Just the other day, I received a message from an educator in a current leadership position. In the message, the school leader expressed frustration and confusion over the abrupt discontinuation of a beloved therapy dog program at their school. This decision, a result from a change in district regulations, now prohibits employees from bringing therapy dogs into the school, and many in the learning community are disheartened. It is the educator’s belief that the therapy dog program was a vital source of comfort and emotional support, fostered positive connections and contributed to a supportive school culture for the faculty, staff and student body as a whole.

Which is why I was then brought to wonder about the original policy language prior to the regulatory change for the 2024-2025 school year and why such a change would occur: What explicit language existed in district’ policy regarding therapy dogs before this decision? Was there any formal language at all? Could it be that the therapy dog program was running under an unspoken understanding rather than an official framework?

Policy isn’t necessarily a “bad thing,” for without formal guidelines, such programs can easily grow unchecked, potentially leading to conflicts—especially if there was an increase in the number of dogs coming to school, concerns about certification, or misunderstandings about what constitutes a legitimate therapy dog. The absence of a clear policy on therapy dogs may have allowed the program to grow naturally. However, this lack of structure could have led to unforeseen issues, ultimately contributing to the decision to end the program.

Having said that, while the regulatory change in the educator’s school poses a significant challenge, it doesn’t have to mean the end of the therapy dog program altogether. In the absence of a clear explanation, it’s essential to propose thoughtful solutions to address the concerns of stakeholders while advocating for the reinstatement of the therapy dog program. Below, I outline several considerations for the educator—and others impacted by similar policy shifts—to navigate the current situation with the hopes of reinstating a revised therapy dog program to meet the needs of all stakeholders.

The Role of Unspoken Understandings

When therapy dog programs aren’t codified into official district policy, they may rely on informal arrangements or personal agreements (Maricevic, 2022). In some cases, administrators may allow other school leaders, teachers or staff to bring certified therapy dogs without objection, trusting the intentions of the program (Maricevic, 2022). But without written guidelines, inconsistencies and confusion can arise, which may have contributed to the recent decision to prohibit therapy dogs altogether for the school leader. 

Now, if there were concerns about the number of dogs on campus, questions about certifications, or uncertainty around how to manage liability, any one of these issues—or all of them—could have prompted the district to take a blanket approach and halt the program. In either scenario, the issue comes back to the need for clear policy to ensure the viability of any programmatic addition, with the goal of sustaining a long-term impact on the learning community—especially if that program includes therapy dogs (Maricevic, 2022).

Schools with transparent policies, can foster a supportive environment where therapy dogs, or any programmatic enhancements to the wellness and learning of students, can thrive as valuable resources, ensuring that their benefits are accessible to all students and staff while minimizing potential conflicts or concerns. Without clear, formal guidelines, programs can become vulnerable to misunderstandings and inconsistencies that ultimately jeopardize their effectiveness and long term sustainability within the organization (Maricevic, 2022).

Establishing a comprehensive policy framework would not only provide a solid foundation for the program but also clarify roles, responsibilities, and expectations for all parties involved (Maricevic, 2022). Ultimately, a well-defined policy will help safeguard the educator’s therapy dog program’s integrity and reinforce its positive impact on the school community (Maricevic, 2022). 

Certification Confusion: Therapy Dogs vs. Emotional Support Dogs

Another layer of complexity is the widespread misunderstanding between therapy dogs and emotional support animals (ESAs), particularly when it comes to certification. This confusion can create legal and logistical issues, making it difficult to establish a program that complies with district policies.

First and foremost, it’s important to clarify that there is no formal “certification” for emotional support dogs. ESAs are animals that provide comfort and emotional support to individuals with mental health challenges, but they are not trained to perform specific tasks like service dogs. There’s no official certification for ESAs, and they do not have the same legal rights as service animals.

On the other hand, therapy dogs are specifically trained and certified to provide comfort in settings like schools, hospitals, and nursing homes (Maricevic, 2022). These animals are often part of structured programs, with certification from reputable organizations like Alliance of Therapy Dogs, Pet Partners, and The Good Dog Foundation.

The Problem with Therapy Dog Certifications

Unfortunately, not all organizations that claim to certify therapy dogs are legitimate. Some companies exploit loopholes, offering quick and easy certifications bypassing the necessary training or certification assessment. Such unethical practices can undermine the credibility of therapy dog programs and cause confusion in school districts trying to maintain appropriate standards.

In the case of this educator’s dilemma, if the district encountered concerns about the legitimacy of the certifications held by therapy dogs on campus,such a concern could have triggered the decision to halt the existing therapy dog program. Without clear guidelines or a trusted certification process in place, district leadership may have felt the risks—whether related to liability, safety, or standards—outweighed the benefits. To ensure the program’s legitimacy and effectiveness, schools must establish clear guidelines that require certification only from trusted, reputable organizations, like those presented above (Maricevic, 2022).

Moving Forward: Addressing Policy Gaps and Certification Concerns

To advocate for the reinstatement of the therapy dog program, the educator must first address these potential gaps. Maybe start a conversation with key stakeholders, follow the dialogue with a collaborative review of the district’s policy language (or lack thereof) and discuss additional language to formalize clear guidelines around the use of therapy dogs in schools. Here’s how this educator can approach the current situation:

1. Review the Old Policy (or Unspoken Understanding): If the program previously operated without formal policy, it’s time to work with district leadership to establish clear guidelines. This would ensure that any future therapy dog program operates within a well-defined framework, preventing misunderstandings or unchecked growth (Maricevic, 2022).
2. Ensure Proper Certification: Address concerns about certifications by only working with well-established, reputable organizations that train and certify therapy dogs according to recognized standards (Maricevic, 2022). Research and recommend organizations that adhere to the highest levels of training, evaluation, and insurance, helping the district feel more confident in the legitimacy of the program (Maricevic, 2022).
3. Clarify the Difference Between Therapy Dogs and ESAs: Educate both staff and district leadership on the key distinctions between therapy dogs and emotional support animals. Emphasize that while ESAs provide comfort, they are not part of structured therapy programs, nor do they have certification or training requirements. Therapy dogs, on the other hand, must undergo rigorous training and certification to operate in school settings (Maricevic, 2022).
4. Propose a Pilot Program with Clear Oversight: If the primary concerns are related to certification and management, propose reinstating the program as a small pilot with stringent guidelines. Start by bringing in one or two certified therapy dogs through reputable organizations during designated times throughout the school year (i.e. Wellness Day, midterms, finals, etc) with clear oversight and documentation. This approach may help ease district concerns while demonstrating the value of the therapy dog in the high school setting.

Bridge the Gap Between Intention and Implementation

The abrupt end of this educator’s therapy dog program highlights the importance of having clear, well-structured policies in place for any school or district initiative’s longterm sustainability. Without them, even well-intentioned programs can become vulnerable to mismanagement, confusion, and abrupt decisions like the one that occurred in this example. By examining the district’s language around therapy dogs, clearing up misunderstandings around certification, and other inconsistencies within the established protocol, this educator, and others who might find themselves in a similar scenario, can build a stronger case for reinstating the program in a way that benefits everyone—students, staff, and dogs alike.