Assessing the Efficacy of Jail Paralegal Officers in Decongestion Efforts in Selected Jails in Pangasinan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22824783Keywords:
jail decongestion, Jail Paralegal Officers, role efficacy, role implementation, access to justice, JAIL PARSAbstract
This study assessed the efficacy of Jail Paralegal Officers (JPOs) in supporting jail decongestion in selected jails in Pangasinan by examining role implementation and role efficacy in the facilitation of early release programs, coordination with courts and legal aid offices, and monitoring and case follow-ups, and by identifying operational challenges that affect these functions. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design was used. The quantitative phase involved 174 respondents from Alaminos City Jail and Burgos District Jail, comprising 33 Jail Officers and 141 Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs), while the qualitative phase involved 15 purposively selected key informants composed of 10 Jail Officers and five PDLs. A researcher-developed and expert-validated survey questionnaire, supported by pilot testing and Cronbach's alpha reliability testing, was used for the quantitative phase, while Key Informant Interviews were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's six-phase thematic analysis. Median statistics described role implementation and efficacy, and Spearman's rho tested their relationships. All three role-implementation dimensions obtained a median of 4.00, with group medians of 3.96, 3.90, and 3.83, indicating high implementation. Role efficacy likewise obtained a median of 4.00 across all dimensions, with group medians of 3.93, 3.94, and 3.94, interpreted as very efficacious. Strong positive relationships were found between implementation and efficacy for early release (rho = .735, p < .001), court and legal-aid coordination (rho = .756, p < .001), and monitoring and case follow-ups (rho = .713, p < .001). Qualitative findings identified administrative and documentary delays, limited manpower, heavy workloads, inter-agency communication problems, legal and case complexities, manual records, and inadequate technological resources. The findings indicate that JPOs are an important operational component of jail decongestion, but their sustained efficacy depends on stronger institutional capacity, digital case management, inter-agency coordination, and continuous professional development. The study consequently proposed the Jail Paralegal Advancement and Reinforcement System (JAIL PARS).
Downloads
References
Agustin, M. F. B., Dumlao, S. M., & Obungen, L. B. (2024). Voices behind bars: The persons deprived of liberty and their lived experiences in the prison institution. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.808031
Alipoyo, V. R. I. (2022). Conditions of correctional facilities in the Philippines: Jail wardens' perspectives and experiences. https://doi.org/10.26618/ojip.v12i1.6531
Apela, R. N., Osal, V. B., & Lucban, M. C. (2019). Comprehensive correctional administration handbook with therapeutic modalities. Wiseman's Books Trading.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cappelletti, M., & Garth, B. (1978). Access to justice: The worldwide movement to make rights effective—A general report. In M. Cappelletti & B. Garth (Eds.), Access to justice: A world survey (Vol. 1). Sijthoff and Noordhoff.
Cerrato, S. (2024). Order or stability: The role of penal administrators in the transformation of instability within correctional institution. Deviant Behavior, 45(1), 26-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2023.2237167
Cordero, D. A., Jr. (2024). Persons deprived of liberty in the Philippines. Journal of Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiae119
De Guzman, A. B., Ibarrola, G. M. V., Idolog, C. L. J. I., & Ignacio, A. J. C. (2020). You can run but you can't hide: A grounded theory analysis of suppression among older prisoners in the Philippines. Educational Gerontology, 46(5), 303-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2020.1748798
Ellison, J. M., & Gainey, R. (2020). An opportunity model of safety risks among jail officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 66, 101632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.101632
Foronda, M. A. (2014). Correctional administration 1: Non-institutional based corrections. Wiseman Books Trading.
Guerrero, B., & Molato, R. (2017). Institutional correction: The institutional-based correction in the Philippines. Wiseman's Books Trading.
Kahambing, J. G. (2021). Philippine prisons and 'extreme vulnerability' during COVID-19. Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa259
Narag, R. E. (2016). Baseline study on the Philippine penal conditions: Nurturing a human rights-based approach to penal management.
Omar, Z. B. (2001). Current issues in correctional treatment and effective countermeasures. UNAFEI Resource Material Series, 57, 333-351. https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No57/No57_29PA_Omar.pdf
Packer, H. L. (1968). The limits of the criminal sanction. Stanford University Press.
Painaga, E. J., & Parreño, J. L. (2024). Implementation and challenges of jail services in district jails in Western Visayas, Philippines. https://doi.org/10.52006/main.v7i4.1069
Seiter, R. P. (2012). Correctional administration: Integrating theory and practice. Prentice Hall.
Viglione, J., Rudes, D. S., & Taxman, F. S. (2015). The myriad of challenges with correctional change: From goals to culture. European Journal of Probation, 7(2), 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/2066220314554151
Williams, B. N. (2010). Challenges and related implications of the American corrections system. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 321-325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02141.x
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
