The (complex, under-researched) Guide Dog Matching Market
Article: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2016.00114/full
This article, “An Investigation of the Complexities of Successful and Unsuccessful Guide Dog Matching and Partnerships” was written by Llyod et al. and dives into the matching process of the visually impaired with guide dogs and the reasons the dog may be returned due to a poor assignment. They argue that this matching system is widely used but little is done to evaluate and explain its effectiveness (or lack thereof, as only 56.8% of the sample were well matched and retained). Llyod et al. talk about the factors that cause a dog to be returned by looking at a sample of guide dog handlers and noted that they could be returned for poor working behavior or inability to do some tasks, but also for their non-working social behavior or how they fit in the home environment. Most dogs were returned due to their working habits (unable to do a specific task, being too distracted or aggressive, going too fast/slow, etc.). However, this research is complicated because not all people return their dogs even if they lack some qualities. In general, very few people said they had a “perfect” dog, regardless of whether they returned the guide dog or not. Overall, it’s important to look into the reasons why handlers keep or return their dogs, as a mismatched partnership can be expensive and affect the handler, their family, and the guide dog’s quality of life.
Although I did not know a lot about the guide dog matching process before reading this paper, their quantitative research made it easier to understand which issues arose most in mismatched relationships and added to the complexity of the matching market for guide dogs and their handlers. Not only are the dogs required to be qualified to perform certain tasks, but they also must make sure they are an appropriate breed, size, and temperament for the home environment. They also did research on how whether the dog was the handler’s first, second, or third dog may affect what they think are the most important aspects of their next guide dog, which I think should be considered when matching a new service animal to a handler as well. This leads me to hope that this matching process is analyzed more, as its accuracy could save money and improve many individuals’ quality of life with fewer return hassles or handlers settling for mismatched dogs.
Again, this situation illustrates a matching market which we are learning about in class, as one handler needs to be matched with one guide dog that adequately meets their needs. In this case, the edge connecting the handler nodes with guide dog nodes would need to consider many aspects, including the tasks they need to be able to do together or how appropriate the home environment is for the guide dog. Because no dog is perfect, mathematically representing this could be done by assigning each dog a value in the eyes of the handler, and then matching (and even pricing) certain dogs to help them find their most appropriate match. Having a perfect matching, or as many matching pairs as possible, would be best for both the training school (profit) and the handlers (quality of life).