Dogs in schools: Dogs Connect as an example of a dogs-first wellbeing dog programme
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol37iss1id1168Keywords:
Dogs in social work, dogs-first school programmes, dogs in schools, centring dogs in animal-assisted interventions, animal labour, dogs in therapyAbstract
INTRODUCTION: Dogs may be loved in Australia, but they are still placed precariously in human society, including when they work as wellbeing dogs in schools.
APPROACH: In this commentary, we explore through a case study of Dogs Connect, the importance of placing the dogs at the centre of our thinking and using positive training methods so as to enable the dogs, not just the students to flourish. As we will explain, “alpha dog or pack leader” narratives are now discredited and should not be used. Instead, policies and procedures need to be written to enshrine the rights of dogs working in all canine programmes, including when they provide emotional and social support to school pupils in busy educational settings.
IMPLICATIONS: We suggest some practical guidelines for planning for, and implementing, wellbeing dog programmes in schools and talk about how school social workers might lend their support.
References
Alston M. (2013). Environmental social work: Accounting for gender in climate disasters, Australian Social Work, 66(2), 218–233.
Carlyle, D., & Graham, P. (2019). Bodies of knowledge, kinetic melodies, rhythms of relating and affect attunement in vital spaces for multi-species well-being: Finding common ground in intimate human-canine and human-equine encounters. Animals, 9(11), 934. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9110934
Cobb, M. L., Lill, A., & Bennett, P. C. (2020). Not all dogs are equal: Perception of canine welfare varies with context. Animal Welfare, 29(1), 27–35.
Charles, N. (2016). Post-human families? Dog-human relations in the domestic sphere. Sociological Research Online, 21(3), 83–94.
Chassy, P. (2015). How language shapes social perception. In D. Evans (Ed.), Language and identity: Discourse in the world (pp. 36–51). Bloomsbury.
Clark, S. D., Smidt, J. M., & Bauer, B. A. (2019). Welfare considerations: Salivary cortisol concentrations on frequency of therapy dog visits in an outpatient hospital setting: A pilot study. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 30, 88-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2018.12.002
Demirbas, Y. S., Ozturk, H., Emre, B., Kockaya, M., Ozvardar, T., & Scott, A. (2016). Adults’ ability to interpret canine body language during a dog–child interaction. Anthrozoös, 29(4), 581–596.
Dominelli, L. (2012). Green social work: From environmental crises to environmental justice. Polity.
Dominelli, L. (2013). Environmental justice at the heart of social work practice: Greening the profession. International Journal of Social Welfare, 22(4), pp. 431–439.
Fairclough, N. (2013). Language and power. Routledge.
Fennell, D. A. (2022). Animal-informed consent: Sled dog tours as asymmetric agential events. Tourism Management, 93, 104584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104584
Fine, A. H. (Ed.). (2019). Handbook on animal-assisted therapy: Foundations and guidelines for animal-assisted interventions. Academic Press.
Fraser, H., Taylor, N., & Riggs, D. W. (2021). Animals in disaster social work: An intersectional green perspective inclusive of species. The British Journal of Social Work, 51(5), 1739-1758.
Friedman, S. G., & Brinker, B. (2001). The struggle for dominance: Fact or fiction? A bird’s eye view. Original Flying Machine, 17–20.
Hanrahan, C. (2013). Social work and human animal bonds and benefits in health research: A provincial study. Critical Social Work, 14(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.22329/csw.v14i1.5873
Hatch, A. (2007). The view from all fours: A look at an animal-assisted activity program from the animals’ perspective. Anthrozoös, 20(1), 37–50.
CDC. (2024). Healthy pets, healthy people. https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-pets/about/dogs.html
Henderson, L., Grové, C., Lee, F., Trainer, L., Schena, H., & Prentice, M. (2020). An evaluation of a dog-assisted reading program to support student wellbeing in primary school. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, 105449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105449
Jalongo, M. R. (Ed.). (2018). Children, dogs and education: Caring for, learning alongside, and gaining support from canine companions. Springer.
Jones, E. E. A. (2022). Silent conversations: The influence of human exceptionalism, dominance and power on behavioural expectations and canine consent in the dog-human relationship [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Canterbury. UC Library. https://libcat.canterbury. ac.nz/Record/3183157).
Jones, E. (2024). Constructing canine consent: Conceptualising and adopting a consent-focused relationship with dogs. CRC Press.
Jones, M. G., Rice, S. M., & Cotton, S. M. (2018). Who let the dogs out? Therapy dogs in clinical practice. Australasian Psychiatry, 26(2), 196–199.
Jones, E., & Taylor, N. (2023). Decentring humans in research methods: Visibilising other animal realities. In Methods in human-animal studies (pp. 33–49). Routledge.
Karpoutzaki, C., Markodimitraki, M., Kypriotaki, M., & Charitaki, G. (2023). The impact of a therapy dog programme on students with autism spectrum disorder social skills, communication, and behavioural difficulties. Preschool & Primary Education, 11(2), 284-317. http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/ppej.32430
Keppens, G., Spruyt, B., & Dockx, J. (2019). Measuring school absenteeism: Administrative attendance data collected by schools differ from self-reports in systematic ways. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2623. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02623
Kirnan, J. P., & Ventresco N. E. (2018). Developing literacy skills in children through interaction with dogs. In M. R. Jalongo (Ed.), Children, dogs and education: Caring for, learning alongside, and gaining support from canine companions (pp. 153–178). Springer International Publishing.
Kosonen, K., & Benson, C. (2021). Bringing non-dominant languages into education systems: Change from above, from below, from the side—or a combination? In Language Issues in Comparative Education II (pp. 25–56). Brill.
Lawrence, E. A. (1994). Conflicting ideologies: Views of animal rights advocates and their opponents. Society & Animals, 2(2), 175–190.
Lemay Jr, E. P., & Venaglia, R. B. (2016). Relationship expectations and relationship quality. Review of General Psychology, 20(1), 57–70.
McDowall, S., Hazel, S. J., Cobb, M., & Hamilton-Bruce, A. (2023). Understanding the role of therapy dogs in human health promotion. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20105801
McMillan, F. D. (2020). The mental health and well-being benefits of personal control in animals. In F. D. McMillan (Ed.), Mental health and well-being in animals (2nd ed., pp. 67–81). CABI.
Mellor, D. J., & Beausoleil, N. J. (2015). Extending the “five domains” model for animal welfare assessment to incorporate positive welfare states. Animal Welfare, 24(3), 241–253.
Mellor, D. J., Beausoleil, N. J., Littlewood, K. E., McLean, A. N., McGreevy, P. D., Jones, B., & Wilkins, C. (2020). The 2020 five domains model: Including human–animal interactions in assessments of animal welfare. Animals, 10(10), 1870. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101870
Mongillo, P., Pitteri, E., Adamelli, S., Bonichini, S., Farina, L., & Marinelli, L. (2015). Validation of a selection protocol of dogs involved in animal-assisted intervention. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 10(2), 103–110.
O’Mathúna, D., & Iphofen, R. (2022). Ethics, integrity and policymaking: The value of the case study. Springer. R
ayment, D. J., De Groef, B., Peters, R. A., & Marston, L. C. (2015). Applied personality assessment in domestic dogs: Limitations and caveats. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 163, 1–18.
Risley-Curtiss, C., Rogge, M. E., & Kawam, E. (2013). Factors affecting social workers’ inclusion of animals in
practice. Social Work, 58(2), 153–161.
Shannon, G. (2023). Building resilience through trauma informed connection. Unpublished manuscript.
Sorin, R., Brooks, T., & Lloyd, J. (2015). The impact of the Classroom Canines program on children’s reading, social and emotional skills and motivation to attend school. The International Journal of Literacies, 22, 23–35.
Stibbe, A. (2001). Language, power and the social construction of animals. Society & Animals, 9(2), 145–161.
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as interaction in society. Discourse as Social Interaction, 2(1), 1–37.
van der Borg, J. A., Schilder, M. B., Vinke, C. M., & de Vries, H. (2015). Dominance in domestic dogs: A quantitative analysis of its behavioural measures. PLoS One,10(8), e0133978. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133978
Verhoeven, R., Butter, R., Martens, R., & Enders-Slegers, M. J. (2023). Animal-assisted education: Exploratory research on the positive impact of dogs on behavioral and emotional outcomes of elementary school students. Children, 10(8), 1316. https://doi.org/10.3390/children10081316
Walsh, E. A., Meers, L. L., Samuels, W. E., Boonen, D., Claus, A., Duarte-Gan, C., Stevens, V., Contelbrigo, L., & Normando, S. (2024). Human-dog communication: How body language and non-verbal cues are key to clarity in dog directed play, petting and hugging behaviour by humans. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2024.106206
Yeung, P., Robertson, N., & Sandford-Reed, L. (2020). Aotearoa New Zealand social workers and their views of inclusion of animals in social work practice – A descriptive study. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 32(4), 8–25.
Ziv, G. (2017). The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 19, 50–60.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
By completing the online submission process, you confirm you accept this agreement. The following is the entire agreement between you and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and it may be modified only in writing.
You and any co-authors
If you are completing this agreement on behalf of co-authors, you confirm that you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.
First publication
By submitting the work you are:
- granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;
- confirming that the work is original; and
- confirming that the work has not been published in any other form.
Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.
Copyright
You assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.
The ANZASW will publish the final, accepted manuscript under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This licence allows anyone – including you – to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.
A human-readable summary of the licence is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, which includes a link to the full licence text.
Under this licence you can use the final, published version of the article freely – such as depositing a copy in your institutional research repository, uploading a copy to your profile on an academic networking site or including it in a different publication, such as a collection of articles on a topic or in conference proceedings – provided that original publication in Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work is acknowledged.
This agreement has no effect on any pre-publication versions or elements, which remain entirely yours, and to which we claim no right.
Reviewers hold copyright in their own comments and should not be further copied in any way without their permission.
The copyright of others
If your article includes the copyright material of others (e.g. graphs, diagrams etc.), you confirm that your use either:
- falls within the limits of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review or fair use; OR
- that you have gained permission from the rights holder for publication in an open access journal.
