I’ve read a number of recent stories where a veteran has a service dog, the veteran has no physical injuries, the dog has been given to the veteran solely to help them deal with post-traumatic stress, and yet the dog has been trained to perform physical tasks (e.g., picking up dropped objects) for someone with physical issues who requires those functions.  Sometimes you have to read between the lines to figure that out, other times I’ve seen the articles come right out and say the tasks weren’t needed for this person, but were taught in case the dog had a partner with physical issues that needed them.

Whenever you see that, it should raise big red flags with you.

First, you gotta ask yourself – why would somebody go to the trouble and expend all the time, effort, and expense necessary to train a dog to perform physical tasks for someone who doesn’t need them, and very likely never will during the life of the dog? Or put a little differently, why would you train a dog that way and then not give it to a veteran who needed those skills? Particularly when there are so many people with severe physical injuries who actually do need a dog to perform those functions for them.

Now I don’t know the answers to that in these specific cases, and I can’t tell you that this is what’s going on there, but I CAN tell you what the history has been. Which you likely are not aware of unless you’ve followed a discussion that’s been going on in the service dog world for a number of years now.

Historically, this has been done to circumvent (or comply with, depending upon your point of view) the ADA. Where it’s come up has normally only been where someone has a dog whose only stated function is to provide them emotional support for a mental health issue and they get called on it, i.e., what does the dog do for them, is it a legitimate service dog, and do they have public access?

If you look at these cases, what you’ll see is that the person with the dog will often make an argument like this: “Yes, it’s a legitimate service dog and helps me cope with (fill in the psychological issue they are dealing with), BUT I also have (balance problems or hearing problems or some other physical issue) and the dog helps me with that, too.”  In other words, “I’m covered whichever way you wanna go”.

Let’s be clear here – just like in these current stories, the dogs were never described as “dual purpose”. The people made no bones all along about what the dog’s role for them was – the secondary physical stuff only came up when they got pressed on the subject. Hence the title of this post.

Another one we can debate all day long and where the law is not gonna be any help. My goal as always is just for you to be aware of something that might not be so obvious, ask the right questions, and then make your own decisions about what you’re willing to support. Because that’s what’s gonna drive whether or not this kinda stuff continues to be done.

For me, though, just doesn’t rack up right, no matter how you try to explain it.

When somebody says their dog is a service dog, public access is really what we’re talking about. If I describe my dog that way, the clear implication is that the dog does stuff for me and I can take it with me wherever I want. And, when it comes down to it, that’s the primary, if not only, reason to differentiate your dog in that way. (Note I didn’t say that that’s what defines a service dog – that’s another post.)

Keep in mind that, unless I state otherwise, my goal here is to give you brief, real world, practical, useful definitions and explanations that you can operate from daily, and not textbook, dictionary, or legal ones – you can go look those up for yourself, anyway.  In that vein, think of public access as “having your dog somewhere dogs normally aren’t allowed.”

Public access is the big threshold. Once you say a dog team (and note I said “team” – the human is an oft-overlooked critical component here, funny as that might sound) needs to be able to function in the public access environment, that changes and colors EVERYTHING – selection, training, evaluation, conditioning, legal factors, breed choice, you name it – it’s a lot longer list.  It adds an orders-of-magnitude level of stuff on top of just having a regular ol’, well-behaved, nice dog.

And that’s where the heart of this issue lies. If you really do need public access, it’s great to know it’s there for you and it’s a wonderful thing, but that comes at a price – there’s a lot of effort and responsibility that goes with it.

On the other hand, if you don’t really need to be able to have your dog in places where dogs aren’t normally allowed, and all you really want is a nice companion dog who’s maybe even trained to perform some service dog-like tasks for you, and to be able to go out in the vast majority of outside public areas where dogs ARE allowed, why bother?

Because once you remove that requirement, it opens things up tremendously, and makes things a lot easier for both you and those of us who are trying to help you.

It’s like how a very nice young lady occupational therapist from the South I was talking to at the National Veterans Wheelchair Games in Denver a coupla weeks ago put it. I was talking about this very subject, and I said “…and if somebody doesn’t really need one…”, and in her sweet Mississippi accent she finished my sentence with “…you could just get one from the pound!” Wasn’t said in a mean way at all, either – in fact, exactly the opposite – very nicely and just a simple statement of an obvious fact.

Exactly.

Where this issue normally comes up is in one area – “on the line” dogs where there’s a legitimate question about whether the dog is a true service dog, or a companion – a “feelgood dog”, as you will see me refer to them here. But here’s the thing – if you remove the public access part, that problem and the associated dance about whether the dog is actually performing any real tasks goes away.

Now I’m not suggesting for a moment that if somebody truly needs a service dog they should suck it up and not get one.  All I’m asking is that you take a hard look at whether you or someone you’re trying to help really needs public access, and let’s not press the issue just for the sake of pressing the issue when there’s no real need to do that.

Nowhere do I see this problem more than with the almost constant daily barrage now of feelgood stories about dogs doing wonderful things for military people, both active duty and veterans, particularly those who are suffering with post-traumatic stress as their primary issue.  Problem is, when you look closer and you know what to look for, there’s a lotta bull in those stories.  Well-meaning bull, but bull nonetheless.

And it’s not simple true or false stuff you can just punch into Snopes and it’ll tell you which it is, either – there’s more to it than that and you’ve gotta learn what to look for.  That’s been my intent all along on this site – educate people and correct a lot of the misinformation that floats around.  I don’t care so much whether you agree with me (although that’d be great) or not – you make your own decisions – I just want you to be smart, know what to look for, and have the facts when you make them.

My constant dilemma is what do I just let go, what’s worth bringing up, and if I’m going to do that, how do I do it in an effective way that doesn’t just come across as one big continuous whine or “it’s all about me” arrogant.  Because of that, I’ve sat on most all of these stories, countless times where I’ve written something and then said, “Nah, why bother? People just wanna hear feelgood stuff. Leave it alone.”  Well, I’m at a point now where I don’t know if I can do that any longer, and I want to set the tone for that.

Some of that is due to the cumulative effect of all those stories on me over time, but mostly it’s because things are getting worse, with more and more people pushing the same shaky concepts day after day as if they were accepted fact and already working as advertised.  Or maybe they just don’t know any better.  My fear is the more that stuff sits out there unchallenged, the more it gets accepted, maybe even unconsciously, as “well, everybody knows THAT” fact (I already see that happening) with potentially disastrous results for both people and dogs.

Feeling good or wanting to do good are simply not enough.  We need to be absolutely sure that what we do is really helping and not actually making things worse and placing people or dogs at risk.

My plan is to start writing much shorter posts more often, stop sitting on stuff and just get it out there. The trick will be to not turn this into one big rant site (we have more than enough of those already) without going the other way and “chugging on over to namby-pamby land” like R. Lee Ermey says in that hilarious Geico commercial, either.

Guess I shouldn’t worry, though.  Never fails that every time I wrestle with something like this and then give in and say something, I’ll hear from at least one of my friends with a service dog who will tell me they’ve seen exactly the same thing and thank me for saying it.  That means the world to me – they live it 24/7/365,  I don’t, and they are ultimately why all of us involved in this world do what we do.

We’ll see how it goes.

“Homeless Dogs Help Healing Troops”

The reality is a service dog isn’t necessary or appropriate for every wounded veteran (or anyone with a disability, for that matter) – not the popular thing to say, but the truth. So much of the popular public opinion I see now comes off as “Hey, let’s just give every wounded veteran a service dog and that’ll fix things”, especially when we’re talking about mental health issues like post-traumatic stress as opposed to physical injuries.  Well-intentioned, no doubt, but misguided, nonetheless – it’s just not that simple nor necessarily the way to go.

There are a myriad of factors involved in providing someone with a no-joke, for-real, fully functioning service dog, and, done right, it’s a time-consuming, extremely thorough, and usually expensive process that requires a lifetime commitment from everyone involved. Programs like this one are great because they provide troops who don’t have a more serious need with so much of what they do need, cost very little, if anything, and all of the factors specifically associated with a service dog are taken away.  They also have the potential to not divert a lot of funding and effort away from areas where, in my view, they are better expended, e.g., the training of full-up service dogs for those people who have physical injuries as their primary issue.

No question whatsoever that there are still many veterans who really need and would benefit from a service dog, and I remain convinced that we still aren’t reaching those with severe physical disabilities, particularly the relatively younger group of OEF/OIF veterans. But I’m also convinced there are a whole lotta people that don’t need that level of support, and we need to be talking about these kind of programs first before making the big jump to right away talking about service dogs for everybody.

There is one story, though, that, while not a good one, definitely got my attention and I wanna talk about because no one else seems to be. It’s been 11 days since I first saw it on October 30th, and there’s still no reaction on major news services, Twitter, or blogs, which, given that I routinely see all three erupt over much, much less serious service dog incidents than this one, really strikes me as odd.

Here’s the story, buried in the Courthouse News Service – read it for yourself:

“Iraq Vet Says McDonald’s Workers Beat Him“

Luis Montalvan, Sen Al Franken, and Tuesday.

So let’s review:

• Highly visible OEF/OIF wounded warrior – ‘poster guy’ for Puppies Behind Bars, been to the inauguration, Sen Franken says this is the guy who inspired him to write his recently passed service dog legislation, been featured on many news stories, including this one in the Wall Street Journal in July that got loads of attention: “‘Sit! Stay! Snuggle!’: An Iraq Vet Finds His Dog Tuesday”

• Biggest fast food chain on the planet, McDonald’s.

• Happened right in New York City (Brooklyn).

• Physical attack with garbage can lids that resulted in a significant injury.

Add all that up, and it’s clearly a huge story. And that’s true whether it turns out to be accurate or not, which is the point I want to make here.

Obviously, it’s a major story if it’s true, and, if so, my gut reaction is somebody needs to get hammered, bigtime. My standard ‘I’m not an attorney’ disclaimer applies, but those are some very serious accusations, and I don’t think you have to be a lawyer to see a big bucks civil action settlement, a lotta bad press for McDonald’s, and maybe additional criminal charges coming.

What’s not so obvious is that it’s still a huge story even if things didn’t happen this way – the story doesn’t just go away. There are a lotta serious questions that would need to be answered including, depending on the circumstances, ones about this particular dog placement, the screening and training process associated with that placement, and the overall concept in general of placements specifically for those with post-traumatic stress as their primary issue.

Let me be very clear – as a retired Air Force Chief Master Sergeant who has nothing but the utmost respect for all these young servicemembers today who have to deal with lots more stuff than I ever did, I’m the last guy in the world to say anything disrespectful about them, and I am not doing that here. That does not, however, remove the need to ask some hard questions and be extremely careful, particularly where we are placing assistance dogs into the mix.

Let me also be very clear that I’m not saying that things didn’t happen exactly the way Luis Montalvan says they happened. I wasn’t there and have no inside information or any other reason to believe they didn’t.

What I AM saying is, either way, this story deserves a lot more of all of our attention than it’s getting and cannot be ignored the way it seems to be getting ignored. If it’s true, I expect some serious action to be taken, and if it isn’t, I also expect some serious action – it doesn’t just vanish in one of those Emily Litella “never mind” moments I’ve written about.

Please keep your eye on this one – I know I will be.

The story I’m referring to is this article from The Oregonian a few days ago about Canine Companions for Independence puppies being raised at the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility for women in Wilsonville, OR:

“Future service dogs get their training by women inmates at Coffee Creek lockup”

It’s a good story, too (albeit with a few inaccuracies – for example, they aren’t “therapy dogs”), but my point is that, as I’ve said before, there are a number of service dog organizations who have puppy raising programs in prisons and place dogs with wounded veterans as well.  Some definitely do a much better job of promoting themselves than others, too, but you need to be very careful not to confuse the quality of the public relations effort with the overall quality of the program.

I remain convinced that Canine Companions is the premier service dog organization in this country, and that’s why I’ve chosen to concentrate my efforts there.  That surely doesn’t mean they are “the only game in town” and, in fact, contrary to what some seem to believe, they don’t want to be, either – there’s no way in the world CCI could handle the need for assistance dogs all by themselves, and they are well aware of that.

Make no mistake – while I’m a “CCI guy”, I’m for ANY service dog organization that’s doing a top-notch job of providing dogs for veterans, the key being “top-notch”, a subject I’ve addressed here many times.  Let’s just say I continue to see things organizations say about themselves that, as a minimum, are a stretch, and, at worst, could be intentionally misleading.

No organization is perfect, but that’s something I’ve just never seen from Canine Companions – if anything, they don’t toot their horn enough, certainly not anywhere near as much as I’d like them to. I think I have a good idea why that is, too – as I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t speak for CCI, but I have had a close association with them for enough years now to understand some things, so I can give you an educated opinion here.

First, they are very, very sensitive to graduate privacy or, to put it more bluntly, they aren’t gonna pimp their graduates. They certainly don’t hide them – you can go to the newsletters on the website and see pictures of all the graduate teams, for example.  But when you see a very public and active graduate team, that’s because they’ve chosen to be that way on their own with no pressure from CCI.

Second, there is also a great sensitivity to not pandering to what’s popular, especially where veterans are concerned. That means you won’t likely ever see CCI changing their core mission – as some service dog organizations have done without even mentioning it – from training dogs for those with severe physical disabilities to training dogs for those whose primary diagnosis is post-traumatic stress.  (The irony being that post-traumatic stress will almost certainly be present in a veteran with the type of physical injuries we’re talking about, anyway.)

Unfortunately, that sensitivity has also meant Canine Companions hasn’t talked about the work they have done to incorporate post-traumatic stress into both the screening of candidates and training of dogs.  For example, they long ago brought in outside post-traumatic stress experts who sat down for several days with training staff to discuss this subject in detail.  Those discussions were very successful and resulted in a number of improvements in both those areas – I hope someday you’ll be hearing about that directly from CCI instead of just me.

Bottom line is that you can be confident and comfortable in what Canine Companions is doing with veterans – you just may have to work a little harder to see it.  Some organizations might do a better job of promoting themselves, but no one does a better job making individually matched lifelong placements of assistance dogs.

]]> http://www.albrittain.com/service-dogs/wounded-warrior-receives-canine-companions-service-dog-raised-in-prison-program/feed/ 0 http://www.albrittain.com/service-dogs/franken-isakson-service-dogs-for-veterans-act-introduced/ http://www.albrittain.com/service-dogs/franken-isakson-service-dogs-for-veterans-act-introduced/#comments Wed, 22 Jul 2009 23:46:15 +0000 Al http://www.albrittain.com/?p=1431 The much discussed bill sponsored by Sen Al Franken, D-MN, was introduced on the floor of the US Senate today.

The actual bill is not online yet, but here’s the press release in its entirety for your review.

———————————————————————————————————————

Senators Franken and Isakson Introduce the Service Dogs For Veterans Act

Sen. Franken’s First Piece of Legislation Will Help Wounded Veterans

WASHINGTON DC [7/22/09] – Today Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-G.A.) introduced the Service Dogs for Veterans Act, which will set up a pilot program within the Department of Veterans Affairs to pair service dogs with veterans who have physical or mental wounds, including PTSD. This bipartisan legislation marks Sen. Franken’s first piece of legislation since taking office two weeks ago.

Additional co-sponsors are Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-L.A.), Sen. Mark Begich (D-A.K.), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-O.H.).

“As someone who’s spent time with our troops on USO tours to Iraq and Afghanistan, and met wounded warriors at Walter Reed and Bethesda, I feel a real obligation to the men and women who have risked life and limb on our behalf,” said Sen. Franken. “There’s a huge return on investment here. Service dogs can do amazing things, and there is evidence to suggest that increasing their numbers would reduce the alarming suicide rate among veterans, decrease the number of hospitalizations, and lower the cost of medications and human care.

“I believe it is enough simply to improve the lives of those of whom we asked so much. But this program isn’t just the right thing to do. It’s the smart thing to do. This small investment will pay dividends for these veterans for years to come.”

“I have seen firsthand the therapeutic effects of service dogs assisting individuals,” said Sen. Isakson. “The potential they bring for the therapy and treatment of soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries should be studied.”

The Franken-Isakson Service Dogs for Veterans Act will:

· Pair a minimum of 200 veterans and dogs, or the minimum number necessary to produce scientifically valid results on the benefits of the use of the dogs (whichever is greater).

· Ensure that fifty percent of veterans participating in the pilot program will be those who suffer primarily from mental health disabilities, and fifty percent those who suffer primarily from physical injuries or disabilities.

· Direct VA to partner exclusively with non-profit agencies who do not charge for their animals, services, or lodging.

· Require VA to provide seed money to pay for the first fifty service dogs, and match its non-profit partners’ contributions for the rest of the service dogs.

· Continue the pilot program for at least three years; the Secretary of the VA must make annual reports to Congress on its implementation; the National Academies of Science is directed to study and report on the program’s effectiveness at the end of three years.

· The scientific study of the pilot program will study both the therapeutic benefits to veterans, including quality of life benefits reported by the veterans; and the economic benefits of using service dogs, including savings on health care costs, such as reduced hospitalization and prescription drug use, and productivity and employment gains for the veterans.

—————————————————————————————————————-

http://is.gd/1I6WH

]]> http://www.albrittain.com/service-dogs/franken-isakson-service-dogs-for-veterans-act-introduced/feed/ 1 http://www.albrittain.com/service-dogs/why-you-dont-see-me-writing-about-some-very-popular-service-dogs-for-veterans-stories/ http://www.albrittain.com/service-dogs/why-you-dont-see-me-writing-about-some-very-popular-service-dogs-for-veterans-stories/#comments Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:09:19 +0000 Al http://www.albrittain.com/?p=1371 If you ever see a service dog story, especially if it involves a wounded warrior or veteran with a disability, where everybody BUT me seems to be talking about it, chances are pretty good this is why – I wrote this post a little over three months ago, and it all still applies:

“Service Dogs, Veterans, and PTSD”

The only thing I’d change would be to change most, if not all, of the “PTSD” references to “post traumatic stress”. Uncle Jimbo definitely got my attention about not calling it a disorder with this “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or Post Traumatic Stress Reaction?” post at the Warrior Legacy Foundation blog about six weeks after I’d written that, and I’ve tried to completely stop using the term ever since. I will still use the PTSD tag, but that’s simply a search thing that might help someone find something useful to them.

Other than that, though…I stand by what I said, even though I know it’s very much not the popular thing to say.  And I’m just gonna leave it at that.

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.

There’s lots more I could say (and have actually already said here: “Tough Questions You Need To Ask About Every Service Dog Organization”), but I’m a little tight on time right now, so let me make this simple:

When you see a story about service dogs for veterans, no matter how good it sounds or how touching it is, the very first thing you need to do is to go to the Assistance Dogs International list of accredited members and see if the organization is on it:

http://www.assistancedogsinternational.org/membershipdirectory.php

If so, great; if not, I’d suggest you find another place that is accredited to support – it’s that simple.

Sure, the non-accredited organization could still be a good place, but with so many great organizations on the ADI list who have taken the necessary steps to be accredited (and all of whom could use your help), why would you turn to a place that hasn’t?   Doesn’t make sense to me.

Plus, if a regular old guy like me knows that’s the first thing you should be looking for, then why can’t celebrities who have lots of money, research staffs, and pretty much every resource available figure that out?  You got me.

Let me be perfectly clear – this isn’t about personal favorites; it’s about the troops and doing what’s truly best to support them.  ADI accreditation isn’t some club membership – it’s a very serious evaluation that tells you a lot about an organization.  And not having it tells you something about an organization, too – at the very least, they’ve made a conscious choice not to seek accreditation.  At the very worst…well, let’s not talk about that.

Remember – just because you buy into a great idea, doesn’t mean you also have to buy in to the organization that’s pushing that idea.  If you see what you think is a great story about service dogs for wounded veterans, that doesn’t mean you have to support the organization you see in that story – if you’re willing to do a little looking, you may very well find there are much better places to support.

Please – all I ask is that you look closely – very closely.   You may be surprised what you see – and, more importantly, don’t see.

I saw this quoted in a response by someone to an earlier letter in a small newspaper in Northern California today (“Will the real assistance animal please stand up?”).  The response then goes on to talk about how dogs have to be trained for specific tasks to be considered service dogs.

Of course, I don’t disagree with that at all – I would just add that, while there’s no question those tasks are a critical element, a successful service dog placement goes way beyond that. You want a strong support organization with an end-to-end program that starts with a thorough application and screening process, continues right on through training, and, most importantly, finishes with regular follow-up contacts after the placement is made.

So don’t get caught up in the number of commands a particular organization says they train. In fact, when I see top organizations training in the range of 40-50 commands, and someone else saying they train a lot more commands than that, I have to wonder why.  Could be a good reason, could just be they want to be able to advertise they train more commands. Either way, more doesn’t mean better, and that’s not a standard by which you can compare service dog organizations.

You need to look for the total package, and always keep that in mind whenever you see any service dog place on television or in the news, especially when military veterans are involved.