Abstract
Jail congestion and scarce resources complicate rehabilitation in urban Philippine facilities. This qualitative case study examined how collaboration between the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) and Local Government Units (LGUs) functions at Pasay City Jail–Male Dormitory and how it is experienced by Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs) and jail personnel. Thirty purposively selected participants—fifteen PDLs engaged in LGU‑assisted activities and fifteen BJMP staff—were interviewed using semi‑structured guides. Transcripts were thematically analyzed with attention to coordination practices, barriers, facilitators, and perceived outcomes. Findings show that LGU inputs in health, education, livelihood, legal aid, and psychosocial care meaningfully complement BJMP programs, while delivery is constrained by crowding, timing, and paperwork. Collaboration is evaluated positively when roles are clear, schedules are coordinated, and participants are heard. Respondents associate combined support with increased hope, skills, and readiness for reintegration, especially when family engagement and aftercare are present.
Keywords: BJMP; LGU collaboration; rehabilitation; PDLs; recidivism
Introduction
Rehabilitation serves public safety and human dignity by supporting change during custody and after release. In congested jails, however, limited space and staffing strain program delivery and continuity. LGUs have become crucial partners by bringing medical missions, Alternative Learning System (ALS) classes, livelihood training, psychosocial support, and legal services into custodial settings. Even so, stakeholders report uneven access across dormitories, training that lacks recognized credentials, and gaps in post‑release support. Guided by collaborative governance and social support perspectives, this study asks how BJMP–LGU collaboration operates at Pasay City Jail, which practices enable or impede implementation, and how participants perceive its effects on rehabilitation and reintegration. The study contributes practical guidance for crowded urban jails nationwide.
Methods
A qualitative case‑study design captured processes in the high‑density context of the Pasay facility. Purposive sampling recruited thirty information‑rich participants: fifteen PDLs currently enrolled in or recently completing LGU‑assisted activities and fifteen BJMP personnel, including program coordinators, custodial officers, and administrators. Semi‑structured interviews elicited experiences of coordination, adequacy of support, barriers and facilitators, perceived effects, and recommendations for improvement. Interviews were audio‑recorded with consent and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis followed recognized stages: familiarization, open coding, grouping codes into candidate themes, and iterative refinement to ensure coherence and coverage. Coding combined manual review with computer‑assisted data management to preserve an audit trail. Trustworthiness was enhanced through triangulation of PDL and staff perspectives, reflexive memoing, and peer debriefing. Ethical safeguards included informed consent, the right to withdraw without consequence, confidential storage, and the use of pseudonyms consistent with institutional and jail protocols. Data collection occurred onsite in secured interview rooms during scheduled program hours safely.
Results
Scope and adequacy of support. Participants described expansive LGU contributions across health care, ALS and literacy, livelihood training, legal aid, and welfare support. Medical and psychological services were the most regular; livelihood activities were appreciated but sometimes lacked accredited credentials that signal competence to employers. Delivery occasionally varied by dorm or schedule when multiple activities coincided, limiting access for some units.
Quality of collaboration. Respondents characterized the BJMP–LGU relationship as cooperative and purpose‑driven. Strengths included early coordination, clear division of roles, and monthly calendars that reduced clashes. Collaboration was associated with faster problem solving and broader reach. Effectiveness fluctuated when notice was short, tasking was unclear, or approvals were delayed, underscoring the value of steady communication and agreed timelines.
Barriers and facilitators. Barriers clustered around resource scarcity, space and security constraints, competing activities, and slow paperwork. Personal and cultural factors—stigma, low self‑confidence, and occasional hesitancy to engage—also surfaced. Facilitators included approachable program staff, consistent communication, posted schedules, multi‑sector partnerships, and recognition of participant effort. Involving PDLs in feedback improved fit and uptake, while visible support from jail leadership increased attendance and morale.
Perceived outcomes. Participants linked collaboration to better health, improved emotional regulation, literacy gains, practical skills, and renewed hope. ALS and livelihood exposure restored a sense of direction; counseling and legal aid reduced stress and clarified case pathways. Many PDLs said participation strengthened their resolve to desist and prepared them for reintegration, especially when family contact and pre‑release planning were present. Staff echoed these perceptions, connecting stable routines and multi‑agency visibility to calmer dorms and fewer disputes.
Discussion
Findings portray collaboration as a concrete instance of collaborative governance: pooled authority, shared problem solving, and complementary resources produce a service mix that no single agency could sustain (Ansell & Gash, 2008). The content of LGU assistance also aligns with Social Support Theory’s pathways: informational supports such as ALS and skills training, instrumental supports such as health care and legal aid, and emotional supports through counseling and affirming relationships that build coping and motivation for change (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Practical levers—clear calendars, early notice, defined roles, and feedback mechanisms—translate goodwill into reliable access despite crowding. At the same time, lack of accredited credentials and a thin aftercare bridge may blunt program value in the labor market and the community. Policy attention to certification, family preparation, and coordinated follow‑up would help convert gains achieved in custody into durable reintegration outcomes and lower recidivism risk. These adjustments are feasible within existing mandates and typical local budgets.
Conclusion
Collaboration between BJMP and LGUs at Pasay City Jail creates tangible rehabilitative value by integrating health, education, livelihood, and psychosocial services. Participants perceived stronger skills and self‑efficacy, reduced stress, and clearer plans for life after custody. To deepen impact, stakeholders should institutionalize multi‑year local budgets, align training with accredited credentials, formalize family involvement, monitor delivery through shared dashboards, and build structured aftercare that connects released individuals to employment, counseling, and civic supports.
References
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310–357.
National Institute of Justice. (2023). Recidivism and rehabilitation: Current trends and challenges. https://nij.ojp.gov
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.17365233
