Tough Questions You Need To Ask About Every Service Dog Organization
Posted on | April 8, 2009 | 2 Comments
Last time I talked about how you can’t know if a dog is really a service dog, and ended up promising I’d tell you how you can have a huge impact on the overall quality of service dog placements, and why it’s absolutely critical that you do. (I’ll forewarn you that this is a longer post than I like to write, but it’s that important.)
Lemme get right to the heart of things and tell you first why it’s so critical. Some people, including me, fear that there’s a really bad service animal “incident waiting to happen” just around the corner and it’s only a matter of time. That fear isn’t based on some irrational hysteria – it’s because of the ongoing proliferation of service dog programs. Seems like every time I turn around there’s another new one, often with a big press release about how they’re gonna be endorsed by some famous celebrity or appear on a talk show, and many times they are targeting their services directly at veterans with severe emotional or physical disabilities.
All it’s gonna take is one bad placement, one time where an inadequately trained dog and/or an improperly screened recipient results in an out-of-control situation where people get hurt. And God forbid the incident involves a wounded veteran from the Iraq or Afghanistan conflicts, especially one who’s been diagnosed with PTSD. We’ve already seen how the media in its normal way has been all over those kinda stories, sensationalizing them and maligning all OEF/OIF veterans over the actions of a few.
The fallout from an incident like that could destroy in an instant all that so many have worked so hard to achieve for so many years. And I can guarantee you if something like that does happen, even if it’s later shown to be a dog that wasn’t properly trained, or an applicant that wasn’t properly screened, or a shaky dog organization, it’s not gonna matter – all service animals and those who benefit from them will likely be hurt, and significantly.
My point last time was that laws, while they have their place and are one tool in the arsenal, aren’t going to solve this problem. You can only hammer so much – while laws might get some marginal “service dogs” out of public areas and maybe even cause some bad programs to shut down, they aren’t gonna produce more good dogs or placements, nor do they give the average person something they can use to help make that happen. You accomplish that (and this is where you can have that huge impact I mentioned) by only supporting the good programs so they thrive, and not supporting the marginal ones until they either improve, or go away altogether.
That means you have to make informed decisions about organizations that train and place service dogs, and to do that you have to educate yourself and make your own judgments about any service dog organization.
And I mean ANY organization. I don’t care if you “heard about it on Oprah”, or you read about it here on my blog, or a well-known veterans organization is associated with it, or Charity Navigator gives it four stars (a discussion for another time, but for now note it’s significant that they are currently changing their methodology), or your best friend told you about it, or even if someone in your own family actually has a dog from the organization. Do your own research - the good places can stand up to the scrutiny, the not-so-great ones can’t, and the onus is on them to provide you the answers to your questions.
What do you look for? Here are a few revealing questions to ask every time you see a service dog organization:
● Is the organization an accredited Assistance Dogs International member? And, if so, how long has it been an accredited member?
I’ve mentioned this one before (“How to Find the Best Service Dogs for Disabled Veterans”) – at this point, if I don’t see this, I have to ask why. In fact, the better a program looks to me and the more publicity it gets, the more the absence of ADI accreditation jumps out as a potential big red flag.
● Do they provide specific descriptions of what the dogs are trained to do as it relates to accepted standards?
For example, if a place talks about how they train psychiatric service dogs or dogs for PTSD, then I’d expect to see as a bare minimum a reference to the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners’ “Service Dog Tasks for Psychiatric Disabilities” (http://www.iaadp.org/psd_tasks.html), or, better yet, a detailed description of how they follow the guidelines outlined at length in that document.
● What is the real focus of the organization? Are they truly focused on “the human end of the leash”?
Service dog programs now often have a number of individual elements they promote, sometimes all combined into one program – for example, prisoners raising dogs (one element) rescued from shelters (another element) that will become service dogs (another element) for wounded veterans (another element). On the upside, each one of those is a great thing by itself, and, naturally, in combination, it comes across as even that much better. On the downside, though, those things can easily be competing priorities, and the organization – and you – have to figure out what’s the primary focus.
Are they more interested in rescuing dogs from shelters? Or is the real priority helping prisoners? Or is their true passion helping wounded veterans? Harsh as this may sound, the bottom line is the focus has to be on making a life-changing, lifelong improvement for the person receiving the dog, and those other interests are side benefits that are important only to the degree that they help make that happen. Again, look closely, but sometimes I think this one jumps out at you.
● And, most importantly: Will the organization make the tough calls when they need to?
The reality is that it’s easy to look good with the general public on this subject, especially when you involve the other elements I mentioned, particularly veterans with disabilities. Most people love dogs, the level of specialized knowledge about service dogs isn’t there, and, on top of that, when you say you’re going to help out a wounded warrior who really needs the help, most people’s automatic inclination is “What’s not to love? Tell me where I sign up.”
But, like so many things that look good on the surface, when you look closer, it’s a lot tougher and more complex than it seems, and there are some hard calls that have to be made. Will they release a dog from training, even though it’s a wonderful dog and everyone loves it, and it’s at 90% of where it needs to be, but still just doesn’t meet the service dog standard? Will they turn down an applicant, even though it’s someone who has faithfully served their country, been severely injured while doing so, whose situation tears at your heart, but yet you know just isn’t a good fit for a service dog? Will they do those things, knowing that they are likely to be vilified by some, condemned in the media, and maybe even have their motives or qualifications questioned?
Or will they take the easy way out and not make those kinds of tough decisions? Let a dog slide through training because, hey, 90% is close enough, there’s a real need, and things will probably be OK? Grant a borderline application request because they get caught up in the emotion of dealing with a wounded veteran and want to “do the right thing”? Or, maybe worst of all, are they firmly convinced that they know better than all the established assistance dog organizations and associations, and that they are actually helping someone, when, in fact, they may be doing more harm?
Maybe none of that will happen, but, ultimately, you have to ask yourself: Am I absolutely certain that the organization will never, ever, for any reason, risk placing someone who receives one of its dogs in a potentially unsafe situation?
If you’ve read this far, you could easily be asking, “Sheesh, Al, all these places are trying to do is help – why are you being so tough?” Trust me – as somebody who loves these dogs, is a veteran, and is deeply involved as a volunteer with one of these organizations, I know how tough it can be sometimes to stay focused on the real goal. I also know how hard it can be to accept some of those tough calls that have to be made – I’m just thankful I’m not the guy who has to make them. But somebody has to, and you better be absolutely sure that any service dog organization you’re gonna support is willing to do that.
Please go back and reread what I said at the beginning – we simply can’t afford an incident like that. Pay very, very close attention to the organizations you read about or see on television, don’t take anybody’s word – mine, a famous celebrity’s, anybody’s – about those places, and go check them out yourself using the guidelines I’ve given you.
Tags: Assistance Dog > Oprah > Post Traumatic Stress > PTSD > Veterans > Wounded Warrior
Comments
2 Responses to “Tough Questions You Need To Ask About Every Service Dog Organization”
Leave a Reply
July 25th, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
I have PTSD and have used a service dog since 1997. At that time there were no programs that trained dogs for mental illness and until very recently and because of IAADP, ADI lobbied for laws that were inclusive of only those with physical disabilities. The last time I Iooked, there were only 3
ADI SD organizations that listed themselves as psych dog providers. An organization has to have trained 20 dogs to be considered for ADI membership, and that doesn’t mean 20 dogs for PTSD or TBI. ADI membership, IMO, is *not* the hallmark of a good provider organization. ADI is a professional membership organization with no recognition by the DOJ as having special training qualifications- despite their efforts to the contrary. In addition, there is very little screening skill within these organizations for determining for those with psych. disabilities who can or cannot responsibly handle and benefit from a service dog. The IAADP task list was created from posts to the assistance dog list from the ten or so long time civilian users of psych service dogs. We all owner trained – many with professional help for handling, obedience and public access skills.To the best of my knowledge, and I’ve followed this, there is only one organization that is doing it right and that’s a Canadian program called K9 Helpers.
Your concerns are very well-founded. I have never had an incident on public transportation where my dogs presented any kind of danger or disruption (except when snarked once by a bomb sniffer). I’ve had years of access problems that would have the potential to trigger PTSD. I sued my transit provider after 5 years of trying to educate (I’m a mediator). I was portrayed in the press as psycho bitch with a dangerous dog. The dangers of bad and sensationalized
press – regardless of truth – is there for all people with mental illness, and I’m glad you brought it up. Having a vet’s dog or a vet lose it – even with provocation – would in all probability garner harsh press.
There *will* be a rash of new providers who don’t know what they’re doing. But limited availability to non-profits and ADI organizations is misdirected and contrary to public policy as no such requirement exists under the DOJ regulatory definition of a service animal.
I wish I knew the answer.
August 6th, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Mr. Brittain:
While I appreciate your concern and efforts to bring the subject to more light, I must disagree (ever so slightly, perhaps) with your contention to patronize (presumably by donation) only accredited SD organizations. Some organizations, such as ours for example, cannot gain ADI membership because we do not place dogs (by design) with clients. This certainly does not mean our expertise, intentions, motivation or long-range planning do not reflect high standards. To the contrary our operational standards far and away exceed those of some so-called “accredited” SD organizations.
That said; were it possible to gain ADI membership through some type of dispensation based on our organizational functions, for instance. As Director I would gladly step-up and apply for ADI membership, and engage related requirements. So in this sense I agree with your call for attention to the details, where the devil often resides. Still; non-accreditation by ADI needn’t be the “big red flag” you propose.
Perhaps a better tact might be to closely scrutinize the individual SD organization one may be considering for financial support, irrespective its affiliation with ADI? And that, at long last, is a safer bet no matter the intention or potential target for one’s donation dollars.