P. 652

An Urban Experience
screening of a kind that would interrupt this cycle is some way off, but elements of it can be seen in teaching and management methods that recognize neurodiversity, and opportunities available particularly to those with more resources to explore different approaches to mental health and education.
Civic Structures
While education may change attitudes explicit rules, monitoring, and tangible consequences have the strongest effect on overt behavior. For most people who are marginally prosocial the greater factor affects their overt behavior is the functioning of civic structures-- particularly law enforcement in the form of the integrated and professional operation of human, animal and environmental agencies. In relation to preventing animal abuse one of the most important factors is a  nancially and politically stable animal care and control workforce including recognized professionals who are cross trained, cross-report, and cross respond with other agencies.
[8] Especially when these agencies are proactive in establishing positive expectations and responding proportionately to minor infractions. An active licensing and ticketing program is associated with reduced adverse outcomes (e.g. euthanasia of unwanted animals, dog bites[9]).
The US National Animal Care and Control Association provides a model for a  nancially self-supported program to register dogs and other animals, provide humane education, and respond to animal abuse and dangerous animals. For a large group in society who have suf cient skills to care for animals but can cause suffering through simple and common motivations the likelihood of
being detected is the single most important factor for preventing or intervening early in the development of abusive behavior. Cross reporting and responding assists in early intervention with household where there are mental health challenges or developing criminal behavior.
The failure of these structures is very plain to see in some communities. In the United States professionalization and training of law enforcement is variable and most jurisdictions have no required quali cations for animal control of cers. The symptoms of this failure include: police being poorly trained in and poorly responsive to crimes against animals, crimes against animals being handled by individuals who are not fully empowered law enforcement of cers, police responding to aggressive animals by shooting them even when the animal’s aggression is normal, for example during a police raid.
It is telling that although police realize that shooting pet dogs is a bad outcome, involving expert animal handlers such as animal control of cer continues tends not be a solution they consider even for planned raids on known households.[10]
Models for success are also available such as the NYPD- ASPCA partnership, FBI recognition of animal cruelty as a crime against society, and many initiatives under the Link umbrella. However these cross-disciplinary efforts have proved to be surprisingly unsustainable. It is not that they do not succeed but their success depends on the extraordinary effort of small numbers of individuals, and programs are always vulnerable to defunding and the loss of key personnel. Local government often fail
to appreciate that ongoing investment is required even after the immediate goals of a program have been met. Lower cost simplistic strategies are allowed to compete with proven models--such as aggressive “stop-and-frisk” policing and breed speci c bans on animals.
During the recession in the United States many local governments defunded programs relating to animal control, humane education, and domestic violence. These are routinely the  rst public services to crumble under pressure when arguably they should be considered core programs due to their preventive and long term consequences. Raising programs of this type to the highest regulatory level and documenting their bene ts both socially and  nancially would assist in making them more sustainable over the long term so that successful models can be identi ed and propagated.
[1] Komorosky, D., & O’Neal, K. K. (2015). The development of empathy and prosocial behavior through humane education, restorative justice, and animal- assisted programs. Contemporary Justice Review, 18(4), 395-406.
[2] Thompson, K. L., & Gullone, E. (2003). Promotion of empathy and prosocial behaviour in children through humane education. Australian Psychologist, 38(3), 175-182.
[3] Ascione, Frank R. “Humane education research: evaluating efforts to encourage children’s kindness and caring toward animals.” Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, vol. 123, no. 1, 1997, p. 57+. Academic OneFile, Accessed 28 May 2017
[4] Malterer, M. B., Lilienfeld, S. O., Neumann, C. S., & Newman, J. P. (2010). Concurrent validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory with offender and community samples. Assessment, 17(1), 3-15.
[5] Henry, B. C. (2004). The relationship between animal cruelty, delinquency, and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Society & Animals, 12(3), 185-207.
[6] Alleyne, E., Tilston, L., Par tt, C., & Butcher, R. (2015). Adult-perpetrated animal abuse: Development of a proclivity scale. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(6), 570- 588.
[7] Wiepkema, P. R. (1983). Umwelt and animal welfare. Farm Animal Housing and Welfare, 24, 45.
[8] Ascione, F. R., & Shapiro, K. (2009). People and animals, kindness and cruelty: Research directions and policy implications. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 569- 587.
[9] Clarke, N. M., & Fraser, D. (2013). Animal control measures and their relationship to the reported incidence of dog bites in urban Canadian municipalities. The Canadian Veterinary Journal, 54(2), 145.
[10] Weaver, S. (2014). Dangerous Dog Encounters: Best Practices for Police Of cers, Threat Assessment, and Use of Force. The Journal of Law Enforcement, 3(3).

   650   651   652   653   654