Since the study was focused in evaluating the effects of the policy aimed at reducing the prison population, the study involved delving into the county database to find cases from the initial eight months of the implementation of the policy, and creating a control group within the same period of the previous year to build a comparison. Although the study recorded positive results, there were some limitations with the design of the study (Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005). First, the study was focused on some listed misdemeanors, leaving out a bunch of other offences. This implies that the policy’s target population was significantly smaller than expected. Originally, it was indicated that approximately 26-30 persons get charged each day for target offenses, however, this figure is limited by the scope of the policy (Baumer & Adams, 2006). The application of the policy was restricted to exclude cases which were considered to be felonies or those involving people with unresolved warranties on other charges. This restriction limited the number of eligible cases by nearly 30 percent, significantly limiting the target population of the study.
The idea of managing prison overcrowding through reduced counts of arrests is a sustainable strategy; however, the strategy should be carefully designed and fully implemented to factor in all the potential issues. In the study, it is evident that the target population was hyped, with the processing of several cases done in compliance with the policy before it cold e fully integrated or implemented. That is, the impacts of summons which were remedies to arrests, were synchronous to the projection, however, it did not meet the anticipation due to poor design and partial implementation (Poyner, 1983).
References
Baumer, T.L., & Adams, K. (2006). Evaluation of a ''Summons in Lieu of Arrest'' Policy Controlling a Jail Population by Partially Closing the Front Door: An Evaluation of a ''Summons in Lieu of Arrest'' Policy. The Prison Journal, 86(3), 386-402.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144.
Poyner, B. (1983). Design against crime: Beyond defensible space. London: Butterworths.
