Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 4, 1
eCollection

Assistance Dogs: Historic Patterns and Roles of Dogs Placed by ADI or IGDF Accredited Facilities and by Non-Accredited U.S. Facilities

Affiliations

Assistance Dogs: Historic Patterns and Roles of Dogs Placed by ADI or IGDF Accredited Facilities and by Non-Accredited U.S. Facilities

Sandra Walther et al. Front Vet Sci.

Abstract

Dogs' roles to support people with disabilities are increasing. Existing U.S. laws and regulations pertaining to the use of dogs for people with disabilities are only minimally enforced. Pushback legislation against some aspects of uses of assistance dogs currently is being passed or proposed in several states. Further, the U.S. Department of the Army and the Veterans' Administration support only dogs trained by an Assistance Dogs International (ADI) or International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF) accredited facility. Lacking a mandatory national process for screening the selection, training, and placement of assistance dogs with persons who have disabilities, the U.S. offers a creative but confusing opportunity for people to train their own dogs for any disability. While no U.S. surveillance system monitors assistance dogs, other countries generally have a legislated or regulatory process for approving assistance dogs or a cultural convention for obtaining dogs from accredited facilities. We conducted an online survey investigating current demographics of assistance dogs placed in 2013 and 2014 with persons who have disabilities, by facilities worldwide that are associated with ADI or IGDF and by some non-accredited U.S. facilities. Placement data from ADI and IGDF facilities revealed that in most countries aside from the U.S., guide dogs were by far the main type of assistance dog placed. In the U.S., there were about equal numbers of mobility and guide dogs placed, including many placed by large older facilities, along with smaller numbers of other types of assistance dogs. In non-accredited U.S. facilities, psychiatric dogs accounted for most placements. Dogs for families with an autistic child were increasing in all regions around the world. Of dog breeds placed, accredited facilities usually mentioned Labrador Retrievers and Golden Retrievers, and sometimes, German Shepherd Dogs. The facilities bred their dogs in-house, or acquired them from certain breeders. Non-accredited facilities more often used dogs from shelters or assisted people in training their own dogs. Facilities in Europe and the U.S. place dogs in all roles; other parts of the world primarily focus on guide dogs. Expansion of assistance dogs in many roles is continuing, with numbers of dogs placed accelerating internationally.

Keywords: Assistance Dogs International; International Guide Dog Federation; autism dogs; diabetes dogs; hearing dogs; mobility dogs; seizure dogs; service dogs.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Timeline depicting Assistance Dogs International or International Guide Dog Federation facilities in Europe, by year of establishment. Left: responding facilities. Colored circles represent the primary type of assistance dogs placed; the circle size indicates the numerical range for the total dogs placed by the facility in 2013 and 2014. If more than one type of dog is placed, letters indicate the types placed, from most to least. Right: non-responding facilities. Year of establishment and a major type of dogs placed were acquired recently from facilities’ websites; no information is available on numbers of dogs placed.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Left: timeline depicting responding International Assistance Dogs International or International Guide Dog Federation facilities, except in Europe or North America, by year of establishment. Colored circles represent the primary type of assistance dogs placed; the circle size indicates the numerical range for the total dogs placed in 2013 and 2014. If more than one type of dog is placed, letters indicate the types placed, from most to least. Right: similar timeline for Canada.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Timeline depicting Assistance Dogs International or International Guide Dog Federation facilities in the U.S. by year of establishment. Left: responding facilities. Colored circles represent the primary type of assistance dogs placed; the circle size indicates the numerical range for the total dogs placed in 2013 and 2014. If more than one type of dog is placed, letters indicate the types placed, from most to least. Center: non-responding facilities. Year of establishment and a major type of dogs placed recently were acquired from facilities’ websites; no information is available on numbers of dogs placed. Right: timeline depicting responding non-accredited facilities in the U.S. by year of establishment.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Canonical correspondence analysis for responding Assistance Dogs International/International Guide Dog Federation facilities: for accreditation status, counts for types of dogs placed, and sources of dogs.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Weighted median years of facility establishments (weighted by the median numbers of dogs placed in the seven roles during 2013), shown for accredited North American and other international facilities, as well as non-accredited U.S. facilities.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 14 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Naderi SZ, Miklosi A, Koda A, Csanyi V. Co-operative interactions between blind persons and their dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci (2001) 74:59–80.10.1016/S0168-1591(01)00152-6 - DOI
    1. Clarke-Carter DD, Heyes AD, Howarth CI. The efficiency and walking speed of visually impaired people. Ergonomics (1986) 29(6):779–89.10.1080/00140138608968314 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sanders CR. The impact of guide dogs on the identity of people with visual impairments. Anthrozoös (2000) 13(3):131–9.10.2752/089279300786999815 - DOI
    1. Whitmarsh L. The benefits of guide dog ownership. Vis Impair Res (2005) 1:27–42.10.1080/13882350590956439 - DOI
    1. Wiggett-Barnard C, Steel H. The experience of owning a guide dog. Disabil Rehabil (2008) 30(14):1014–26.10.1080/09638280701466517 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback