Comments on: Tough Questions You Need To Ask About Every Service Dog Organization http://www.albrittain.com/service-dogs/tough-questions-you-need-to-ask-about-every-service-dog-for-veterans-organization/ Sat, 07 May 2011 02:42:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Jennifer Boyle http://www.albrittain.com/service-dogs/tough-questions-you-need-to-ask-about-every-service-dog-for-veterans-organization/comment-page-1/#comment-5314 Jennifer Boyle Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:48:10 +0000 http://www.albrittain.com/?p=454#comment-5314 I cannot possibly agree more with every single point you raise. There are not enough organizations with a thorough evaluation process for applicant screening. While going through an exhaustive screening process may a) take more time b) require a lot more resources c) reduce the number of placements that can be made per year, none of these things are worth sacrificing in the name of "doing a great thing for someone who needs help". I believe that it is our responsibility as service dog providers to develop a relationship with the mental health councellors who have been working with the Veteran to establish a Veteran's preparedness for service dog ownership and, moreover, ensuring the the Veteran is actively a part of improving their mental health whether by enrollment with VA programming (if retired) or by getting and staying affiliated with the Wounded Warrior programs in place for active military personnel. These are the people who know the candidate well and speak with them regarding their most personal issues on a regular basis. How can a 4 page application possibly tell you whether the veteran is ready for ownership, in stable mental health, is pursuing a dog for the right reasons and with reasonable expectations, and will respect the dog as a partner in life? You can't. There is nothing harder than making the decision to withhold acceptance into a Service Dog program but with a little creativity and time, you can provide an applicant with information which will engage them in the process so that they may be successful in the future (ie: We are electing not to pursue your application at this time for the following reasons... here is what we believe would be helpful in strengthening your candidacy... we hope to hear from you if and when these challenges have been addressed!) Successful programs require an incredible amount of resources, dedication, commitment ot the mission (first and foremost), and the ability to maintain a fine balance between compassion and over-investment. We all want to make a positive impact and give something of ourselves - but owe it to our programs to make the RIGHT choices for the integrity of the program. I cannot possibly agree more with every single point you raise. There are not enough organizations with a thorough evaluation process for applicant screening. While going through an exhaustive screening process may a) take more time b) require a lot more resources c) reduce the number of placements that can be made per year, none of these things are worth sacrificing in the name of “doing a great thing for someone who needs help”. I believe that it is our responsibility as service dog providers to develop a relationship with the mental health councellors who have been working with the Veteran to establish a Veteran’s preparedness for service dog ownership and, moreover, ensuring the the Veteran is actively a part of improving their mental health whether by enrollment with VA programming (if retired) or by getting and staying affiliated with the Wounded Warrior programs in place for active military personnel. These are the people who know the candidate well and speak with them regarding their most personal issues on a regular basis. How can a 4 page application possibly tell you whether the veteran is ready for ownership, in stable mental health, is pursuing a dog for the right reasons and with reasonable expectations, and will respect the dog as a partner in life? You can’t.

There is nothing harder than making the decision to withhold acceptance into a Service Dog program but with a little creativity and time, you can provide an applicant with information which will engage them in the process so that they may be successful in the future (ie: We are electing not to pursue your application at this time for the following reasons… here is what we believe would be helpful in strengthening your candidacy… we hope to hear from you if and when these challenges have been addressed!)

Successful programs require an incredible amount of resources, dedication, commitment ot the mission (first and foremost), and the ability to maintain a fine balance between compassion and over-investment.

We all want to make a positive impact and give something of ourselves – but owe it to our programs to make the RIGHT choices for the integrity of the program.

]]> By: TailTrex http://www.albrittain.com/service-dogs/tough-questions-you-need-to-ask-about-every-service-dog-for-veterans-organization/comment-page-1/#comment-368 TailTrex Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:15:45 +0000 http://www.albrittain.com/?p=454#comment-368 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. 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.

]]> By: cissy stamm http://www.albrittain.com/service-dogs/tough-questions-you-need-to-ask-about-every-service-dog-for-veterans-organization/comment-page-1/#comment-215 cissy stamm Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:18:53 +0000 http://www.albrittain.com/?p=454#comment-215 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. 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.

]]>