LONELINESS SCALE

UCLA Loneliness Scale
(Version 3, 1988)
(Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980; Russell & Cutrona, 1988)

The following statements describe how people sometimes feel. For each statement, please indicate how often you feel the way described by writing a number in the space provided. Here is an example:

How often do you feel happy?

If you never felt happy you would respond "never" (1); if you always feel happy, you would respond "always" (4).

1. *How often do you feel you are "in tune" with the people around you?
2. How often do you feel you lack companionship?
3. How often do you feel there is no one you can turn to?
4. How often do you feel alone?
5. *How often do you feel part of a group of friends?
6. How often do you feel you have a lot in common with the people around you?
7. How often do you feel you are no longer close to anyone?
8. How often do you feel your interests and ideas are not shared by those around you?
9. *How often do you feel outgoing and friendly?
10. *How often do you feel close to people?
11. How often do you feel left out?
12. How often do you feel your relationships with others are not meaningful?
13. How often do you feel no one really knows you well?
14. How often do you feel isolated from others?
15. *How often do you feel you can find companionship when you want it?
16. *How often do you feel there are people who really understand you?
17. How often do you feel shy?
18. How often do you feel people are around you but not with you?
19. *How often do you feel there are people you can talk to?
20. *How often do you feel there are people you can turn to?

Scoring: Items that are asterisked should be reversed (i.e., 1 = 4, 2 = 3, 3 = 2, 4 = 1), and the scores for each item then summed together. Higher scores indicate greater degrees of loneliness.

APPENDIX D: SPHERES OF CONTROL BATTERY

Spheres of Control Battery Items
(Paulhus, 1983)

Subscale 1: Personal Efficacy Scale

1. When I get what I want it's usually because I worked hard for it. (+)
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

2. When I make plans I am almost certain to make them work.(+)
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

3. I prefer games involving some luck over games requiring pure skill.
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

4. I can learn almost anything if I set my mind to it. (+)
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

5. My major accomplishments are entirely due to hard work and intelligence. (+)
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

6. I usually don't make plans because I have a hard time following through on them.
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

7. Competition encourages excellence. (+)
   
8. The extent of personal achievement is often determined by chance.
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

9. On any sort of exam or competition I like to know how well I do relative to everyone else. (+)
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

10. Despite my best efforts I have few worthwhile accomplishments.
    
    
    1
    AGREE
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    DISAGREE

    
     

Subscale 2: Interpersonal Control Scale

1. Even when I'm feeling self-confident about most things, I still seem to lack the ability to control interpersonal situations.
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

2. I have no trouble making and keeping friends. (+)
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

3. I'm not good at guiding the course of a conversation with several others.
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

4. I can usually establish a close personal relationship with someone I find sexually attractive. (+)
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

5. When being interviewed I can usually steer the interviewer toward the topics I want to talk about and away from those I wish to avoid. (+)
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

6. If I need help in carrying out a plan of mine, it's usually difficult to get others to help.
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

7. If there's someone I want to meet I can usually arrange it. (+)
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

8. I often find it hard to get my point of view across to others.
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

9. In attempting to smooth over a disagreement I usually make it worse.
   
   
   1
   AGREE
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   DISAGREE

   
    

10. I find it easy to plan an important part in most group situations. (+)
    
    
    1
    AGREE
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    DISAGREE

    
     

APPENDIX E: SOCIOMETRIC TEST

Sociometric Test

We would like to understand better the relationships between women at the facility. For that reason, it would be great help if you would provide answers to the following questions. Your responses are entirely confidential!

Name ___________________________ Date _________________________

Who do you like to spend your free time with the most?
Please indicate first and last names, if possible.

First choice ______________________________________

Second choice ___________________________________

Third choice _____________________________________

APPENDIX F: CESI

Correctional Environment Status Inventory

Facility: ___________________________

Date(dd/mm/yy): _____ / _____ / _____

This questionnaire is being sent to you as part of the routine evaluation of this facility. It contains statements about your unit, the correctional staff at this facility and about you. Please take the time to complete the questionnaire. There is no need to write your name on the questionnaire. This will ensure that the results are confidential.

Once you have finished, place the completed questionnaire in the envelope, which is enclosed, and seal the envelope. Then give it to staff to return. Please take no longer than 5 days to return the package.

On the next page, there are statements which describe the kinds of things that might go on in your facility and other statements which describe the way you may be feeling or thinking. Each statement is followed by the numbers 1 to 5. As you read each statement, circle a number from 1 to 5.

Circle '1' if what the statement describes never happens
Circle '2' if it happens once in a while
Circle '3' if it happens often
Circle '4' if it happens most of the time
Circle '5' if it always happens

Do not circle a number if you are not sure about what the statement means or if it is not applicable to your facility. Do not circle more than one number for a statement. Please note also that “correctional staff” refers to mainly to Primary Workers, though may also include Team Leaders, Mental Health personnel, and Management.

1=NEVER 2=ONCE IN A WHILE 3=OFTEN 4=MOST OF THE TIME 5=ALWAYS

1. Correctional staff ignore me.
   1 2 3 4 5
2. Correctional staff take into consideration residents'
   1 2 3 4 5
3. Correctional staff keep residents waiting for appointments.
   1 2 3 4 5
4. Correctional staff act on residents' suggestions.
   1 2 3 4 5
5. Correctional staff apologize to residents when they have made a mistake.
   1 2 3 4 5
6. When correctional staff disagree with each other, they work it out.
   1 2 3 4 5
7. If I am being treated unfairly by correctional staff, I get a fair hearing.
   1 2 3 4 5
8. Correctional staff change their minds about what we should be doing.
   1 2 3 4 5
9. Correctional staff help residents to resolve arguments.
   1 2 3 4 5
10. When a resident's programme is changed, correctional staff explain why.
    1 2 3 4 5
11. Correctional staff encourage me to try new ways of doing things.
    1 2 3 4 5
12. Correctional staff and residents say how they feel about each other.
    1 2 3 4 5
13. Before correctional staff give out a ticket, they try to find out what happened.
    1 2 3 4 5
14. The more mature residents at the facility help take care of the less mature ones.
    1 2 3 4 5
15. House meetings start on time.
    1 2 3 4 5
16. Correctional staff let me know when they think I've done something really good.
    1 2 3 4 5
17. Correctional staff pay attention to residents.
    1 2 3 4 5
18. Correctional staff get along well with each other.
    1 2 3 4 5
19. Some residents are very insulting to others at this facility.
    1 2 3 4 5
20. I speak to correctional staff respectfully.
    1 2 3 4 5
21. In this facility it is OK to speak your mind.
    1 2 3 4 5
22. It is OK for residents to disagree openly with correctional staff.
    1 2 3 4 5
23. Correctional staff agree on what kinds of behaviours are acceptable.
    1 2 3 4 5
24. I feel comfortable telling correctional staff how I feel.
    1 2 3 4 5
25. I hide my real feelings from other residents.
    1 2 3 4 5
26. Residents at the facility call each other names.
    1 2 3 4 5
27. I like having correctional staff participate in our activities.
    1 2 3 4 5
28. I feel safe in confronting other residents who are doing something they shouldn't be doing.
    1 2 3 4 5
29. I try to help other residents in my facility to work out their problems.
    1 2 3 4 5
30. When residents get into trouble, it's pretty clear why.
    1 2 3 4 5
31. Correctional staff work as a team.
    1 2 3 4 5
32. This is a very well organized facility.
    1 2 3 4 5
33. If a resident doesn't want to shower regularly, the other residents on the facility deal with it.
    1 2 3 4 5
34. Correctional staff help me to deal with my anger in a better way.
    1 2 3 4 5
35. Correctional staff encourage residents to think about their goals.
    1 2 3 4 5
36. This is a clean facility.
    1 2 3 4 5

The next set of questions asks you to show how much you agree with each statement. Again, circle a number from 1 to 5. Once again, “correctional staff” refers to mainly to Primary Workers, though may also include Team Leaders, Mental Health personnel, and Management.

1=COMPLETELY DISAGREE 2=DISAGREE A BIT 3=AGREE A BIT 4=MOSTLY AGREE 5=COMPLETELY AGREE

1. Residents are expected to share their personal problems with each other.
   1 2 3 4 5
2. Correctional staff here are trying to help me.
   1 2 3 4 5
3. I am trying to improve and get better.
   1 2 3 4 5
4. The other residents at this facility help me to understand myself.
   1 2 3 4 5
5. I know what my next steps will be when I am released.
   1 2 3 4 5
6. Correctional staff are interested in how I am doing.
7. Getting into treatment programs is important to me.
   1 2 3 4 5
8. I respect the correctional staff.
   1 2 3 4 5
9. Correctional staff care about me.
   1 2 3 4 5
10. Residents know what jobs need to be done and when they need to get them done.
    1 2 3 4 5
11. Correctional staff help me to feel that I can stay out of jail in the future.
    1 2 3 4 5
12. Correctional staff prefer to stay in their offices rathervthan spend time with residents.
    1 2 3 4 5
13. Rules at this facility are clear.
14. I am solving the problems that got me in here.
    1 2 3 4 5
15. I know what kinds of behaviour will get me into trouble.
    1 2 3 4 5
16. I want to change the way I am.
17. Correctional staff would like to know how I'm doing once I have been released.
    1 2 3 4 5
18. I am learning better ways of solving my problems.
19. Residents are encouraged to plan for the future.
    1 2 3 4 5
20. The other residents at the facility have nothing to offer me.
    1 2 3 4 5
21. I care about what happens to the other residents.
    1 2 3 4 5
22. I have a really good sense of what I should and shouldn't do around here.
    1 2 3 4 5
23. When I arrived, the other residents helped me to learn how things work around here.
    1 2 3 4 5
24. Correctional staff are more interested in their pay cheques than in me.
    1 2 3 4 5
25. Correctional staff think that only residents are responsible for problems at the facility.
    1 2 3 4 5
26. My case manager is interested in how I am doing.
    1 2 3 4 5
27. I like most of the residents at this facility.
    1 2 3 4 5
28. At this facility, every resident is out for herself.
    1 2 3 4 5
29. I will have to solve my problems if I want to stay out of jail.
    1 2 3 4 5
30. Correctional staff help me to feel that I can manage my life better than I have in the past.
    1 2 3 4 5

Please check your questionnaire to make sure that you have not overlooked any statements. Then, in the section below, make note of any important aspects of the prison environment that this questionnaire did not cover.

COMMENTS:

APPENDIX G: ITEMS IN CESI SCALES AND SUBSCALES

Scale: Staff Involvement

Subscale: Responsive Staff

Correctional staff take into consideration resident's explanations for things that happen at the facility

Correctional staff act on resident's suggestions

Correctional staff apologize to residents when they have made a mistake If I am being treated unfairly by a correctional officer, I get a fair hearing When a resident's program is changed, a correctional officer explains why Before correctional staff give out a ticket, they try to find out what happened

Subscale: Caring Staff

Correctional staff are interested in how I am doing

Correctional staff care about me

Correctional staff would like to know how I'm doing once I have been released

My case manager is interested in how I am doing

Subscale: Disinterested Staff

Correctional staff keep residents waiting for appointments

Correctional staff prefer to stay in their offices rather than spend time with residents

Correctional staff ignore me

Correctional staff are more interested in their pay checks than in me

Correctional staff think that only residents are responsible for problems in the facility

Scale: Staff Treatment Focus

Subscale: Encouragement

Correctional staff pay attention to the residents

Correctional staff help me to deal with my anger in a better way Correctional staff encourage residents to think about their goals Correctional staff are trying to help me Correctional staff help me feel that I can stay out of trouble Residents are encouraged to plan for the future

Correctional staff help me to feel that I can manage my life better than I have in the past

Subscale: Open Communication

Correctional staff help residents to resolve arguments

Correctional staff encourage me to try new ways of doing things Correctional staff and residents say how they feel about each other Correctional staff let me know when they think I've done something good It is OK for residents to disagree openly with correctional officers I feel comfortable telling correctional staff how I feel

Scale: Staff Cohesion

When correctional staff disagree with each other, they work it out Correctional staff get along well with each other I speak to correctional staff respectfully Correctional staff agree on what kinds of behaviours are acceptable I like having correctional staff participate in our activities Correctional staff work as a team I respect the correctional staff

Scale: Clarity & Organization

Rules at this facility are clear

Facility meetings start on time

When residents get into trouble, it's pretty clear why

I have a really good sense of what I should and shouldn't do around here Correctional staff change their minds about what we should be doing This is a clean facility Residents know what jobs need to be done and when they need to get them done This is a very well organized facility

Scale: Offender Treatment Orientation

Subscale: Problem Solving

I am solving the problems that got me in here

I know what kinds of bheaviours will get me into trouble I am learning better ways of solving my problems I will have to solve my problems if I want to stay out of jail I want to change the way I am

Subscale: Change Orientation

In this facility it is OK to speak your mind

I am trying to improve and get better

I know what my next steps will be when I am released

Getting into treatment programs is important to me

Residents are expected to share their personal problems with each other

Scale: Offender Relationships

Subscale: Mutual Caring

Correctional staff get along well with each other

The other residents in this facility help me to understand myself The other residents on the facility have nothing to offer me I care about what happens to the other residents

When I arrived, the other residents helped me learn how things work around here I like most of the residents on this facility At this facility, every resident is out for herself

Subscale: Peer Support

The more mature residents in the facility help take care of the less mature ones

I feel safe in confronting other residents who are doing something they shouldn't be doing

I try to help other residents on my facility to work out their problems

If a resident doesn't want to shower regularly, the other residents on the facility deal with it

Subscale Hostility

Some residents are very insulting to others in the facility I hide my real feelings from other residents Residents at this facility call each other names

APPENDIX H: SURVEY FORMATS

Survey for Offenders

The Pawsitive Directions Canine Program is a course available for all women in this facility. Program participants are educated in dog husbandry and training techniques, ultimately leading to the release of the dog into the community. In order to understand how this program is going and to find ways to make it even better, we would appreciate if you would fill out this questionnaire and tell us how you feel about the canine program.

Your responses will be kept entirely confidential and your anonymity is guaranteed.

1. How old are you? __________
   
   
2. How long is your current sentence? __________
   
   
3. How long have you been incarcerated? __________
   
   
4. How long have you been at this facility? __________
   
   
5. Were you aware of the canine program and its availability to you?
   
   

   _____ Yes _____ No
   

6. Do you know how to become involved in the program?
   

   _____ Yes _____ No
   

7. Have you ever been denied a position in the program?
   

   _____ Yes _____ No
   

8. Are you a participant of the canine program?
   

   _____ Yes _____ No
   

   
   

   If not, is it because:
   
   _____ you did not know about the program?
   
   _____ you were not interested?
   
   _____ you were too occupied to take on the extra responsibility?
   
   _____ other reason (please specify)
   
   _________________________________________________
   
   _________________________________________________
   
   _________________________________________________
   
   

   If yes, what did/do you expect to gain from your involvement in the program?
   __________________________________________________
   
   __________________________________________________
   
   __________________________________________________
   
   __________________________________________________
   
   

9. Have you noticed any changes in the general atmosphere at the facility, or the relationship between staff and inmates and amongst inmates due to the canine program?
   

   _____ No
   
   _____ Yes What kind?
   
   __________________________________________________
   
   __________________________________________________
   
   __________________________________________________
   
   __________________________________________________
   
   

10. Does a dog trainer ever show you what they're doing with their dog?
    

    _____ No
    
    _____ Yes

    
    
11. Do you have contact with the dogs?
    

    _____ No
    
    _____ Yes (Can you provide an example?)
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    

12. Do you have a favourite dog?
    

    _____ No
    
    _____ Yes

    
    
13. How do the dog trainers feel about your contact with their dogs?
    

    __________________________________________________
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    

14. Have you been invited to any events surrounding the canine program?
    

    _____ No
    
    _____ Yes

15. Have you noticed any resistance to the program either by staff or inmates?
    

    _____ No
    
    _____ Yes (What type?)
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    

16. Do you have any general complaints about the canine program?
    

    _____ No
    
    _____ Yes (Please describe)
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    

17. Do you have any positive feedback about the canine program?
    

    _____ No
    
    _____ Yes (Please describe)
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    __________________________________________________
    
    

18. Overall do you find the program to be successful in the placement of dogs?
    

    _____ No
    
    _____ Yes
    
    

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION

Survey for Staff

This questionnaire is designed to determine the effectiveness of the Pawsitive Directions Canine Program at your facility. As you may know, the program educates women in dog husbandry and training techniques, ultimately leading to the release of the dog into the community. We would appreciate if you could respond to the following questions. Your perceptions and feelings about this program are of great importance for its evaluation. The questionnaire is anonymous, and your responses will be kept entirely confidential.

We would also like to talk to you about this program, since we believe that an interview can provide better understanding of the impact of this program. If you are willing to volunteer for an interview, please indicate so at the bottom of this questionnaire.

1. Are you aware of the canine program?
   

   _____ No _____ Yes

2. How did you find out about the program?

   _________________________________________________
   
   _________________________________________________
   
   _________________________________________________
   

3. Are any of the women on your caseload participants in the canine program?
   

   _____ No _____ Yes

4. Do you know the goals of the program?
   

   _____ No
   
   _____ Yes What are they?
   
   ________________________________________________
   
   ________________________________________________
   

5. How effective do you find the canine program to be in placement of dogs:
   

   With families in the community?
   
   1…..2…..3…..4…..5….. 6…..7…..8…..9…..10
   poor……………… moderate………… very good

   With disabled members of the community?
   
   1…..2…..3…..4…..5….. 6…..7…..8…..9…..10
   poor……………… moderate………… very good

6. Have you noticed any changes in the general atmosphere at the facility, relationship between staff and inmates and amongst inmates due to the program?
   

   _____ No
   
   _____ Yes (What Kind?)
   
   _______________________________________________
   

7. Have you noticed any changes in the program participants since their involvement in the program (how they deal with their personal issues, incarceration; their role in the inmate group; their relationship and behavior towards the staff)?
   

   _____ No
   
   _____ Yes (In what way?)
   
   _______________________________________________
   

8. Do you think that the canine program reinforces the positive effects of other programs:
   

   For program participants?
   
   1…..2…..3…..4…..5….. 6…..7…..8…..9…..10
   not at all………………………………… a great deal

9. Has the canine program ever create a crisis or a problem?
   

   _____ No
   
   _____ Yes (Why and when?)
   
   ______________________________________________________
   
   

   If yes, was it resolved? _____ No
   
   _____ Yes (How?)
   
   ______________________________________________________
   

10. Does a dog trainer ever show you what they're doing with their dog?
    

    _____ No
    
    _____ Yes
    

11. Do you have contact with the dogs?
    

    _____ No
    
    _____ Yes (Can you provide an example?)
    
    ______________________________________________________
    

12. Do you have a favourite dog?
    

    _____ No
    
    _____ Yes
    

13. How do the dog trainers feel about your contact with their dogs?
    
    

    ______________________________________________________
    
    ______________________________________________________
    
    ______________________________________________________
    

Please answer the following questions if you feel comfortable to do so, otherwise, please feel free to skip them.

What is your position at the facility?
______________________________________________________

How long have you been in this position?
______________________________________________________

How long have you been working with women offenders?
______________________________________________________

Would you be willing to have an interview with us regarding this program? The duration of the interview is 20-40 minutes. Thank you for considering an interview.

Yes
Name ______________________________________________________

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION
IN COMPLETING THIS SURVEY

APPENDIX I: GUIDELINES FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

Guide for interview with the program facilitator

Have you found any changes in the anticipated budget for the program?

Are the estimated time frames for each phase of the program accurate?

Are there any exclusionary criteria for women applying to the program?

What types of acts would lead to permanent suspension for women in the program?

Is there an allotted time period before they are eligible for re-admittance to the program?

How many dogs have been successfully trained?

How many dogs have been successfully adopted out?

How many dogs have been released as assistance dogs?

How many dogs have been re-admitted to the program?

What problems were responsible for this re-admittance?

What are the goals and aims of the program?

Establishing the PDCP

a) Support

Do you feel that the PDCP is considered important by the following staff at the facility?

Have you noticed any resistance to the PDCP, either by inmates or staff?

How is the funding of the program organized?

What would you find helpful for running the program, is there anything that you would need more of, or less of?

b) Training

Do you feel that you covered enough topics during the training?

Was the time devoted to each topic sufficient?

Are there any difficulties with using your personal dogs for phase 1 of the program?

How is the transition from phase one to phase two as the inmates become responsible for their own dogs?

Do you ever hear of complaints from non-program participants regarding dogs in the houses?

a) Balancing PDCP activities of participants with other activities at the facility

Are members attending the training sessions supported?

Were other staff members expecting them to be somewhere else or to be engaged in some other activity?

Were other staff members expecting them to be somewhere else or to be engaged in some other activity?

Was there a graduation ceremony?

Who was invited, and how did the participants feel about it?

To what extent do you feel that the process of releasing the dogs into the community is going smoothly?

Were other staff members expecting them to be somewhere else or to be engaged in some other activity?

Implementation

a) Relationships

How would you assess the quality of relationship and the established trust between you and the PDCP participants?

How would you assess other meetings and other staff's involvement in the program?

Have you noticed any changes in the general atmosphere on the facility, relationship between staff and inmates and amongst other inmates due to the program?

Have you ever had to deal with disruptive behavior by the dogs, or complaints by other women not involved in the program? If so, how did you deal with them?

Have you noticed any changes in the relationship between the institution and the community?

Effectiveness of the program

a) Placement and Care of dogs

How effective do you find PDCP to be in the placement of dogs?

Could you explain the process of gaining the required equipment? Have you had problems accessing required materials?

a) Changes in Participants

Have you noticed any changes in the participants since their involvement in the program?

How they deal with personal issues, incarceration, etc.?

Unintended effects

Do you think that the program reinforces effects of other programs or has other long- term positive effects, in the case of participants and/or all inmates? Do participants have a tendency to spend too much time with their dog? Do participants tend to develop some form of 'elitism' due to their involvement in the program?

Additional Comments:

Guide for interviews with staff

Do you have a caseload? Are any of your cases involved in the PDCP? If you are comfortable in answering this question, what is your position at the facility?

Please tell us what is your perception of the PDCP?

How do you feel about inmates training dogs?

Do you see effective impacts (within the institution, outside of the institution or otherwise) resulting directly from program activities?

Do you see this program as producing positive/negative results above and beyond that of required programming? Does the program impact other programs in any way?

Do you see any benefits or hindrances of having this program at your facility for participants, recipients and staff?

How do you perceive its effect on the relationship among inmates; inmates and staff?

Has the canine program impacted the institutional environment/atmosphere in any way? If yes, how?

Do you believe that the program is ever used inappropriately (i.e., for alternate purposes, such as socializing, to evade work or other programs, etc.)?

Have you noticed any changes in the relationship between the institution and the community?

Have you noticed any changes (mentally, physically etc.) in the women involved in the program?

Additional Comments:

Guide for the interview with program participants

****Before we get started with specifics regarding the canine program, I'd like to get a general feel for how you feel about treatment programs in general…

Why do you think you need treatment? How do you feel treatment will help you to meet these needs?

If you were to compare yourself to others in this place would you say you are in greater or lesser need of treatment? Who are you comparing yourself to?

How did you find out about treatment? (i.e., what steps did he/she take in order to pursue treatment?)****

We will continue now with a discussion regarding the canine program in particular.

Establishing the PDCP

a) Training

How helpful did you find the canine program training?

Do you feel that you covered enough/too many topics during the training?

Was the time devoted to them sufficient?

Were all of the training sessions well paced and easily understood? If yes, how/explain.

How often do professionals from outside of Nova come in to run Phase 1 sessions for the canine program? Can you provide a few examples?

Does using the facilitator's dog for training during phase one work well? If yes, why?

Did you feel prepared to take on a dog of your own for phase two? If yes, in what way? If no, why?

How was the transition from using the facilitator's dog to having your own dog?

Were there any surprises when you took on your own dog for phase two? If yes, explain.

Do you ever hear complaints from non-program participants regarding dogs in the houses? If yes, explain.

How often do you receive feedback regarding your performance in the canine program? In what form?

How often do you have the opportunity to display your achievements gained through the canine program? How do these opportunities make you feel?

a) Balancing PDCP duties with other activities at the facility

Was your attendance of the training sessions supported?

Were staff members expecting you to be somewhere else or to be engaged in some other activity? If yes, explain.

Was there a graduation ceremony? Who was invited? How did you feel about it?

How easy do you find it to fit the program duties with your other duties and work?

How satisfied are you with assistance you are getting for fitting in your program duties with other duties and work you are expected to complete?

How easy do you find it to fit the program duties with your other duties and work?

How satisfied are you with assistance you are getting for fitting in your program duties with other duties and work you are expected to complete?

Have you noticed any resistance to the program either by staff or inmates? If yes, explain.

To what extent do you feel that the process of releasing the dogs into the community is going smoothly?

Implementation

a) Relationships

How do you feel about the idea of inmates training dogs?

How satisfied are you with the availability of the program facilitator to have consultations with you when you need them?

How would you describe the facilitator's relationship with you?

How satisfied are you with support and relationships from other program participants?

How satisfied are you with support and relationships from other women not involved in the program?

How would you assess the quality of relationship and the established trust between you and your dog?

Have you ever had to deal with disruptive behavior by your dog, or complaints by other women not involved in the program? If so, how did you deal with them?

How do you feel about other meetings regarding the canine program (e.g., Steering Committee)?

Have you noticed any changes in the relationship between the institution and the community?

Effectiveness of the program and unintended effects

a) Placement and Care of dogs

How effective do you find PDCP to be in the placement of dogs?

For families within the community?

For disabled members within the community?

How adequate do you find the equipment that is provided to care for the dogs?

Do you ever have problems accessing the materials required for the program? If yes, explain.

a) Changes in Participants

Did you change in any way (physically, mentally etc.) as a result of being a program participant (for example, how you deal with your personal issues, incarceration)?

Did your role in the inmate group change? If yes, how?

Did your relationship and behavior towards institutional staff change? If yes, how?

Do you feel that you are in charge of the program, or rather, that you are being directed to a great extent by the facilitator and/or other staff? Explain.

Do you see aspects of operant conditioning extending to other areas of your life? If yes, can you provide a few examples?

Have you ever had one of your dogs adopted?

If yes, can you explain how this experience made you feel?

If negative, how did you deal with these feelings and did you have support from staff at the institution?

Did you learn anything from this experience?

Additional Comments:

Guide for interview with inmates at Nova not in program

****Before we get started with specifics regarding the canine program, I'd like to get a general feel for how you feel about treatment programs in general…

Why do you think you need treatment? How do you feel treatment will help you to meet these needs?

If you were to compare yourself to others in this place would you say you are in greater or lesser need of treatment? Who are you comparing yourself to?

How did you find out about treatment? (i.e., what steps did he/she take in order to pursue treatment?)****

We will continue now with a discussion regarding the canine program in particular.

Please tell us what is your perception of the PDCP?

How do you feel about inmates training dogs?

Do you see any benefits or hindrances of having this program at your facility for participants, recipients and staff? If yes, explain.

How do you perceive its effect on the relationship among inmates; inmates and staff?

Does it affect the atmosphere at the facility in any way? If yes, explain.

Do you believe that the program is ever used inappropriately (i.e., for alternate purposes, such as socializing, to evade work or other programs, etc.)? If yes, how?

Have you noticed any changes in the relationship between the institution and the community? If yes, explain.

Have you noticed any changes (positive or negative) in the women involved in the program? If yes, how?

Additional Comments:

Guide for interviews with adoptive homes

Would you please tell me about your experience with the canine program was like?

Why did you adopt the dog?

How long have you had your dog?

Is there anything you particularly liked or disliked about the process of receiving your dog?

Are there any changes in the process that you would recommend?

How do you find the behavior/nature of your dog?

How do you feel about the very notion of inmates training dogs?

Have you noticed any changes in the relationship between the institution and the community that you may attribute to the program?

Has your experience with the canine program impacted your opinions/perceptions/relationships with Nova Institution in any way? If yes, how?

Additional Comments:

Guide for interviews with community professionals

How do you feel about the very notion of inmates training dogs?

Would you please tell me about your experience with the canine program?

How do you perceive its effect on the program participants? Have you noticed any changes in the women?

Do you see any benefits or hindrances of having this program at the facility?

Have you noticed any changes in the relationship between the institution and the community? If yes, explain.

Additional Comments: