in partial fulfillment of

Predictors of Work Stress Among Correctional Officers by William A. MiIIson, B.A. (Hom.) A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and R...
Author: Harold Preston
29 downloads 2 Views 9MB Size
Predictors of Work Stress Among Correctional Officers by

William A. MiIIson, B.A. (Hom.)

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts Department of Psychology

Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario O copyright May, 2000

National L i i

uisio'onsand Bib lographC SeMces "t

Bbbthèque nationale

du Canada

Acquisitions et seniices bibIÏbgraphiqu8~

The a d o r has grsmted a nonexclusive licence ailowÏng the NationaI Library ofCanada to reproduce, Ioan, disûiiute or seli copies of this thesk in migofoim, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neithex the uiess nor substantid extracts fiom it may be printed or ouienvise reproduced without the anthor's permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la

Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distci'buer ou vendre des copies de cette &se sous la forme de microfiche/fihn, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. L'auteur conseme la propriété du &oh d'autem qui protège cette thèse. Ni fa thése ni des extraits substantiels de celIe-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

. Abstract

The research literature is replete with studies of stress expenenced by correctional officers However, the majonty of current knowledge in this area is based on research that has been coaducted on relatively smaii samples d

m from one or a few worksites.

Additionally, most studies examine a timited - number of independent variables and report more descriptive than correlationai or predictive r d t s . The present study examineci the influence of 26 independent variables on self-reporteci work stress among a large sampte

of comctional oficers (n = 1.358) employed across 46 institutions. Results showed that perceptions of personai security was the best predictor of stress for the overall sample as weil as for subsamples examined by institutional security level. In addition, staff

empowement and caner-based variables were identified as additional predicton of job stress.

The results are encouraging for correctional decision maken since the factors

idëntified as major contributon to stress are aiterable and amenable to change in management practices.

Acicnowiedgements It is without question that the peson 1 am most indebted in completion of this

thesis is rny wife Maureen* Constant explmations to "where's daddy" and "'why can't daddy corne" are challenging, and her constant support, love and comrnitment was

invaluable. I aiso enjoyed and benefiteci f b m her reviews of my cirafts and emuing debates regarding interpretation of the hdlligs.

On a sVnilar level, I wish to acknowledge the enthushm and support of my thesis s u p e ~ s o rD ,r.David Robinson. With a wiggle of a pen, 1had the o p p o d t y to meet

and work closely with Dr. Robinson and benefit greatly fiom his patience and extensive talents in conducting applied research. His detailed reviews and push for understanding the 'bbiggerpicture" helped tremendously in completion of this thesis. 1 would also like to express my gratitude for the helpful comments provided by

the prospectus cornmittee members, Dr. AdeIle Forth and Dr. Mary Gick Similarly, I appreziate that given cment time constraints and demands, Dr. Charles Gordon and Dr.

Lise Paquet have agreed to serve as cormnittee members for the thesis defence. Lastly, I wodd Iike to acknowledge the support of my CO-workers,Alex Stnnger, Sarah Williamson, Frank Porporino, and Liz Fabiano, for their support and

encouragement.

Table of Contents

List ofTables

Introduction

M

d

g workplace stress

Models or theories o f occupational stress Research literature on correctional Officer stress Present Study

Hypotheses

Methods

Questionnaire design Procedure SampIe seleetion Measures Independent variables Dependent variable

Table of Contents cont'd Resuhs

Participants

S d e psychometrics Criterion validity of the dependent variable Full sample analyses

Subsample analyses

Discussion Full sampie analyses

Subsample analyses Theoreticai implications

Pmctical Unplications

Limitations

References

Appendices

List o f Tables

Cronbach alphas fiom other studies for dependent and independent scales Descriptive information - al1 correctional officen Cronbach alphas for dependent and independent scales Mems and standard deviations of deendent and independent scales

Cnterion validity of job stress scaie Interconeiation matrix - dl correctional officers

Sources ofjob stress - full sample Sources ofjob stress - N 1sample Perceptions of personaiity securîty removed Sources ofjob stress - full sample Perceptions of personality security & staff empowerment removed Analysis ofvariance - full sample

Means and standard deviations of job stress - MI sample Descriptive information by secimty level - subsample analyses Intercorrelation rnatrix - minimumsecurity subsample Intercorrelation maaix - medium security subsample Intercorrelation ma&

- maximum security subsample

Sources of job stress - minimum security subsarnple Sources of job stress - medium secUnty subsample 18: Sources ofjob stress - maximum security subsample

Introduction

The focused study of stress in the workplace is far from a ment development. As a r l y as the 1960ts, reseaihers and practitionen had identified stress as a prominent area of cause for physical and psychologicd problems in workers a m s s a variety of occupational categories (Kahn et al., 1964; Lazanis, 1966). Much of the earlia literatun

examined stress levels among persons working in well-established i n d a a l occupations where the experience of stress was. at varying levels, expected to occur (Donovan, 1987;

Handy, 1988). It was not until the late 1970's that more attention was devoted to the human service sector (Handy, 1988). Occupations such as nuning and police work were at the forefront of research efforts to delineate the causes of stress and identify possible m e d i e s . At about the same t h e , a -ter

nimiber of studies were focusing on stnss

experienced by hdividuiiis employed in correctional institutions (Brodsky, 1977; McCall, 1979). Specifically, stress-related research began to converge on the largest employee cohort in the correctional work environment: the correctional office (Cheek& Miller, 1978; Cheek & Miller, 1979; Pogrebin, 1977). As some researchers have noted, this focus of attention helped trigger a new research agenda where ..."the prison guard w s now a worthy, if not fahionable, object of study" (Cullen et al., 1985506).

Over the past two decades, studies on the causes and levels of stress among correctional officers have prolifmed (Huckabee, R.G., 1992). Before turning to these results, it is important to first review the broader Iiterature to investigate how workplace

stress is measured and examine competing models or theanes of occupationai stress. In

2 this way, the literature on workplace stress experienced by conectional officers can be placed in the broader context of occupational stress research.

Measuring Workplace Stress

The Iiterature on occupational stress usually defines stress as an individual experÏence caused by subjectively perceived stressors (Handy, 1988). McGrath's (1970) definition ofjob stress as ''a perceived substantid imbaiance between dernand and response capability under conditions where failure to meet demand has important perceived consequences" identifies the individuality of stress by emphasizing the interrelationship betwem the immediate environment and personal characteristics. One of the difficulties in descnbing workplace stress as an individually-based phenomenon is that many working conditions are potentially stnssful but not al1 workers perceive the same conditions as stressfbl. The individual's perception of stresshl conditions and not the objective conditions thernselves are normaily linked with varying levels of stress. It is assumeci, however, that widespread perceptions of stress derive fimm objectively stressful conditions (Donovan, 1987). As a m i t , workers will manifest stress in more indirect ways and quantities such as increased job dissatisfaction, reduced

work performance, and mental and physical hedth problems. A major challenge in the measurernent of occupational stress is to empIoy

methods that are appropriate to the workplace setting and, at the same tirne, field results that trdy represent an individuai's expenence of stress. In order to understand how these

various phenornena are examineci, it is helpful to id&@ the four methods dong which stress is normalIy measmeci: biochemicd, physiological, behavioural, and seIEreport.

Biochemical Measure of Stress

Biochemical masures assess stressrelatecito changes in the body's systems that control various enzymes and hormones (e-g., epinephrine, norepinephrine, and corticosteroids). It is these biochemical factors that have been most often found to be responsible for generating responses to stress and mediating many aspects of physiologie responses to stress (Fleming and Baum, 1987). The two most cornmon methods for the biochemicd measurement of stress involve the collection of blood and urine samples across a variety of work situations and times. Enzyme and hormone levels are then compared to determine if fluctuations correspond with certain events that may, or may not, be perceived by an individual as stress provoking.

Physiologîcal Measure of Stress Similar to the biochemical method of relying on bioIogical responses to stress measurement, physiological measures assess stress through its impact on specific physiologicd systems or organs (Baum et al., 1982). The cardiovascularsystem, the respiratory system, muscle retention and skin response a11 reflect stress related to physiological aruusal. Although each of these has been used as an index of stress, heart rate and biood pressure are amoog the more fiequently reported physiological measuns

4

of stress. Consistent with biochemical indices, fluctuations in these physiologie factors are exarnined a s indicators of stress levels.

Limitations of Biochemical and Physiological Measures of Stress Although the biochemicd and physiological methods have generally been found

to be valid and diable maures of stress, limitations have been noted that are common

to both (Fleming & Baum, 1987). The equipment required for these measures is expensive and most of the techniques requk intrusive and novel procedures, such as placement of electrodes or use of needles, which may in themselves be stresson. Even though this is l e s problernatic for some methoâs (e-g., urine collection), it is important to note that most of these techniques are not suitable for field use since the equipment is diffcult to move, subject to decalibration, and cari only be used one subject at a time.

Behavioural Measure of Stress

Given the difficulties in the use of biochemicd or physiologicd measunments of stress, a number of field research studies have relied more on behaviotwl and self-report

measures. Behavioural measures of stress generally examine coping, the effects of stnss

on skilled performance, and afteraffects of stress (Baum et al., 1981). These measures generally involve direct obsemtion of behaviour, or performance meastues on tasks IikeIy to reflect stress-related deficits in motivation or pefiormance. The underlying hypothesis for behavioural measws is that stress cm reduce motivation, concentration, and attention to detail with persistence and performance tasks.

Limitations of Behavioural Measufes of Stress

One of the shortcomings of behaviourai stress rneasures is that interpreting performance as a measure of stress is difficult since performance is likely to be affected by skiIl, educationd level, practice, and interest (Fleming & Baum, 1987). As well,

practice and interest are ofien independently a£E"cted by stress. For use of behavioural measllfes in human service workplace settings, further complications anse since it may

be difficult to identify a set of tasks for observation that accurately represent &y-to-day activities. Adaptation of standardized tasks to fit the occupation undei study wouid be

necessary.

Self-report Measure of Stress As a result of the various complications outlined for the biochemical,

physiological, and behaviourai meastuements of stress in the workplace, it is not

surprising that the majority of work in this a .has been conducted using self-report m e a m (Brimer, 1997). After dl, the easiest and most direct way of determining if

people are stressed is to simply ask them. Self-report measure,c directiy involve asking individuais about their attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and behaviours.

Limitations of Self-report Measures of Stress The advantage of the self-report approach is that interviews and questionnaires are easy and inexpensive to administer, and ofien have a high degree of face vdidity. For

6

particular occupational groups, the questions can be designed to assess factors and situations specific to the work and respoases can be interpreted accordingly. Although these are beneficial atmïtes in the use of self-report stress rneasures in the workplace, it

has been noted that this appmach can be subject to deliberate and unconscious sources of emr. Responses may be influenceci by change in awareness, attitudes towards or against something, and by coping styles which may involve repressing or denying that there is a problem (Brimer, 1997).

Summa.of Different Measures of WorkpIace Stress Given the various research goals of stress meanirement, the choice of particular meastues and the method of administration obviously depend on the nature and goals of the specific study. The parameters of the biochemicai. physiological, and behavioural

rnethods suggest they are more usehl in studies of mute stress or chronic stress (Fleming & Baum, 1987). In determinhg the generai prevalence of stress in a rather stable

environment (Le., typical work day or week, etc.), seif-report stress measures rnay be most usehl since reporting can be oriented to a particular tirne frame (e.g., last week, 1 s t month, etc.). In addition to the ease of administration and the fact that many individuals can be tested at once, they cm also consider the totality of the specified time period rather than responding to a specific induced stressor or set of stressors (e.g., consider

your level of stress over the 1 s t 30 days). In this way, the determination of stress wiil likeIy be more stable and representative of the workplace under study.

Models or Theories of Occnpationd Stress

The extent that a theory can be operationaiized and tested according to accepted empirical criteria is directly dependent on the ability to collect accurate data on the phenornena under investigation (Eulberg et al., 1988). In tenns of occupational stress research, the different methods available twneasure stress are important to understand

since they are relied on to support or indeed discount hypotheses put forward according to various models or theories of stress (Va*& & Spielberger, 1998). Aithough there are a number of theories of occupational stress, this section will focus on four reprcsentative models: identity theory, transactional model, person-environment (P-E) fit model, and demand-control model.

Identity Theory According to identity theory, the day-to-day social roles fulfilled by ad*

(e.g.,

worker, parent, spouse, etc.) fom the basis of an individuai's identity or sense of self

(Burke, 1991;Thoits, 1991). Since social d e s are composeci of normative expectations for behaviour, the adequacy that aa individual is abIe to perform in the various social d e s has direct implications for self-evaluation. Accordingly, stress that negatively

affects a person's ability to fulfill a particdar social role will undoubtedly influence their level of well-being (Schlenker, 1987).

With regard to job stress, the implication of identity theory is directly applicable. Job involvement represents a cognitive state of psychological identification with one's

present job (Kanungo, 1982). As a resuk, job invoIvement is a potentially important

8 moderator of the relationship between job-related stress and the individual since negative

reactions (i.e., stress) to job conditions wtll oniy occur in workers for whom the job is a central concern (Locke, 1976). While identity theory was show to have some merit (e-g., Frone & Major. 1988), little anpirical evidence is available to suggest that it is a usehl model for understanding

the relationship between work and stress (Frone et ai., 1995). This may be partiy due to difficulties inherent in rneasuringjob involvement and extending the resuits to ratings of job stress. Although mixed results are not surpnsing given the extensive number of intrapersonal and interpersonal factors that can impact on the relationship between one's

job and expenences of stress, additional nsearch is rcquired to detennine if identity theory can truly assist in explaining the causes of occupational stress.

Transactional Mode1

The transactional model conceptualizes occupationai stress as a proces involving

a transaction between an individual and his or her work environment (Lazanis, 1991). A transaction means not oniy that in a paaicular situation the person infiuences the environment and vice-versa, but also that person-environment relationships are constantly ntbject to change.

The rnodel distinguishesbetween stressfil antecedent conditions

(stresson) and how they are cognitively appraised by a particula. person (threat), taking into account the individual's coping resources. Aruciety, anger, or both are evoked when a stressor is perceived as threatening, and these ernotional reactions are more intense when the person does not have the resources needed to cope effcctively with them.

9

Lazarus (1991) has argued that the traditional outlook toward work stress, while comctly identifying many antecedent and consequent environmental and personality variables, fdls short in considering individual working people and p u p s who are experiencing stress. Quite simply, psychological stress and its damaging effects should be individudly focused. The rationale for this argument is based on the assertion that

without knowing what is involved personally for individuals and the particdar contexts

in which they operate, it would be next to impossible to undentand w h m efforts should be focused to assist them in dealing with stress in the workplace.

WhiIe a body of research supports the utility of the transactional model in

explainhg stress (see Harris, 1991). it has been criticized as less applicable in the study of workplace stress because of its primary focus on the individual, at the expense of the work environment. Bnef and George (1991) explain that, fcom an organizational perspective, it is important to identify stresshl working conditions that adversely affect groups of employees, as well as individual workers. Similarly, Harris (1991)observed that the entire climate or culture of an o r g h t i o n may be adversely influaiced by specinc occupational stressors that profoundly affect many employees, even though this

impact may also be markedly infiuenced by individual differences in personality, coping skills, and the gender of the worker.

The disparity noted by some organizational researchea regarding the msactional mode1 does not negate the utility of the theory in advancing the understanding of how and why individuah respond differentidly to stress. Indeed, even

some critics who describe limitations of the model in studying occupationd stress have

10

praised the work of LaPinisand others, explaining that the transactional mode1 has hrsd a

major impact on the understanding of psychological stress and the focus on the transaction between the penon and environment, primary and secondary appraisal, and

coping has advanced the field considerably (Bnef & George, 1991). What is needed to enhance the transactional model in the study ofjob stress is a greater recognition of the environment within the model and a broader understanding of how it influences or indeed mediates stress for specific individuals as weII as groups of individuals (Barone, 1991).

Person-Environment (P-E)Fit Mode1 The P-E fit model is one of the most widely cited models of stress. This model

postdates that a jack of fit betwem the person and his or her immediate environment can lead to wunet individual needs or unmet job demands, and thus to experiences of stress

(Van Harrison, 1978). Responses to stress would include those activitis which reduce misfit in a manner that better allows for individual needs to be adequately met.

Extended to the work setting, stress can remit fiom the interaction of an individud 4 t h his or her work environment (Caplan & Hanison, 1993). Occupational

stress occurs when job demands that pose a threat to the worker conûibute to an incompatib1e person-environment fit, thereby producing stress. The expected reaction of a worker would be to reIy on available intemal or extemal resources to mitigate the source of stress and once again achieve a balanced fit with the environment (French et al., 1982).

11

Research guided by P-E fit theory has stunulated the construction of numemus m a u r e s of organizationai and job characteristics, employee skills, job satisfaction, individual differences in attitudes and personaiity traits, and health status (e.g., Beehr & Newman, 1978; Cooper et al., 1994; Sharit & Salvendy, 1982). P-Efit concepts such as role arnbiguity and role conflict have also hem investigated in studies of a variety of occupations (Fisher & Gitleson, 1983; Jackson & Shuler, 1985). Whiie the P-Efit model has conhibutad extensively to understanding the relationship between the work environment and stnss, some researchers have expressed fiutration that the theory has not yielded a highly focused approach to the assessrnent of occupational stress (e.g., Chemers et al., 1985). Additionally, Edwards and Cooper (1990) have stated that P-Efit theory is repeatedly plagued with serious theoretical and methodological problems that include inadequate distinction between different versions of fit. confusion of different functional forms of fit, poor measurement of fit cornponents, and inappropriate anaiysis of the effects of fit.

Although criticisms surround the P-E fit model, it is important to point-out that they have more to do with methodologicd limitations and the application of the model rather than the theory itself. More recent restarch has controlled for such earlier shortcomings and has clearly shown that the model is usehl for understanding and conceptualizïng stress and the level of fit between a penon and the work environment (e-g., Edwards & Rothbard, 1999). Accordingly. hture research will Iikely broaden this

understanding relying on the P-E fit theory as long as noted methodoIogical problems are properly addressed.

Demand-Contro! Mode1 InitialIy developed by Karasek (1979), the demand-control model proposes that the joint effects of 'demands' and the 'range of decision-making Freedom available to the worker' (i.e., job conirol) were important in predicting strain or stressful outcornes. A

key aspect of the model is the interactive relationship between job demands and job control. More recently, Karasek and lhmrell(l990) have asserted that the risk of psychologicai strain (Le., stress) increases in a dmandingjob only when these demands occur in interaction with low job control. According to the model, the highest levels of stress would be found in high-stress jobs where the demands of the job cannot be moderateci by the worker. Lower levels of stress would be found in low-stress jobs where demands are Iow but control is high. Intermediate levels of stress could be expected in passive jobs (i.e., low demands, low controls) and activejobs (Le., high demands, high controls) (Dollarci & Winefield, 1998). While level of stress is an important component of the demand-control rnodel,

three additionai hypotheses are ais0 central to model. One is the iso-stress hypothesis (iso- refemng to isolation) which proposes that workers in jobs combining high demands and low control that are dso socidly isolating would show the highest Ievels of stress

(Karasek, 1979). Second, the active learning hypothesis predicts that increased motivation, leaming, and competency will occur when the challenge of the situation (demand) is matched by the individual's level of skiIl or control in dealing with the challenge (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). Lastly, the dynamic demand-control hypothesis is

13 used to explain the impact ofthe work environment over the. For instance, an active job over a signifiant period of time may Iead to feelings of mastery, which in tum inhiiit the perception of job stress during periods of high demands, thereby reducing the impact of new stressfiil situations at work (TheoreIl& Karasek, 1996). Altematively, daily residual stress arising frorn high-stress jobs over ti-

may give nse to stressful outputs (e.g.,

anxiety, depression, etc.), which in tum may inhibit learning to deal with £hure stress by leading to withdrawal from new job challenges.

The abundance of research in support of the demaod-control model indicates it is a usehl theory for understanding the relationship between work setting and individual levels of stress. Although some criticisms have centered on the conceptualization and operationalization of the control constnict (e.g., Sauter & Hunell, 1989). advances have been made in refining the construct. For example, Sauter and Hurrell(1989) recognized the importance of autonomy and control and maintaineci that contml is essential to overcome the stress inevitably associated with demanding work. Accordingiy, the model is able to accommodate a wide range of several différentjob characteristics(Le., demands) and consider the factors (Le., controts) that are responsible for stress experienced at work.

Summary of Different Models of Workplace Stress

The prevailing models of occupational stress have been shown to have both ment and limitations and appear to be complementary and overlapping rather than contradictory frameworks for understanding stress in the workplace. Although more

14

expansive reviews have noted a number oflimitations in current theones of occupaîiod stress (e-g., Cooper & Cartwright, 1994; Cooper et ai., 1988). these same authors have

explained that the central tenets of most theories are defendable - what is needed is p a t e r consistency of the models to facilitate cornparison of stress levels in various

occupational groups (Murphy & Hurrell, 1987). Accordingly, a comprehensive mode1 of occupational stress will require taking into account the working conditions that produce job stress, how specific stressor evmts are perceived and appraised, and the emotiond reactions and coping skills of the individual worker.

Research Literature on Correctional Officer Stress

The prevalence of occupational models and the measures constnicted to test these models have been applied to a number of diment work settings. As described earlier, growing interest in the consequences ofjob stress for correctional officers has resulted in a growing body of research litmature that has examined stress at a number of levels. To provide a h e w o r k for discussing the disparate stresses experienced by correctional

officers, five general sources WU be examined: extema1 organizationai factors, internai organizationai factors, work environment, demographic factors, and attitudes toward correctional work.

Extemal Organizational Factors

The study of extra-organizational sources of stress for correctional officers is not extensive. Traditional approaches to organizational research have focused almost

15 exclusively on intra-organiZationaI aspects such as communication,management support, and decision-making (Drory & Shamir, 1988). The existing literature on the causes of

work stress outside of the institution or prison has centered mahly on two factors: public's view of comctional offices and Ievel of pay. Public's view of comctional officers. The common perception of comctional officers in the public mainsiream as portrayed in movies, Iiterature, and television is one of stem, brutal disciplinarians who mistnat and abuse prisoners (Jacobs, 1978; Van FIeet,

1992). As a result, many officers f e l they are a stigmatized minority and are often embarrassed or hesitant to reveal their occupations to othen (Johnson, 1978). This poor public perception has often been cited as a stnssor for correctional officers for the job

they perform (McCall, 1979). A more recent study examined the community's respect and appreciation for the

job of a comctional officer. Drory and Shamir (1988)administered self-report questionnaires to a total of 266 prison guards firom four prison facilities. Among other scales, the questionnaire hcluded measures of commmity support and respect of the

employee's job, job satisfaction and bumout. Results showed that this f o m of extraorganizational support was the single best comlate of job satisfaction whiIe also contributing uniquely to the prediction of bumout. Level of pay. Although not a direct inquiry of most studies, many have nevertheless reported that correctional officers cite low pay as a source of stress

(Brodsky,1982; Stohr et al., 1994). In one study, higher IeveIs of stress were s h o w for correctional officers who take second jobs to help with financial problems (Menard,

16

1978). Additiondly, some evidence suggests that the majority of officers welcome

1998). , overtirne to supplement their Iow IeveIs of income (h

Internai Organizational Factors

The largest body of research examinlng stress among correctional officers has focused primarily on stresses that are intemal to an institution or prison. The rationale stems îiom the observation that it is most often 'organizational factors' or 'management expectations' b a t are most commonly identifieci by correctional officers as ngular sources of stress (Finn, 1998;Tellier & Robinson, 1995; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986).

Issues fnquently reviewed in the research literature include: undersffig, overtime, management support, career progression, communication and decision-making, and role conflict and ambiguity. Understaffne;. Understaffhg in a correctional context refers to not having enough officers available to staffauthorized posts. In considering some of the reasons

for understa&ng (e.g., sick lave, unattnictivc salaries, high turnover, etc.), F m (1998) obsewed that understaffhg can m a t e differmt kinds of stress: lack of t h e to complete required tasks at d l or in a conscientious manner (e.g., counts, paper work, searches, etc.), working quickly every day to complete the requind work, concern that there are too few officers avaiIable if inmate violence occurs, and the inability to schedule time-off for

speciai occasions or family crises. Brodsky (1982) noted that achieving adequate staffing

in rnany correctional facilhies is a chronic problem. Even when staffhg is sufficient, employee absenteeism can create worker shortages, increasing staff pressures to complete

17 the required &y-to-day duties in the rnanner expected with a fui1 com@ment of correctional offices.

Surveys have shown that understaffing is often reported as a major source of stress. Rutter and Fielding (1988) examined the responses of 8 1 British prison officers who were asked to complete a self-report questionnaire. A central component of the questionnaire involved the ranking of likely sources of stress. ResuIts showed that of the

cankings for each of the 52 sources of stress, Iack of staff and resources to complete required tasks was rated the most stressful aspect of their occupation.

In a similar study, Lindquist and Whitehead (1986) surveyed 241 Alabama correctionai officen to examine burnout, job stress, and job satisfaction. Thirty-nme percent of the officers considered their job to be either very or more than moderately stressful, 29% reported moderate stress, and 32% were in either the slightly or more than slightly stresshl category. Although not found to be a significant predictor of stress, a sizable 2 1% of respondents reported sûess caused by work overload - describeci as being assigned a job with not enough manpower or materials to do the job right. Overtime. Likely a direct result of undemtaffing, the constant demand to work

overtime has been identified in m e y s of comctionai officers as an on-gohg source of

stress. Rutter and Fielding (1988) found that officers ranked working overthe and long hours as the f i f i greatest source of stress among 52 stress indicators. Kaufian (1988)

describes that, separate h m acnially having to work overtime, just the possibility of being asked (or told) to work overtime when comctionai oficers are near the end of a

shiR has been identified as stress provoking. F ~ M(1998) reported that the need for

18

extensive and stress-producing o v e r h e lead some onicers to routineIy avoid answering their phones on days off while others keep a second, unlisteci number for family and friends only. In somejurisdictions, Finn (1998) found that oficers are allowed to refuse

overtime only once a y,-

the second refusai results in a waming, the third results in a 1-

day suspension, and the fourth may result JI temination. Management Support Although understaffhg and overtime may be characterized as components of management support, the concept is meant to be broader based and

ofien centm on the day-to-day interactions of comctional officers and their s u p e ~ s o r s as a focused source of stress (Launey & Fielding, 1989; Huckabee, 1992; Slate & Vogel, 1997). As the research Iiterature has shown, the type of interactions can Vary

tremendously. For instance, in a study conducted by Dollard and colleagues (1993)' comctional officers stated that some of their job pressures were caused by superiors giving more credence to what inmates had to Say versus line officers. Simifar results were reporteci by Cheek and Miller (1983) where correctional officers ranked 'criticism fiom supervisors in h n t of inmates' (raniceci #12) and 'having feeiings of pressure ôrom having to please too many bosses' (ranked #19) in the top twenty of an extensive List of the most stressfiil aspects of working in corrections.

In Rutter and Fielding's (1988) study of British prison officers, sîgnif~cant correlations with ratings of stress were found for correctional officers who agreed with

such statements as hot receiving enough praise for their work' as well as 'management's Failure to see staff needs'. In order to examine these results in a more consistent manner, the responses were factor anaiysed into five constmcts - one focusing specificaily on

19

relationships with supervisors. However, this construct failed to signifimtly predict stress levek

In a sarnple of 2,000 prison staff drawn from 67 different Swedish prisons,

researchers compared physiological stress Ievels against a number of categones of selfreported working conditions, hcluding management style (Harenstam et al., 1988). Respondents who rated management style as relatively poor reported significantly higher rates of sick Ieave and symptoms of ill health compared to prison staff who indicated

satisfactory management style. The authon concluded that a proactive management style might heip to counteract the effects of stress at work.

Grossi, Keil and Vito (1996) used a path mode1 to explain the relationship between supervisor support and work stress, life stress and job satisfaction. A total of 1O6 correctional officers fiom three separate institutions completed a self-report

questionnaire. Results showed no significant relationship between supervisor suppoa

and either measure of stress. However, there was a agnificant direct negative effect of supenisor support on job dissatisfaction. Correctional officers who perceive that their supervisors support them are l e s Iikely to be dissatisfied with theirjobs than are those who believe that they are not fully supported by their supervisors.

Lastly, Hughes and Zarnble (1993) examined levels of stress and coping among a sample of I 18 comctional officers working in three federal penitentimies. Intewiews were conducted with respondents to review the type of stresshl situations experienced by

correctional Officen. Ratings of sources of stress while at work showed that 52% indicated 'management' as stress provoking - the third highest percentage behind

20

wworkers (58%) and physical work environment (56%). However, when asked to rate the most strmful source, the highesî percentage (27%) of correctional officers cited

managementCareer Progression. The issue of career progression for correctional officers as a

possible source of work stress has received-little attention in the research literature. Few studies have considered that career based factors such as promotions or career planning and development could be a significant s o u m of job stress. This is unfortunate since the

broader occupational litaahue has identifiai career progression as a major factor in the prediction of workplace stress (Greenhaus & Sklarew, 1981). One of the earliest studies to include a meaSuTe of career progression as an indicator of stress among correctional officen was conducted by Long and colleagues (1986). Close to 600 New Zeaiand prison staffcompleted a questionnaire that was factor

analysed to reveal six job specific sources of stress factors - including promotion. The promotion factor included such items as 'lack of promotion and opportunity' and 'activities needed for promotion'. Correlational analyses showed that the promotion factor was significantiy related to general heaith as measured by the GeneraI H d t h Questiomake. A more recent study conducted by Tellier and Robinson (1995) examined, among

other variables, career progression and work stress among a large sample of 1,750 correctionai officers employed in Canadian federal institutions. Participants completed a selfireport questionnaire that included a measure of career progression that measured correctional oEcer7ssatisfaction with the information available to manage their careers.

21

Resuits showed that Iower satisfaction with career progression was significantly relateci

to higher levels of work stress. Further,a stepwïseregression mode1 revealed thaî, second to perceptions of personai secwity which accounted for 19% of the variance of job stress, the career progression masure accounted for an additionai 7% of unique variance. Lastiy, Robinson, Proporino and Simourd (1996) tapped into career progression

and-stressin a study on attitudes and work adjustment among different correctional occupational groups. S k occupationai groups, induding correctional officers, completed

a self-administeredquestionnaire which included two career progression measures carrer salience and growth need strength. Career salience assessed the extent to which staff members express interest in career planning and development. Growth need strength measures the relative importance employees assigned to the need to "grow onthe-job". Results showed that correctiond offictn reported significantIy lower means on the growth need strength measure compared to the other occupational groups. Shilarly, the comctional officer group reported one of the highest levels of job stress. The

findings demonstrated that although comctional officers a p p d to place little emphasis on career growth compared to other occupations, they in turn were one of the highest stressed groups.

Communication and Decision-Making. Both communication and decisionmaking are core requirements of a correctional officer's ability to perfom his or her job duties in an effective and efficient manner. In some senses, they can be viewed as vital to

the mie of a correctional officer since the inability to cornmunicate or make decisions

22

could cause serious repercussions for inmates, prison stan, or botfi (Lasky et ai, 1986; Saylor & Wright, 1992). Accordingly, it is not surprising that a number of studies have identified poor communication or restricted decision-making abilities as major sources of stress for correctional officers.

Lombardo (1981) cited poor cormqunication between corrections officers as well as administrators as significant stressors. He also found a belief that "administrators, supervisors, and, at times, other officers not only f&l to assist them but also actually work against them" (p. 135). Additional hdings in Lombardo's study was that correctional offices dso complained that departmental policies denied them opportunities for decision-making and for taking increased responsibility. Cheek and Miller (1983) investigated the experience of stress for 143 mostly male New Jersey comctionai officers. Each completed a questionnaire eiiciting information regarding perceptions of sources of correctional stress. Survey findings resuited in the identification of 21 distinct rnost stressfil aspects of working in corrections. Ranked second was 'facility policies not being clearly communicated to al1 staff members of the facility' while 'officers in the department not being quickly informed about policy changes' was ranked eleventh, 'not having pretty good sharing of information among the

officers on al1 three shifts' was ranked sixteenth and 'Iack of opportunity to participate in decision-making' was ranked twenty-first.

Lasky. Gordon and Srebdus (1986) examineci the stress Ievels of 147 federal correctional officers. Self-administered questionnaires were completed to gather responses on 13 predictor variables. Multiple regression analyses was used to detenaine

23

a pndiction equation for stress and only two of the 13 variables w e n significant predictoa: lack of participation in decision-making and years of continuai employment

The authors suggested that a more supportiveenvironment for decision-making would Iikely mediate the expenence of stress among the correctional officers. Considering results from Rutter and Fielding's (1988) study, 'poor shming of information among shifts' and 'lack of opportunity to participate in decision-making' were both significantly related to ratïngs of overall stress. As was descnied earlier for

supervisor support, the various ratings were factor analysed into five factors - one being staff communication. However, similar to earlier results, the constnrct was not found to be significantly related ta levels of stress.

Patterson (1992) studied job experience and perceived job stress arnong a crosssection of nearly 4,500 police, correctional, and probation and parole officen. The 59 item self-administered questionnaire designeci to masure perceived mess was factor analysed, producing nine meaninghil factors. Of particular interest was the emergence of a 'dmands of decision-making' construct which included items of 'amount of

responsibility', 'use of disc~etion',and 'making critical, on-the-spot decisions'. However, analyses of this factor by job experience was not found to be significantly related to mean stress scores. Role conflict and arnbiguity. Role confiict and ambiguity are products of the occupational and organizationd literature and refer to negative consequences of role problems such as arnbiguous or conflicting expectations (Kahnet ai., 1964; House, 1981). AccordingIy, it is not surprising that studies of correctionaf officers have also

24

examineci the effects of d e stressors (StaIgaitis et al., 1982). EarIier reseafch feported that role problems had a negative impact on job-related affect and attitudes expressecl by

comctional officers (Hepburn & Albonetti, 1980; Poole & Regoli, 1980). As well, i n t e ~ e wdata has shown that correctional officen identify ambiguous and conflicting expectations as a source of on-the-job stres (Cheek & Miller, 1983; Lombardo, 1981). Cullen and colleagues (1985) provided a basis for better understanding the concepts of role confiict and ambiguity in a comctional environment. The researchers explain that while the central goal of an officer's job is well-defined (maintaining onier

and security), the prescribed means of keeping the peace are not easily transmitted. While correctional officers work in a paramilitary organization marked by explicit lines of authority and a host of formal regulations, their task of managing inmates demands

Bexibility, the judicious application of discretionaryjustice, and the ability to secure inmate cornpliance through informal exchanges which deviate fkom written d e s (Sykes, 1958). In a sense, officers are expected to exercise professional expertise within a

bureaucratie setting in which they are not granted the formai authonty to be professional (Jurik & Mushmo, 1985). Consquently, knowledge of which niles can be bent, and under what circumstances is not always apparent or understood. Ambiguous and

conflicting expectations are a likely result and a potential source of stress. To examine this hypothesis, Cuilen, Link, Wolfe and Frank (1985) randomly sarnpled a total of 155 correctional oficen employed in a southem correctional system. Self-adrninistered questionnaireswere completed that collected a variety of information on stress (work and life) and possible c ~ n ~ b u t i factors. ng Among the Iater, d e

25

problems were exarnined using a five-item scale measuring the degree to which officers

experienced such problems as rote conflict and ambiguity. Results showed that ratings

on the role problems measure were significantly related to levels of work stress as well as life stress* Gentein, Topp and Correll(1987) examinad a number of environmental and penon-based hdicators in the prediction of stress and burnout among correctional personnel. The later was rneasured usbg a cumulated number of total exhaustion scores and number of bad day scores. While mie ambiguity was not related to total exhaustion,

it accounted for a significant 9% of the variance in the total number of bad day scores.

The authoa interpreted the results as consistent with the underlying conccpt of role ambiguity - correctional officers who experienced a greater proportion of bad work days felt that the rules accompanying their jobs were too rigid and Iimiting in terms of opportunities for creativity.

In a study conducted by Stohr, Lovrich and Wilson (1994), correctional officer stress was measufed against four sub-scales tapping into varying kinds of role conflict.

The f k t sub-scde rneasure assessed the level of conflict between a person's intemal standards or values and the defined role behaviour. The second measured the levei of conflict between the focal person and d e h e d role behavior. nie third and fourth subscales assessed the confiicting expectations and ~ r g ~ z a t i o ndemands ai in the form of incompatible policies and confkting requests from others. Analyses showed that jails reporting significantly higher leveis of work stress were also experiencing significantiy greater leveis of role confiict as evidenced on al1 four sub-scales.

26

Work Environment It is important to differentiate work environment h m o r g d t i o n a l factors that

cm cause stress. Mile the Iater may be consideredjust another component of work, work environment focuses more on the actual tasks and interactions nquired to conduct the work expected of a correctional officer(Finn, 1998). A review of the literature has

identified four stressfiil aspects of correctional officer work: dangemusness, inmate interactions, boredom, and problems with coworkers: Dangerousness. The term 'dangerousness' was offered by researchers in the late '70's to describe the general milieu of working in correctionai settings (Brodsky,1977; Jacobs 1978). It is often used by correctional officers themselves whm surveyed about the causes of stress while at work For instance, in a s w e y of over 900 prison guards, danger was the most frequentlymentioned disadvantage of prison work (Jacobs, 1978). Shamir and Drory (1982)explain that such findings should not be su~prïsingsince officers deai daily with people who have past records of violence. They are often rquired to pesorrn tasks that necessarily involve the htration of prisoners' wishes and hence the aggravation of potentidy violent people. In addition, in most cases the fficea are far outnurnbered by offenders.

O

A central aspect of dangerousness concems the threat of violence erupting

between inmates or between staff and inmates. As Finn (1998) explains, several published surveys of officers have identifieci the ever-present potentid for Ïnmate violence against officen as a significant source of stress. in his study, more officer inte~eweesidentified the threat of inrnate violence as a source of stress than any other

27 single feahire of their occupation. Similar resuits were nported by Culien and colleagues

(1985) who found the thmt to be the second highest source of stress among correctional

officers. Lombardo (198 1) stated that feelings of danger thus rnay denve less from repeated assaults and more from the realization that officers face the constant and often unpredictable possibility of violence.

-

Grossi, Keil and Vito (1996) argued that the officer's perception of dangerousness may dso be infiuenced by the nature and extent of inmate contact. For instance, officer's

with limited inmate contact may perceive the threat of physical assault by an inmate to be less likely to occur. Likewise, officer's working in institutions where theU duties involve extensive daily contact with inmates may perceive themselves to be vulnerable to physicai assault. Conversely, those with fiequent contact with inmates rnay perceive themselves to be exposed to less dangerous conditions because they have become more familiar with the inrnates and have established a certain level of trust or mutual respect. To test this hypothesis, the researchers examined the s w e y responses of 106 comctional officers employed at three institutions in a southern comctiond system. Dangerousness was meanired by a five-item Likert type scde. Analyses showed that ratings of dangerousness had a significant d h t effect on work stress. Correctional officers who perceived theirjobs as dangerous were more likely to report higher levels of work stress than othen. Dangeroumess was also found to have a significant indirect positive effect on role stress. The relationship was mediated by work stress. Perceived dangerousness Ieads to higher levels of work stress which in hirn leads to higher Ievels of role stress.

28

Patterson (1992) examineci the relationship beîween experience, job stress, and a number of stress dimensions. Using a fmtor andytic approach, a seven-item factor of 'Danger' was identified as intnnsic to the job of a correctional officer. Not surprisingly, the items were specific to dangerous situations such as 'dealing with aggressive groups',

'risk of physical attack on the job', and 'threat of injury on the job'. Cornparhg the mess dimensions to overall ratings of stress, results showed higher stress scores among

officers with more years of experience. Interestingly, the danger dimension was also

rated signincantly higher for more experienced worken. The author concluded that since

this was the only scde where a significant digerence was found, the results suggest that the more experienced officers receive the more dangerous assignments or that they perceived more danger within the context of the job than did the Iess experienced offken. Tellier and Robinson (1996) examined the correlates ofjob stress among a large sample of fiont-line correctional officers. Possible danger on the job was measured by a four item perception of personal security scale. Results showed that greater concerns of

personai s e c m was significantly comlated with job stress. In addition, n p s i o n analyses found that this measure of dangerousness accounted for the greatest variance of

job stress. One aspect of dangerousness that has received scant attention in the research

titerature concerns the degree to which stress is present in diffierent conectional security

settings. It might be assumed that expcricnces of stress would be greater in higher security institutions as offenders are more likely to be violent and more resistant to follow

29

niles and regdations as set out by the prison. Howwer, the following two studies revd diffenng resutts. Lasky, Gordon and Srebdus (1986) found no significant differences of

self-reported stress a m s s six secUnty levels. Conversely, Cullen and colleagues (1985) reported that comctiond officers working in maximum secuity institutions were more

stressa3 than those employed in Imsecure settings. inmate Interactions. Separate h m possibly violent interactions with h a t e s that would constitute 'dangerousness', officers dso report stressors that revolve around daily interactions with the offenden and the envimunent in which they work (Stalgaitis et al., 1982; Long et al., 1986). Previous studies of the work of correctional officers have invariably emphasized that routine stfiinmate interactions are often reported as stresson. Gerstein and colleagues (1987) and Rutter and Fielding (1988) for instance have argued that contact with inmates is the most important contributor to stress, showing that officers who report themselves as being stressed are more likely to identify inmates as a major source of stress ( M e r & Fielding, 1988) and rate inmates negatively

(Gerstein et ai., 1987). A study of 575 New ZeaIand prison staff (2 13%raoking officers; 59.1 % prison

officers; 18.9% instructors) was conducted to survey the sources of occupational stress and their effcçts on Ievels of health (Long et aI., 1986). Factor andysis of the stress questionnaire revealed six job-specific sources of stress factors - including 'relationships with inmates'. Across the three subgroups, mean stress scores were significantly higher

for prison ofticerscompared to Uistructors on the 'relationship with inmates' factor. in

30 addition, this f a o r was also the most highiy signifiant correlate of the six job stressors

in relation to the cornbuleci h d t h measm. Launey and Fieldiig (1989) asked 89 pnson officers to rate the importance of 25 potential sources of stress in their work. A factor analysis of the sources of stress suggested that stress originated fkorn two main sources - inmates and management.

The

'inmate' factor included items such as 'having to deal with the unreasonable demands of some inmates', 'the tmpredictable behaviour of certain inmates', and 'need for skills in interpersonal relationships'. Using a regession equation to predict general health [as

measured by the General Hedth Questionnaire], the 'inmate' factor was the only one to predict general health significantly. In a study of stressful situations of 6ont-Iine correctional workers in the Canadian

federal pnson system, dealing with inmates was repoaed as a source of stress by almost 34% of the sample (Hughes & Zamble, 1993). However, it was rated as the most

stressful aspect of the job by only about 10% of the comctional officers. The researchers explained that given the nature ofthejob, mentions of problems in dcaIing with inmates were fewer than expected. One reason for the lower pcrcentage of responses may be due to the fact that the information was gathered using an interview format Accordingly, a certain portion of officers may have intentionaily not identified inmate interactions as stresshl in order to presenre their 'macho' image (see Cheek & Miller, 1983). Boredom. Given that the central role of correctional oficer work is monitoring of inmate actions and behaviours, it is perhaps not surprising that many report boredom as a source of stress while on the job (Kiely & Hodgson, IWO). Grossi,Keil and Vito (1996)

31 state that part of the reason for bondom being cited as stressfil is thaf in comctionai

ficilities, interactions with co-workers is generaliy lVnited to staff meetings and ml1 cal1 activities. This minimal interaction is ofien exacerbated by the independent and solitary

nature of the correctional officer role. Additionaily, work assignments of correctional officers are typically designeci to maximize security while rninimize cost. Therefore, officers work alone in most posts throughout the prison. Although boredom and inactivity are often mentioned as sources of stress while at work, few studies have considered its impact on reported stress Ievels of correctional officers (Black, 1982; Pollack & Sigler, 1998). However, for those studies where boredom was examined, results suggest it plays a major role in reported work stress. For instance, Rutter and Fielding (1988) reported that ratings of 'pexiods of inactivity and boredom' were significantly correlated with overall stress levels. Similarly, Hughes and Zamble (1993) found that about 47% of the correctional officer respondents in their study

reported boredom as a source of stress. In fact, it was rated the fourth highest out of a possible lia of 13 at-work stresson. The percentage dropped to 13% when officers were asked to rate the most stressful aspect of their work.

In a study of prison staff h m 17 different pend institutions in New Zealand, the researchers identifieci a six-factor solution basad on questionnaire responses - including one focusing on 'task pressmes' (Long et al., 1986). Although not limiteci to boredom specificaliy, the factor tapped into it and related issues associated with inactivity on the job. Among the items included in the factor were 'boredom with constant routine of job',

'Iack of breaks during shifts', and 'long periods without days off. Results showed that

32

mean stress scores were sipnincantly higha for prison ofocers on the 'task pressures'

factor when compared to cornparison samples of ranlringonicers and instnictoa. Problems with CO-worken. At first consideration, CO-workersas a possible source of stress may seem contradictory to the supportive roles expected of fe1low correctional offcers where elements of danger are central to the job (Cutlen et al.. 1985). However, a number of studies have reported that many officers experience stress working with other officers. One survey found that 22% of staffviewed 'other staff as creating more stress

than any other single factor except for dealing with hostile, demanding inmates (Martson, 1993). Fim (1998)found that comctiond officer intemiewees in his study expressed

much the same opinion. Brodsky (1982) was one of the earliest researchers who brought attention to the relationship between correctional officer stress ievels and problems with CO-workers. In

his review of work stress in correctional institutions, problems with CO-workerswas cited

as a core condition precipitating long-term stress for officm. Four areas of CO-worker problems were identified: cornpetition for choice dots and assignrnents; personality clashes; fear they will not be backed up or protected by their CO-workers;and belief that they are being excluded. Cutlen and colleagues (1985) examined the relatiomhip between CO-workersand reported levels of stress in their study of 155 correctionaI officers. A self-administereci

questionnaire gathered information on peer support, including 5 items wiui altemating valences such as 'rny fellow officers ofien compliment someone who has done hif i e r job well' and 'my fellow officers ofim blame each 0 t h when things go wrong'. In relation

33 to threeseparate measures of stress (work stress, job dissatisfaction, life stress), the peer

support measure was significaxttly related to onIy the work stress measure. The authors suggested this finding highiights the critical role that co-workers c m play regarding the

experience of stress while at work.

in their study of New Zealand prison staff.Long, Shouksrnith, Voges, and Roache (1986) identified 'staff relationships' as one significant factor of a six-factor solution of a *

self administered, job-specific 'sources of stress' questionnaire. Such items as 'poor staff relationships', 'need to keep up a false fiont', and 'Iack of concern for officer aAer being

assaulted' comprised the factor. Analyses showed that mean stnss Ievels for this factor were significantly higher for prison officers when compared to samples of ranking officers and instnictors. Additionally, the 'staff relationships' factor was also significantly related to indices of general health as measured by the General Health Questionnaire. Similar results were reported in a study of 118 correctional officers who were randomly sampled fkom three federal institutions in Canada (Hughes & Zamble, 1993). From a fia of 13 at-work stressors, CO-workerswere rated most fkequently with 58% of respondents citing CO-workeaas a source of stress. However, when asked to consider the

most stresshl aspect of work, o d y 14% of comectional officers in the sample coatinued to identiQ CO-workers. One method of examining CO-workersas a possible source of stress has been to

measure leveis of social support while at work. The social support concept refers to

overall Ievels of helpful social i n t e e o n available on the job nom both CO-workersand

34

mpe~sors(Karasek & TheoreIl, 1990). Some have argued that socid interactions at

work are viewed as major contributors to health and behavioural reactions of workers, possibly because they provide workers with a sense of social integration (e.g., Cohen & Wills, 1985). It is important that some researchers have examined social suppoa in correctional settings since it has been suggested that '...support of CO-workersand supervison may be one of the most important factors ameliorating stress in the working environment' (Karasek & TheoreIl, 1990; p. 135).

Momson and colleagues (1992) examined social support as one dimension ofjob design and levels of physicd and mental strain among Australian prison officers. A total of 274 officers completed a selEadministered questionnaire that collecteci indicators of social support. Although the researchers expected a positive influence of social support arnong officers, the data suggested that high levels of social support were associated with Iower IeveIs of well-being. One explmation offered for this finding is that even though the working environment offers the opportunity for support, it may not always be

accepted immediately. Social support may only be accepted once the effects of exposure to stress cannot be tolerated. Dollard and Winefield (1995) surveyed 419 officers to examine the role of social support in the relationship between work demand and psychoiogical distress. Support was assessed by the Work Environment Scale which includes two subscales: peer

cohesion, the extent to which employees are niendly and supportive of one another; and

supervisor support, the extent to which management is supportive and encourages employees to be supportive of each other. Results showed that higher ievels of social

35 support wexe related to lower levels of work stress. The authon noted this hding was inconsistentwith other reports of social support among comctional officers (e-g., Momson et al., 1992) but is consistent with findings fiom the rnajority of occupational mess smdies*

Demographic Factors Age. Studies that have exarnined the relationship between age and work stress have shown somewhat contradictory results. For example, Lasky, Gordon and SrebaIus (1986) found a significant positive relationship between officer age and reported levels of

stress - older officers expexîenced more stress than their younger counterparts. Conversely, Gerstein, Topp and Corn11 (1987) reported that age was unrelated to stress levels as measured by total exhaustion scores and number of bad day scores. Although some studies have found inconclusive rmlts on the relationship between age and stress, a number have s h o w that older officers appear to adapt to the comctional enviromnit and therefore report lower Ievels of stress compared to younger worken. In a snidy of 241 Alabama correctional officers, Lindquist and Whitehead

(1986)found that age was hversely related to levels of stress - older offices reported significmtly lower Ievels of job stress compared to younger officers. Similady, analyses conducted by Blau, Light and Chamlin (1986) reveaied that older correctional officers report less stress than younger ones. As welI, Whitehead and Lindquia (1986) found that older worken reported lower stress scores.

36 Gender. Cullen, Link, Woüe and Frank (1985) included gender in their examination of stressors among 155 correctiond officers. Results showed bat female officers reporteci significantly higher levels of work stress in cornparison to their male counterparts. In a multivariate prediction anaiysis conducted on the same set of data, Van Voorhis and colleagues (1991) confimeci &e impact of gender on stress showhg that

women were more likely to experience work stress. Only two studies were identified that focused specificdy on gender diffemces in occupational stress among correctional officers. Gross, Larson, Urban and Zupan (1994)

anaiysed the impact of gender using a stratified random sample of 1,Ml0 correctional officers drawn fiom 40 institutions and correctional camps. Relying on objective (eg.,

blood pressure) and subjective (e.g., questionnaire) measures of stress. results showed that female and mde officers experienced similar levels of stress. The authors argue that the findings shoufd not be surprising, especidly given the progressive working conditions in most prisons today. A second snidy examineci gender ciifferences in mediation of severe occupational

stress among correctional officers (Hurst & Hurst, 1997). A total of 244 ofncers (167

men and 77 women) were surveyed to assess coping processes used to deal with stnssnil events at work as welI as assess severe occupationai stress. Resuits revealed that, althoagh male and female officers cope with stress in different way, no ciifferaices were found in how they are affiected by occupational stress in ternis of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment.

37 Education. Researchers have pointedout that any relationship betwecn

educational attainment and reported levels of stress among correctional officen should be interpreted cautiously (e-g., Grossi et al., 1996; Van Voorhis et al.. 1991). The need for caution stems fiom findings that the more educated officer is more likely to experience job dissatisfaction (Cullen et aL, 1985), pefhaps as a result of a Iack of social integration

and of fnistrated career expectations and working conditions. Accordingly, it may be these factors that are moderating the experience of stress more so than educational

achievement. Interestingly, a number of studies have found no relationship between education and work stress. For instance, Blau, Light and Chamlin (1986) reported that correctional officers with little or much education did not differ in tenns of rated stress levels,

Similarly, Lasky. Gordon and Srebalus (1986) found that completed educational level was m l a t e d to reported levels of stress. As well, analyses conducted by Lindquist and

Whitehead (1986) showed that education did not significantly predict job stress. Conversely, some studies have shown a significant relationship between education and stress. A study conducted by Grossi and Berg (1990) showed that oficers with more education tend to be more satisfied and less stressed by their work. Significant findings in the opposite direction w m reporteci by Robinson and coileagues correctional officers who obtained post-secondary education were more stresseci than university graduates and officers who had completed hi& school or less (Robinson et al., 1997).

38

Correctional Experience. PhiIIïba (1987) has noted that age and expenence as m e a s u d by time on the job are ofien codounded in most of the existing research on

correctional officer stress. In the measurement of stress, this confound is critical as years on thejob can be viewed as indicative of the impact of organizational and work-relateci conditions whereas age cannot be considemi in the same manner. This may account for the contradictory findiags associated with yean of experience and reported Ievels of stress among correctional officen.

Lasky, Gordon and Srebalus (1986) found that years of continual employment in a correctional setting were significantly related to higher levels of stress. Moreover, regression analyses identified this factor as a significant contriiutor to the prediction equation. CuIlen and colleagues (1985) reported similar results where correctional experience was significantly related to work stress but not to job dissatisfaction or a

generd rneasure of life stress. Conversely, other research has shom no relationship between expcrience and job stress. For instance, Dignam, Barrera and West (1936) shtdied length of employment in

relation to job stress indices and found no sigrificant relationship. As well, Gerstein, Topp and Correll(1987) found that t h e in present job was unrelateci to two indicators of job stress: total exhaustion scores and number of bad day scores. Grossi,Keii and Vito (1996) reported that experience had a significant positive effect on role stress - the longer

an oficer had served, the more IikeIy the occurrence of role stress. However, no

relationship was reported between experience and the measure of work stress.

39 Only one study was identified that focused specincally on job expericnce and

perceived job stress among correctional officers (Pattenon, 1992). In this study, a crosssection of nearly 4,500 police, correctional, and probation and parole officers completed a 59-item self-admxstered questionnaire. A significant relationship between years of

expexience and stress was found for policenfficers but no consistent patterns were reported for comctionai or probation and parole officers. At best, a non-signifiant cunrilinear relationship was identified. The author interpreted the data to indicate that as

job experience increases beyond the middle y m of one's camr, so does the ability to tope with stress.

It was dso posited that officen experiencing the greatest stress left the

job early in their career, r d t i n g in a less stressed senior group of officen.

Attitudes toward Correctional Work

Correctional Orientation. The study of correctional orientation emanates fkom a shift in the role of the correctionai officer fiom one of mainly security to a more mhanced role supporting rehabilitative ideals (CulIen et ai., 1985). There is extensive

research showing that the correctional orientation of officers includes not only advocacy of punishment but aIso hedthy support of rehabilitation as the purpose of imprisonmmt (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982;Robinson et d., 1993). This attitudùial diversity raises the question of how officers' correctional orientation influences stress. Poole and Regoii (1980) fiund that stress increased as orientation toward custody increased among officers working in a maximum security setting. The authors suggesvd that as stress increases, officers attempt to reduce stress by embracing a custodial

40

orientatiox~SimiIar d t s were reporteclby Rutta and Fielding (1988) where indicators of a more custodial orientation (e-g., resentment of inmates' advantages, lenient inmate adjudications underminhg morale, etc.) were significantly reiated to higher levels of o v e d stress. As well, Robinson, Porporino and Simourd (1996) reported that correctionai officers were more custody oriente& l e s likely to endorse rehabilitation, and more stressed than other occupationai groups.

- Conversely, other studies have show no relationship between correctional orientation and work stress. Analyses conducted by Cullen, Link, Wolfe and Frank (1985) showed that orientation was unrelateci to work stress but significantly related to job dissatisfaction - officers who were more punitive in theU views wcre more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs. Similarly, Whitehead, Linquist and Klofas (1987) studied

correctional officer professional orientation using the Klofas-Toch measure which inchdes four factors - counseling roles, concem with corruption of authority, socid distance, and punitive orientation. High fatings on the counseling roles and social distance facors suggest support for rehabilitative ide& while high ratings on concems with corruption of authority and punitive orientation indicate a more custodiai

orientation. None of the four factors showed a signincant relationship with mesures of job stress. Poole and Pogrebin (1988) explored the correctiond orientations and stress experiences of deputy sheriffs during their career as jail guards. The researchers

examined not only restraint- or reform-oriented perceptions but ako rehabiiitative- or reintegrative-orientationsas welI. The percentage committed to a more custodiai

41

orientation is greater during the later career phases, while the proportion supporting a rehabilitation orientation is greater during the earIier career phases. In relation to stress, higher Ievels were evidenced for security-orienteci officers dwing their middte career phase while those orienteci toward rehabilitation showed higher 1eveIs of stress during the later phases of their careers. More focused studies of correctional orientation and job stress have shown more positive results. SayIor and Wright (1992) included a dimension of personal efficacy in their survey of over 3,330 prison staK The central tenet of the dimension, ease which individuals expenmce in working with inmates, was found to be inverseiy correlated with job-related stress. Lastly, Lanviere and Robinson (1996) showed that empathie

correctional officen repoaed lower levels of job stress as did those who had high support for rehabilitation. Consistent with earlier findings, it was aîso shown that correctional officen high in punitiveness reported grester Ievels of job stress. Job Satisfaction. Intuitively, it is expected that officer's who were satisfid with their jobs would experience Iess stressors while at work. EmpiricaI evidence has shown to support this position. For instance, Blau, Light and Chamlin (1986) found that levels of stress had a relatively strong negative influence on reportedjob satisfaction Similady, analyses conducted by Whitehead and Lindquist (1986) showed that lack ofjob satisfacton was significantiyconelated with greater work stress. SayIor and Wright (1992) found that higher ratings of job satisfaction were significantly, inversely

correlated with job-related stress. Lastly, Robinson and colleagues (1996) found that

42

hnt-line correctional officers were the least satisfiedwith their job and also reported the highest levels of stress.

Summary of Research Literature on Correctionai Officer Stress The most important finding of this review of research Iiterature is that correctional

officers report considerable stress on the job. A number of studies have demonstrated that stress is pervasive and emanates h m organizational, work, and personal factors that

have been s h o w to be significantly cornlateci with correctional officer stress. Despite

this progress in the literature, there remain a number of shortcomings. One of the issues concerns the relatively small sample sizes of correctional officers that studies have used to guide our understandingof workplace stress. Although not al1 studies can be expected to yield sizable sarnples for analyses, it is nevertheless

un fortunate that most research has been conducted on sarnples of 100 to 200 O fficers. For instance, in Cullen's and coI1eagues (1985) often cited study, a rnultivariate regression andysis was conducted using twelve independent variables and three dependent variabtes

on a sample totaIing oniy 155 correctionai ofncers. Given that in the United States alone

then are over 280,000 correctional officen (AC& 1997) working custodid and security functions in state prisons, jail and detention facifities, and federal institutions, there is a clear need to increase samplùig targets to achieve generdizability of d t s and extend the level of analyses. A second observation, perhaps d t i n g h m the use of smali sample sizes, is that

a number of studies examine independent variables that oRen pmduce nuIl hdings. For

43

example, in Rutter and Fielding's (1988) study, only one of a five-ftor solution was significautly related to overdl stress levels. SimilarIy, Grossi,Keil, and Vito (1996) examined five exogmous variables in a path modei and found that only two had a

significant effect on work stress. The sample size of correctionai officers for each of these studies was 81 and 106 respectiveiy.- Given that both studies included independent variables that did not significantly contribute to reports of stress levels but had been

shown in other studies to be sipificantly related to stress (e-g., relationship with supervisors, communication, experience, etc.), it is expected that additional significant

hdings would have been detected if the sample sizes were larger. Another area of concern is the ümited range of independent variables used to examine the causes or correlates of correctiond officer stress in individual studies. The majority of studies to date have focused on a particular area (e-g., management, inmates, etc.) and have only used measures designed to tap into these constmcts. ûther than controllhg for basic demographic variables such as age or gender, few studies have been

broad mough to examine, or at ieast control for, additional factors that may enhance or indeed efiminate observed reIationships. Relying on a narrow focus rnay mit in nndmgs that either support or discount a relationship when in fact the hdings rnay

actually be a result of unmeasured variables that w a e comlated with the independent variables under study. A fourth issue observed is the lack of studia that attempted to examine

interaction effects or conducted hierarchal analyses of independent variables on correctional offcer stress. Likely due to limitations imposed by smaller sample &es, it

44 was nevertheless dortunate to fhd few studies tbat had moved beyond main effects to

examine the comsponding relationship between independent variables and their impact on work stress. As noted by Brimer (1997). thae more detailed analyses are necessary to m e r understand the fiictos, either on their own or in combination, that contribute to

experiences of stress. Workplace impacts on stress are undoubtedly complex and will be best understood when mearchers use more complex analytic methods to untangie the factbrs. A h a l observation concems the presence of inconsistent findings. As the

research literature enpanded, a number of studies employed similar Mependent variables

that often produced contradictory raults, For example, management support is a cornrnon construct used in the study of correctional officer stnss. However, most studies do not rely on standardized methods for defining or measuring management support. In

this review of literahue, three studits demonstrated that management support was significantly related to stress while three other studies reported non-significant results. Similar inconsistencieswere also found with the demographic and attitudinal variables. Accordingly, such findings illustrate that similar constructs should be used across studies of correctionai officers, augmented only by new or additional factors that have been

empirically demonstrated as broadening the understanding of correctional officer stress.

Present Study

Although a number of the obsewations outIined above cm be considered limitations, it is important to recognize that the accumulation of resuIts have contrïbuted

45

significantly toward understanding the cornlates of comctÏonal officer stress. Equaily important, the findings have identified specific avenues of research to p m e . The present study will build on the existing research literatwe by expanding the range of variables that are used to predict work stress among correctional officers. As described earlier, most studies to date have examined a limited number of independent variables. In addition to demographic and work environment variables, this study will include an array of extemal organizational factors, intenial organizational factors, and attitudinal variables. In total, 26 independent variables that have been identified in the

research literature as possible predictors of correctional Oficer stress wiil be included in

this study.

The c m t study will also not be limited by sample sue as the m e y data is based on a representative sample of close to 1,400 correctional officers employed across 46 worksites including minimum, medium, and maximum security institutions.

Accordingly, the large sample will ailow for multivariate analyses and more detailed analyses nich as testing for interaction effects among independent variables. The number of institutions cIassified at dinerent security levels will overcome the limitations often noted in studies that have used correctional ofncer samples h m oniy one or a few institutional sites. As the literature review identified, the experience of stress can vary depending on the work environment. For this study,the analyses can tap

into the diverse working enviroments to examine stress IeveIs. Another contribution of the present study is the addition of career orientation variables in the study of workplace stress among correctional officers. Although a

46

numba of studies have reported signifiant comlations with more obvious or intuitive indicators of stress (e.g., dangerousness, h a t e interactions, etc.). more ment research using a broader set of independent variables has suggested career based indicators may m e r the understanding of work stress. For instance, using stepwise regression

analyses, in an earlier Canadian sarnple similar to the current study, Tellier and Robinson (1995) found that perceptions of personal security accounted for the largest arnount of

variance (19%) in predicting job stress. However, career progression as rated by the level of satisfaction with the information available to manage their careers, accounted for an additional 7% of unique variance. In view of these r d & , the current study includes the career progression measure dong with four additional measures to examine the impact of career-related indices on job stress (e.g., performance appmisd, support for personal development on the iob, s

a

1 and

employment security). A final area that has remained largely unexplored is the influence of perceived

dangerousness as a strcssor for correctional officers. Although a number of studies have

shown that danger, or the perception of, is a significant predictor of reported stnss levelq IittIe is known about the factors that may or rnay not be related to dangerousness. This relationship will be explored in the present shidy by examinhg the influence of the independent variables within different security level classincations.

The rationale for these analyses is based on hdings that explain higher security institutions house more dangerous and violent offenders, thereby increasing the perceptions of dangemusness among correctional officers compared to less secure

47

institutions (see Cullen et al., 1985; Lasky et al., 1986). Empiricai evidence supports

these perceptions as shown in a survey of federaI inmates housed in Correctional Senrice of Canada institutions (Robinson & Mirabelli, 1996). Results showed that inmate respondents in maximum security institutions reported the highest percentage of inmateto-inmate assadts (27%), cornpared to 20% of those in mediums and oniy 10% housed in minimums. Further, only about 7% of b a t e s in minimums believed that staffwere likely to be assaulted in their institutiok compared to 13% in mediums and 19% in maximum security settings. Studies in Amencan prison settings have shown that a greaier number of assaults on staflFoccurred in maximum security institutions compared to lower security Ievels (Light, 1991; McCorkle et al., 1995). Since it is likely that

perceived dangerousness will Vary by security level, the proposed analyses may reveai

different sets of factors that contribute to the prediction of correctional oficer stress across security levels.

Hypotbeses It is hypothesized that many of the relatiooships with work stress already

established in the research literaîure will be identified in the present study. Namely, it is expected that the mcasures of intemal organizational factors, work environment, and

attitudes toward correctional work will be significantly correlated with the job stress

measure. Due to the inconsistent fmdings on the extemai organizational factors as we11 as the demographic factors, no hypotheses can be offered for these independent variables.

48

From the overd1 regres'on

analyses, it is hypoth&zed that ~~es of

dangemusness will account for the highest percentage of variance. It is also expected that the career-based measures will add unique variance in the prediction of job stress.

Although the masure of career progression is hypothesized to account for additional

variance, no h y p h e s can be proposed on the other career measures due to the absence of research in this area. For the separate regression analyses, it is hypothesized that the set of predicton for job stress will be different for each level of institutionai securie. This hypothesis is based on earlier research which has shown that perceptions of dangeroumess increase, and are significantly related to stress, in maximum security institutions compared to those of lower security levels. Accordingly, it is expected that dangerousnesswill account for the largest percentage of job stress variance in maximum security institutions. In

minimum security sites, it is hypothesized that dangerousness will have less infiuence,

aithough the identification of independent variables that will supercede dangerousness cannot be offaed as a rtsult of the limited avaiIab1e research. FinaIIy, it is hypothesized that dangerousness will iduence work stress in medium security institutions. However, no hypotheses can be provided on whether it will account for the most variance, since

Iittie is known about these institutions that represent the "midway point" between minimum and maximum security sites.

In 1996, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) conducted a suwey on a

representative sample of its empioyees (Robinson et al., 1997). The m e y was a followup to an earlier one conducted in 1994 on al1 CSC employees (Robinson & Stevenson, 1995). The intent of both surveys was to collect information on a wide range of issues

affécting both staff and the organization as a whole.

Questionnaire Design A self-admuiistered questionnairewas designed by a working group consisting of

subject area experts h m CSC's national headquarters, a national survey team h m CSC's research branch, and representatives h m the two major unions representing CSC

employees, the Union of Solicitor Generd Employees (USGE) and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC). At the final stages of drafting the questionnaire, the working group was joined by representatives ftom each region who coordinated regional input on the questionnaire.

The majority of questions employed in 1994were lepeated in 1996. The questionnaire contained a total of 18 sections and included 43 composite scalek. It was designed to be completed in about 30 minutes.

Procedure Pnor to questionnaire administration, worksite coordinaton posted flyen

explaining the upcoming dates and tirnes the survey would be taking place. The flyen

50 aïs0 explainexi that questionnaire completion was voluntary, the sweys wodd be

completely confidential and anonymous, and that only Coopers and Lybrand, the firm contracted by CSC to conduct the sunrey, would see the individual questiomaires. It was hoped the notices would serve to motivate staffto participate in the survey if they were identified as respondents.

On the day of distribution at each worksite, survey coordinators made questionnaires available to each staff member who had been randornly selected. Al1 worksite managers were instructed to give staff the necessary time required to complete the questio~aireduring working hours.

Most sites chose to administer the questionnaire in gmups that were scheduled in advance. Afier complethg the survey, respondents seaied their questionnaires in envelopes marked confidentid that were provided by the consulting h.Participants had the option of returning the questionnaire to the site coordinator to be maiIed in

batches, or mail the questionnaire directiy to Coopers and Lybrand in the self-addressed

stamped envelopes.

Sample Selection

The random selection procedure was administered entirely by Coopers and Lybrand Consulting. Respondents were randody selected fiom a Iist of employees provided by CSC. The sarnple was designed so that a minimum number of respondents would be selected to optimize confidence placed in the results for each worksite. The occupationd groups within each worksite were ako considered to ensure

51

rcpresentativenessat the site leveL The sample size for eacb worksite was dculated to provide a minimum confidence interval of plus/minus 5 percentage points, 95 times out

of 100 (i.e., 95% confidence interval). The sample design led to lower sampling proportions by occupational groups for the Iarger worksites and oversampling of smaller worksites in order to increase the statisticd confidence in the survey results.

Measures

Independent Variables Consistent with the review of literature, specific measwes were selected according to the five major categones: external orgmhational factors, internai organizational factors, work environment, demographic factors, and attitudes toward correctionai work. Participants rated the items in each measure according to a sevenpoint likert scale ranging fiom strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Extemal Orpranizational Factors Public Image of CSC. This meastue is comprised of thee items and examines how CSC is viewed by the general public (i.e., positive or negative).

Greater Accountability to the Public. This scale consists of five items and taps into the level and quality of accountabiiity that CSC provides to the public.

Intemal Oreanizational Factors

52

Empbyment Cornpetition Process. This scale contaias four items that examine satisfaction with the employment cornpetition process. Items inchde questions on available information, assesment, and the selection process.

Or~anizationalCommunication. This four item scaie assesses employee satisfaction with intemal communication psocedures. StaffEmpowement. The staffempowennent scde is adapted nom items used by

the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBP) Social Climate Survey. This four item scale investigates the employee's sense of empowerment based on their view of themselves as change agents in the organization. They were M e r asked to =port if they were given sufficient authority to accomplish their woik objectives. Quality of Supe~sion.This scale was aiso adapted h

m items used in the FBP

Social Clirnate Survey. This six item scale meaSuTes satisfaction with the quaiity of supervision provided by s u p e ~ s o a .

Fair Treatment of Employees. This scale consists of three items and examines how fairly CSC treats employees regarding opportunities and discipline. Satisfaction with Physical Environment. In this four item scale, respondents were asked if the workplace environment was satisfactory with respect to: air qudity, heating, lighting, and ergonomie factors. Performance Appraisd. This three item scaie addresses the issue of the faimess of pedormance standards and whether the respondent felt that hidher performance

appraisal was a true depiction of performance. They were further asked to assess if enough feedback on their performance was provided to assist their career management.

53 Career Management The thrae items of the career management scale measures respondent satisfaction with the available information to manage their careers. Specificdly, they were asked to m e s s whether their professional development plan satisfied their developmental and training needs, and whether their supervisor played an active role in theu carrer planning. Support for Persond Development on the Job. This two item scale examines staff development within CSC and the extent it is promoted by management It dso asks if

CSC provides a work environment that facilitates Iearning. Satisfaction with Employment Cornpetition Process- This mesure consists of four items and taps into the extent that employas are satisfîed with the competition process for job opportunities. Participants respond to items that examine supervisor input into the selection process, the assessrnent process used in the cornpetitive process, and the tools used for competition. Employment Secwity. The three items included in this scde measure the extent that respondents feel secure in their positions with CSC. Items assess fears about

employment secety and the level of effort CSC is providing to maintain employment security of al1 staft

Work Environment

Perception of Penonal S e c U n t ~In ~ this fourquestion scale, respondents are

asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the measures, policies and procedures put in

54

pIace by CSC to muiimize the risk ofbeing injured by offenders and if the threat that

offenders posed to their personal d e t y was a source of stress. Understanding of Work Procedues. This five item scale measmes respondents

understandhg and knowledge of their post ordem. It M e r asks if they feel they are properly train& and whether adequate infmation is available in the appiication of the post orders. Security Level.

This one item repments the security level of the institution in

which the respondent is working - minimum,medium,or maximum. Shiftwork. The shiftwork scale consists of three items that ask respondents to rate the impact that shiftwork has on relations with family, niends, and other non-working activities. The response categones are based on a four point scde h m very negatively to positively.

Dem~~graphic Factors Single items were included in the questionnaire to solicit information about age, gender, education, and years ofexperience.

Amtudes toward Correctional Work

Cornmitment to CSC. This scale is adapted h m Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian's (1974) fifteen item Organizationd Commitment Questionnaire. Five items were selected h

m the questionnaire to assess CSC employees loydty to the

55

organization, level of pride in working for CSC, and the degree to which they s h d sirniIar values with those of the organization.

Support for CSC Obiectives. This is a two item scale which asked respondents to indicate their Ievel of support for the CSC Mission document and the corporate objectives. Rehabilitation. This scaIe consists of three items h m the nine item Rehabilitation scale developed by Cullen, Lutze, Link and Wolfe (1989) to mesure the d e p of endonement of rehabilitation in CSC. Empathy towad Offenders. This seven item scale was adapted Born the

Whitehead and Lindquist (1989) Concem with Corrwtion of Authority scale, which was

denved h m Klofas and Toch's (1982) items. This m e m e evaluates staffperceptions of their counseling roies, authonty and social distance vis-a-vis the offenders. huiitiveness. The four items in this scale are based on the hinitive Orientation scale that was dso used by Whitehead and Lindquist (1989) in reference to the work of

Klofas and Toch's (1982) items. This scale examines the endorsement of punitiveness of prison conditions, vernis whether offenders should be viewed as victims of society.

Dependent Variable

Job Stress. The job stress meanne was adapted h m the Cullen, Link, Wolfe and

Frank (1985) Work Stress scale. It consists of seven items that examine various indicators of stress while at work (e-g., "'When I'm at work, 1 often feei tense and uptight")). Consistent with the majority of independent variables, participants responded

56

to items on this m a u r e according to a seven-point likert s d e rangïng h m stn,ngiy

disagree to strongly agree. Table I present the cronbach alphas of some of the dependent and independent

variables obtained in other studies of correctional officers. Results show high levels of intemal consistency across studies for thejob stress measure as well as for empathy and punitiveness. Based on two previous snidies of earlier surveys of CSC correctional *officefi,the alphas repocted by Tellier and Robinson (1995) and Robinson, Porporino* and Simourd (1997) display acceptable levels of intemal consistency.

The relatively high alphas across various studies reported forjob stress suggests that the scde means roughly the same to ciifferent groups of correctional officers in

different settings and countries. This lends added confidence that the job stress scale is

reiiable. Regarding vaiidity, Cullen and colleagues (1985) indicated that their work stress measure correlated -456 with job dissatisfaction and .628 with a measure of Iife stress.

Accordingly, these results provide evidence of validity for the job stress scale.

Tabie I Cronbach alphas h m other studies for dependent and independent scales -

-

Study

Scales

Klofas &

Toch, -

Extemal Organizational Factors Greatcr Accountability to the Public Public h g e Interna1 Organizational Factors Employment Cornpetition Ptoccss Organizational Communication Staff Empowennent Quaiity of Supervision Staff Recognition Fair Trcatment of Employccs Performance Appraisal Gare# Management Poticy Orientation Support for Personal Development on the lob Safisfiction with Physid Environment Employment Security

Work Environment Perceptions of Persona1 Security Undcrsîanding of Work Procedures Impact of Shiftwork Attitudes toward Correctional Work Commitmcnt to CSC Support for CSC Objectives Rebabilitation Empathy toward Offenders Punitivencss

(1982).

Culleu et aL, (1 989)-

Telfier & Robinson,

Robinson et al.,

(1995).

(1997).

ResnIts Participants

The present study is based on archival data that was collecteci through a 1996 survey of Correctional SeMce of Cauada staff. In total, 7,157 staffwere randomIy

seiected to participate in the staff survey, and 4,961 of this number completed a questionnaire. This represents a fesponse fate of 69%. Of these numbers, 2,8 15 conectional officers were randomly selected and 1,358 cornpleted questionnaires were received b m this occupational group. Accordingly, the response rate for comctional officers was 49%. The response rate is slightly higher than that reported for other large, national surveys of correctional officers. For instance, Saylor and Wright reported a response rate of 41% for conectional officers employed in 46 institutions across the F e d d Bureau of Prisons (Saylor & Wright,1992). In another large study that sampled correctionaï ofncers h m six aduit and four juvenile institutions, the response rate was 46.9% (Hepburn & Knepper, 1993). The response rate for the present study is, thenfore, quite satisfactory.

Table 2 shows that the average age of comctionai officen at the tirne of the s w e y was 40.18 years (SD=8.92). The percentage of fades in the sample was 20.9%.

Slightiy more that 6% (6.10%) of comtional officers had some high school or les, 33.10% were high school graduates, 14.80% had some coIlege, 19.80% had a college

diplorna, 10.90% had some University, 14.50% were univers@ graduates, and the ternainhg 0.90% had a post graduate degree.

The average length of tirne conectional officen had been working for CSC was 12.54 years =7.65). years -.53).

The Iength of time working at their present institution was 8.47

Table 2 Descriptive information - aii correctional officen Descriptor

Gender Mde FemaIe Education Less than high school Some high school High school graduate Some coilege Coilege graduate Some University University graduate Post graduate degree Years working for CSC

Yean working at present institution Security Level (of present institution)

Minimum Medium Maximum

n

Mean / %

SD

The mallest percentage of correctional officers (1130%) wwas ernployed in minimum security institutions, 52.80% in medium sec-

institutions, and 35.90% of the

comctionai officers worked in maximum sectirity institutions.

Scde Psychome~cs

Table 3 shows the intemal consistency of the dependent and each independent scaie as measured by Cronbach's Alpha. The dependent variable, job stress, had an alpha of 0.86 suggesting a high degree of intemal consistency. The majonty of independent

variables had alpha levels above 0.70 while only two scdes were below 0.66. Both extemai organizationd scales had noticeably lower alpha levels of 0.49 and 0.34,

indicating that some caution should be exercised in interpreting the results of these variables. Means for each scde are presented in Table 4. The rnean of 4.1 1 for the iob stress scale indicates that the majonty of correctional officers responded in the neutral range for items that considered various forms of stress while at work. in other words, about the same number of respondmts rated the items in the 'disagree' range as those who did in the 'agree' range. Such results are important for the proposed analyses since the variance

is more evenly distniuted across the scale.

The highest means for the independent scales were reported for policy orientation, pimitiveness, and pater accountability to the public. These response patterns show that correctional office& felt that a high level of importance was placed on policy, rules and regdations by management, heid a punitive view toward inmates, and thought that CSC should be more accountable to the public. With the exception of the impact of shiftwork masure, which is based on a four-item response scale, the lowest means were f o n d for

Tabte 3 Cronbach alphas for dependent and independmt scales

-n Job Stress Extemal Otganizaîional Factors Greater Accountability to the hiblic Public Image Intemal Organizational Factors Employment Cornpetition Process Organizational Communication Staff Empowement QuaIiîy of Supenrision Staff Recognition Fair Treatment of Employees Performance Appraisal Career Management Policy Orientation Support for P m o n d Developrnent on the Job Satisfaction with Physical Environment Employment Security

Work Environment Perceptions of Personal Security Understanding of Work Procedures Impact of S h i h o r k Attitudes toward Correctional Work

Cornmitment to CSC Support for CSC Objectives Rehabilitation Empathy toward Offenders Punitiveness

no- of items

alpha

Table 4 Means and standard deviations of dependent and independent scales

Job Stress Extemai Organizational Factors Greater Accountability to the Public Public Image Internai Organizational Factors Employment Cornpetition Rocess Organizational Communication Staff Empowerment Quaiity of Supervision Staff Recognition Fair Treatment o f Employees Performance Appraisai Career Managemmt Policy Orientation Suppoa for Personal Development on the Job Satisfaction with Physicai Environment Employment Security

Work Environment Perceptions of Personai Security Understanding of Work Procedures impact o f Shibork Attitudes toward Correctional Work Cornmitment to CSC Support for CSC Objectives Rehabilitation Empathy toward Offenders Punitiveness

the employmait cornpetition process, perceptions of personal sec-,

and stafY

empowerment scales. Lower meam indicate Iess satisfaction with these dimensions.

Critenon Validity of the Dependent Variable

In order to examine how Iikely the job stnss scale was tapping into indices of stress, comlational analyses were wnductd with ratings of job satisfaction as well as a

number of iifestyle and heaIth indicators. Table 5 shows the results. Correctional officers who npurted high levels ofjob stress rated satisfaction with theirjob as low.

This is consistent with other research that has shown a strong nlationship berneen high levels of workplace strtss and job dissatisfaction (e-g., Robinson et al., 1996; Saylor &

Wright, 1992).

The lifestyIe and heaith indicators were included as +on

variabies since

research has shown that difficulties in these areas are consistent with higher ratings of

stress (Kiely & Hodgson, 1990). Due to the number of lifestyle and heaith variables, a Bonferroni conection was applied, nducing the signifieance level to .006. Results

showed relativeiy weak correlations with rate of painkiller and antacid use, suggesting more fiequent use is associated with greater experiences of stress. Although the findîngs suggest that these non-job factors are not closely related to on-the-job stress, the strong

relationship with job dissatisfaction nevertheless indicates that the iob stress sale

exhibits satisfactory criterion-reIated validity.

Fun Sample Analyses Table 6 displays the Pearson product moment correlation matrix that was used for the regression analysis conducted on the full sample of correctional officers. The

correlations provide important information about the relationships between the dependent and predictot variables. When using multiple regression, an ideal predictive situation is

typically one in which each predictor variable displays a relatively strong correlation with the critenon, while the predictor variables display relatively weak correlations among

themselves. However, as Pedhauzer (1982) points-out, this is only one of many methods for getting a sense of the "igger picture" since some of the indcpendent variables that show Little or no relationship with the dependent variable may stilI play a significant role

in the multiple regression mode1 (e.g., suppressor variables). Results show that the dependent variable job stress was comlated with al1 but

three of the 27 independent variables. Gender, age, and the public image scale were not found to be significantlyrelated to job stress. Only modest correlations were shown for education, years employed and the secUnty level variables. Similar results were found for the empathy toward offenders, understanding of work procedures, and rehabilitation scdes.

lob stress was most negatively correlated with the variables of peaond security

and staffempowerment. Correctional workers with higher levels of stress were genetally preoccupied with personal security and dissatisfied with how 'empowered' they felt to sufficiently accompli& theù work objectives.

Tabie 5 Criterion validity ofjob stress scaie Criterion

Job satisfactiond e

Frequency ofeating breakfast Frequency of exercise

Use tobacco products Drink alcohol Thes 5+ drinks on one occasion in last three months

Days during average week have at least one dnnk Frequency ofpaiddlers (e.g., tylenol, aspirin) Frequency of antacids (e.g., tumq rolaids, Maalox)

-n

Correlation with job stress scale

Sig.

The correlation matrix indicated that there was some overlap in the composite scales.

This was particuIarly the case for the scdes measuring internai orgaaizational

factors such as satisfaction with the empluyment cornpetition pmcess, organizational communication, stafbmpowennent, and quaIity of supervision. These variables were dso found to be comlated with d e s meamhg work environment and attitudinal factors such as cornmitment and working *th offinden. Perception of personal secunty was dso fond to be highly comlated with a number of the other independent scales. Specifically, organizational communication and staffempowerment were both found to correlate above 0.40 with perceptions of personal security. These hdings suggest that the amount and quaiity of communication as well as the ievel of empowerment possessed by correctional officas influenced perceived

dangerousness while at work. htercomlations of this sort sometimes result in nonsignificant regression coefficients for at least some predictor variables when the data are analysed with multiple regression (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994). To examine the hypothesis that dangerousness would account for the majonty of variance and that career-based measures would add unique variance in the prediction of job stress, a stepwise regression andysis was performed on the entire sample of correctional officen. Table 7 shows the significant beta weights dong with the squared p h a i comlations'. The r e m o n model accounted for 35.87% of the variance and

included nhe of the independent variables. The relative magnitude of the beta weights indicated that perception of persona1 security was the most innuentiai variable in the

Listwise deletion of misshg cases resulted in a sample of 851 correctional offices for inclusion in the regession modeL Analyses of the descriptivevariables in Tabte 2 showed no significant differences between this group and the group exciudcd h m the regression model-

Tabte 7 Sources ofjob stress - N I sample Predictor Variables

Beta Weight

1. Perceptions of Personal Security

2. StaffEmpowennent 3. Impact of Shiftwork 4. Employrnent Security

5. Understanding of Work

Procedures 6.Career Management 7.Gender 8. Yean Working for CSC 9. Seeurity Level

* p < .05, ** p c -01, *** p < .001, **** p < .O001 n = 85 1 with listwise deletion of missing cases

Sig.

Squared

PdaI

Cumulative RSquared

modei accounting for 23.93% of the variance foilowed by staff empowment which accounted for 5.07% of the variance. These two factors thus ucplained about 29% of the variance. Impact of shiftwork (2.23%), employment sccunty (1.45%), and understanding of work procedures (1.13%) accounted for minimal yet significant variance followed by amet management (0.63%), gender (0.63%), years empioyed (0.43%)).and security level

(0.38%).

To examine the influence of other correlates of job stress and the practical implications that may arise, exploratory cegression analyses were conducted by removing the predictor variable that accounted for the greatest amount of variance: perceptions of personai security. Table 8 shows the results. Staffempowennent accounted for 17.95% of the variance in job stress followed by empioyment security (3.79%), impact of

shibork (2.56%) and satisfaction with performance appraisals (1.93%)).A nurnber of other significant predictor variables were identifia however, their contribution to the modei was negligible. To extend the exploratory analyses, a final regession analyses was conducted with the removal of both the perceptions of personal security variable and the staff empowerment variable. The results are shown in Table 9. Uniike earlier results, career management accounted for the greatest variance (12.10%) while employment security (5.71%), impact of shiftwork (2.12%), performance appraisal(l.î6%), and pimitiveness (1-02%) al1 accounted for variance at or above the 1.0% level.

Table 8

Sowces ofjob stress - full sample Perceptions of personality sec* removed

Predictor Variables

Beta Wei&

1. Staff Ernpowement

2. Employment Security 3. Impact of Shifhvork 4. Performance Appraisal 5. Greater Accountability to the miblic 6. SecUnty Level 7. Understanding of Work Procedures 8. Gender 9.Staff Recognition 10. Years Working for CSC

* p c -05,** p c.01, *** p 2

Generally, how would you rate ywr understsndingof oie foliowing poiicies. i l e s and mgdations =dhstapply do ywrcky fo clhy/ob'r Regional Instrudions How mwld you rate your knowledge o f the speciflc detsils of the o folwnig polides, niles and regulations that apply to yourjob? Regional Instructions

How would you rate the adequacy of your tainhg for the followîngpolicies, rules and regulaüons that apply to your job? Regional Instnidions When your need information regardingthe following polides. rules and regulations that appfy to your job(e-g. details. interpreations. applications). how accessible is that information? Regional Instnidons

When required. how often do you apply the following pdiaes. rules and

regulatlons in order to cany out the duües of your job? Regional Instwcüons Standing Orders (SORDERS) 8-id

8.2d 8.3d 8.4d

8.5d (Sum of lfetns)/5 % Fevorable = >2 1.

d)

2 d)

Generaliy, how would you rate your understandhg of the following policies, rules and regulations 'tliat apply to your day to dayjob"? Standing Orders How would you rate your knowlecfge of the specific defsns of the following policies. niles and regulations that apply to your job? Standing Orders

Howwwîd you rate ttieadequacyofyourftainingfwthe fOUowurg p o k b , niles and iagulationsthat appIy to your job? Standing Orders

When your need infomtion regarding the followÏngpolicies. mks and regulations that appiy b your job(e.g. detaiis. intetpretations. applications). how accessible is thaï information? Standing Orders When requifed. how often do you apply the following poîïides, mies and

regulations in order b cany out the duties of your job? Standing Orders

Post Orders (PORDERS) 8.te 8.26

8.3e 8.4e 8.S (Sum of ltemJ)/5 % Favorable = >2

Generally, how would you rate your undentandhg of the fdlowing polides. rules and regulations 'that apply to your day to dayjob"? Post Orders

How would you rate your knowledge of the specMc defaifs of aie followingpolicies. rules and raguiations that apply to your]ob? Post Orders

How would you rate the adequacy of your baining for the following poflaes. niles and regulations that apply to your job? Post Orders When your need information regarding the following policies, niles and regulations that apply to your job(e.g. details. interpratations, applications), how accessible is that information? Post Orders

When required. how often do you apply the follmvhg poliaes, rules and ragulations in order to cany out the duties of your job? Post Orders

CSC Poîky OrïenWon (POUCY)

Failure to fdlow po8des. rules and r e g u b may ~ have negaWe amequences for the organization, 7. Failure to fdow p o l i . niles and regulations may have negative mnsequences for me as an ernpioyeeMy finmediate supeMsor places importanceon staff knowiedge and cornplince 8. with poliaes. rules and regulations. 9. The management at this worksite phces importanceon staff kndedge and cornpliance with policies, rules and regulations. 10. Senior Managers in CSC place importance on staff knawledge and complianœ with policies, niles and regulations.

6.

Openness to Personal Devalopment on the Job (OPEN) 11.4 11.5 1i-6 I I -7

(Sum of ltems)/4 % Favorable = ~4 4. 5.

6. 7.

1 feel I ne& new ideas to help me becorne more effective at my job. Staff developmadwWn CSC is promted by managamant 1 feel mat CSC provides a work envimiment that fadlitates my leaming as an employee. 1 am inierested in developing addiional skills which wouhl make me a more effective employee.

11-41 11.12 11.14 11.15 (Sum o f items)/# % Favoable = 4

*

11. SupeMson provide sutficient input in the seledion process for compeüüons. 12. i'here k adaquate informationat the end of the selaclion proce~sto understand how merit was deteminecl, 14. 1 believethat the assessment process used in the cornpetitive pmcess fairiy determines the qualiifications of candidates. 15. The sssessment taols used in the s8Iecüon process for cornpetitions appmpriately assess candidates against the standards of positions.

CSC Accountability to the Public (ACCOUNT)

-

1210 reversed 12.1 1 reversed 1212 11213 revetsed 1 217 reversed (Sum of ltems)/5 % Favorable = + 4

-

10. 1.

12. 13. If.

The public should demand greater accountabiiïtyfrom CSC regarding issues of the safe reintegration of offenders. CSC shauld consult more with the public on issues that conœm the management of offenders. CSC responds adeqwtely to the findings of the Correctional Investigator. CSC should be more pro-active in educating the public about conecüons. CSC can grealiy i m p m its effecüveness in pmtecüngthe public.

Public lmage of CSC (IMAGE) 129 -reversed t 2 1 4 reversed 12.20 reversed (Sum of ttems)B % Poor Public lmage = 4

*

1 believe that CSC is treated unfairiy in the media. 9. 14. Federal corrections will never be vie& in a positive way by the public 20. The public has unrealistic expectations about our abilii to change the behaviour of offenders.

Succers afthe Offander Dmg S

m (DRUGS)

14-1 14.2 -reverseci t 4.3 14.4 -reversed 14-5 14.6 14.9 (Sum of1tems)n % FavoraMe = 4 Note: Uafional and Regional Headtquarten *.rie excluded from the s d n g of Uiis scPkr

*

1.

2 3. 4. 5.

6.

9.

Urinafys'i has resulted in a deaease in dmg use in institubjons. Onenden have faund ways of sabotagirtg our a b r i to detect illegal dnig use through urinalysis. Substance Abuse Treatment Programs have helped deaease the use of dnigs in idtuüons. Inmates have resisted Our efforts to mount a successful dnig sttategy. The dmg strategy has tesulted in CSC having more contrd wer the problem of dmgs coming into iCIStitutiConsthmugh v i s b . The implernentation of the Dnig Strategy, induding the use of urinalysis and other technologies has reduced the level of job stress Iexperienœ. The implernentation of the Dmg Strategy, induding the use of urinalysis and other technologies has inaaased my abiIotyto assess offender risWneeds.

Use of Volunteers (VOLENTER) 15.1 IS.2 15.3 15.4 -reversecl 15.5 mversed 15.6 ieversed 15.9 15-10 -reversed [Sum of Hems)/8 % Favorable = > 4 Note: National and Regional Fieadquarters staff are excluded from the scoring of üzls scale, Volunteers help Uistituüons mn more smoothly. Volunteers help parole offices fun more smoothly. 3. The use of volunteers is essential to maaitaining offender links to the community. The use of volunteers threatens my job security. 4. Volunteen only get in the way of ninning this operational unit successfully. 5. Volunken pose a major threat to the sewrity of operational un&. 6. 9. Volunteers help the general public to h o w more about Corndional SeMe Canada. . 10. Volunteers only create more work for me. 1.

2

QuaMy of Relationship wmi NPB (NPB)

Generally. NPB members have a good understanding of what we do to prepare offenders for release. 2 NPB memben make good use of case management assessment reports that are providecl to them. We need to have a better relationshipmth the NPB. 3. CSC must do a better job of communicating with the NPB. 4. 7. CSCandNPBareeffectiveparbiersintheaiminaljUSa*œsystem. 8. CSC and NP6 work we9 together in the task of proteding sodety. 10. CSC and NPB provide each othar with mutual support in pursuing their mandates. 1.

Quality of Information Technology Support (IïSUP) 18.6&

18.ta-b 18.8 (Sum of ftems)/5 % Saü'sfactory = > 2

How w l d you rate the following: the avaiiabili of support to help you resoke any problems that you encounter with the personal cornputer. Iheaual*@of support to help you resolve any problems that you enwunter with the personal computer. How would you rate the following: the availabilitv of training for the personal amputer. the aual& of training for the personal computer

How do you rate the quaiii of information you receive prior to system upgrades?

Suggest Documents