Analyzing Further Predictors of Correctional Officer Professional Orientations: The Role of Turnover Intentions

Abstract

Four professional orientations to which correctional officers can ascribe have been identified in extant literature, and they include the counseling roles, concern for corruption of authority, social distance, and punitive ideologies. Studies have generally found officer demographics and correctional working conditions to be significant predictors of these orientations. No study to date, however, has examined the predictive influence of officer voluntary resignation intentions. Linear regression equations using questionnaire data from a statewide population of maximum security correctional officers (N = 649) were therefore estimated to explore whether officer desires to terminate their employment accounted for variance in their self-reported orientations. Stronger turnover intentions shared statistically significant associations with three orientations, including negatively predicting the counseling roles and positively predicting the punitive ideology. Implications for correctional policy are addressed.

Keywords

professional orientations turnover intentions correctional officers rehabilitation ideals punitive ideals

Introduction

Prisons serve the central purposes of housing convicted offenders, reforming their behavior, and ensuring that upon their release, offenders abstain from future criminal involvement (McKelvey, 1977). Although many believe that prisons have recently abandoned treatment-oriented programming for offenders, scholars have actually noted opposite trends. Phelps (2011, 2012), for instance, discovered among a nationwide sample of U.S. prisons that the overwhelming majority were staffed with psychiatric professionals charged with addressing underlying mental health issues of inmates, and contained vocational training seminars for offenders, educational enrichment programs, among countless other rehabilitation-oriented initiatives. These initiatives, in turn, were found to reduce inmate recidivism and improve their mental well-being (National Institute of Justice, 2007; Phelps, 2011, 2012).

For prisons to continue to manage successfully operating rehabilitation programs, they must hire correctional officers who not only share favorable dispositions toward inmates but also value the underlying philosophies of the rehabilitative ideal of corrections (Gordon, 2006; Jackson & Ammen, 1996; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989). It has been argued that apart from other offenders, correctional officers exert the strongest influence upon the behavioral makeup of inmates. Officers interact on a daily basis with offenders, act as the intermediaries between inmates and treatment services, and are even asked, in an ever growing humanization movement of the prison enterprise, to counsel the individuals they supervise (Bazemore, Dicker, & Al-Gadheeb, 1994; Cullen, Lutze, Link, & Wolfe, 1989; Farkas, 1999; Jurik, 1985). Prisons staffed with correctional officers who hold punitive and unfavorable judgments of inmates and who reject rehabilitation as part of their profession are less likely to successfully prepare inmates for readjustment to society upon their release (Farkas, 1999). Even Jackson (1992) remarked that correctional officers determine “the tone of the prison atmosphere, the quality of life for prison inhabitants . . . and play a central role in shaping inmate behavior” (p. 155). Considering these points, it becomes paramount to research the orientations officers hold toward offenders and corrections more generally, as well as predictors of these judgments.

Klofas and Toch (1982) uncovered four professional orientations to which correctional officers can align, and they include the counseling roles, concern for corruption of authority, social distance, and punitive ideologies. Demographic and work environment characteristics of officers have generally been found to statistically significantly predict these orientations (Bazemore et al., 1994; Cullen et al., 1989; Farkas, 1999; Jurik, 1985; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989). Overlooked among this body of literature as another potential predictor are officer voluntary resignation intentions. Officers who desire to terminate employment from their respective institution may hold negative judgments of inmates and may not ascribe to the rehabilitative principles upon which most prison systems are based. To empirically test this assertion, survey data were gathered from a statewide population of maximum security correctional officers employed across South Carolina. Study results may contribute to important policy considerations in terms of identifying those officers most likely to endorse rehabilitation as the optimal correctional practice.

Literature Review

Correctional Officer Professional Orientations

Inquiries into the attitudes correctional officers hold toward inmates and the methods by which they should perform their job have grown steadily over the preceding few decades. Generally, most of these studies have investigated whether officers endorse either a more rehabilitative or punitive ideal of corrections (Bazemore et al., 1994; Crouch & Alpert, 1982; Farkas, 1999; Gordon, 2006; Jacobs, 1978; Lambert, Hogan, Altheimer, Jian, & Stevenson, 2010). One of the early explorations of these orientations was performed by Jacobs (1978) who found that approximately half of the officers surveyed expressed strong agreement that rehabilitation should be the main purpose of incarceration. Several years later, Cullen et al. (1989) produced contrasting results to these where sampled officers revealed greater preferences for punitive treatment of offenders over and above rehabilitation. Several other empirical investigations have either found correctional officers to champion rehabilitation (Burton, Ju, Dunaway, & Wolfe, 1991; Moon & Maxwell, 2004; Paboojian & Teske, 1997; Teske & Williamson, 1979) or express mixed degrees of support for treatment-oriented programming and punitive ideologies (Applegate, Cullen, Fisher, & Vander Ven, 2000; Bazemore & Dicker, 1994; Bazemore et al., 1994; Gordon, 2006; Jurik, 1985; Lambert, Altheimer, Hogan, & Barton-Bellessa, 2011; Lambert et al., 2010; Lariviere, 2001; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2008; Van Voohris, Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991).

Besides advocating for either rehabilitation or more punitive-based treatment of offenders, as referenced above, in 1982, Klofas and Toch introduced to the corrections literature four professional orientations, or philosophies, of officers. These included the counseling roles, concern for corruption of authority, social distance, and punitive ideologies. Following factor analytic procedures, an original 25-item questionnaire measuring each philosophy was reduced to 17. Counseling roles (three items) measures the extent to which officers support rehabilitation and the notion that part of their job should consist of counseling inmates. Although concern for corruption of authority (five items) signals, according to officers, the degree to which offenders can be trusted, social distance (five items) reveals the extent to which officers express emotional support for inmates. Comprised of four items, the Punitive scale reflects the degree to which officers favor harsh prison conditions for inmates (Klofas & Toch, 1982; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989). Various reasons underscored the decision to analyze the Klofas and Toch (1982) inventory instead of others.

According to Whitehead, Lindquist, and Klofas (1987), these four orientations reflect a more comprehensive range of the different ideologies held by officers. Furthermore, these multidimensional measures represent an advance over unidimensional ones as they afford a more detailed understating of how officers judge their profession, its goals, and inmates. Psychometric analyses have additionally revealed how the Klofas and Toch (1982) inventory has consistently displayed adequate factor and reliability estimates that demonstrate improvement in measurement validity when compared with other measures of officer orientations (see Whitehead et al., 1987; such favorable psychometric output was indeed replicated in this study, as will be seen in the “Methods” and “Results” sections of this article). Adding to these points regarding why the Klofas and Toch (1982) inventory was selected for analyses, whereas other measures of officer orientations, such as those produced by Wheeler (1961), only really measured whether officers favored a purely custody or rehabilitative orientation toward their profession, this one expands upon that by measuring how officers choose to interact with inmates, whether they desire to assist them, interact in pro-social manners with them and, fundamentally, whether they truly want offenders to desist from crime. Klofas and Toch (1982) even commented that this inventory “assesses whether officers desire to expand their job role to include human services functions” (p. 241). This is an important point, especially given the increasingly growing humanization movement witnessed across penitentiaries in the United States (Phelps, 2012). As such, it is important to evaluate orientations that reflect this movement being seen across the country. Finally, because officer dispositions toward inmates can shape offender behavioral and mental health outcomes, it is important to utilize measures that capture the full range of officer orientations, and the Klofas and Toch (1982) inventory has been lauded by many for doing just this (Farkas, 1999; Jackson, 1992; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989).

Extensive literature searches generated a mere seven studies that have empirically assessed these orientations (Farkas, 1999; Jackson & Ammen, 1996; Klofas & Toch, 1982; Lasswell, 2010; Robinson, Porporino & Simourd, 1997; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989; Whitehead et al., 1987). Between each one, it was found that a majority of correctional officers recorded strong concerns over the potential corruptibility of inmates (roughly 70%-85% in each study) and few inclinations to minimize social distances with them (only 20%-25% expressed such sentiments). Respondents in the first five studies expressed only moderate support for rehabilitation, as well as modest agreement regarding whether they should act as counselors for inmates (between 35% and 45% across each study). Similar levels of support were discovered for the punitive orientation items. Instead, in the final two studies, correctional officers expressed strong endorsements for rehabilitation and the idea that officers should deliver counseling-type services to incarcerated offenders (between 78% and 84% between each empirical assessment).

As with most studies on work environments and their influence on personnel, correctional researchers have found that prisons contain a host of stimuli that can greatly shape the attitudes of officers (Cohen & Golan, 2007; Lachman & Aranya, 1986; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2008). Correctional line staff are employed under extremely challenging conditions in which they are required to interact with other coworkers, inmates, and administrative officials as well as respond to each of their demands (Ferdik, 2016). These interactions and working conditions can affect officer dispositions toward the job. With respect to custodial orientations, previous researchers have postulated that there are particular workplace characteristics of officers that might share relationships with their professional orientations. Among the most notable of these workplace variables are coworker acceptance, role conflict and ambiguity, job satisfaction, and stress (Farkas, 1999; Jackson & Ammen, 1996; Robinson et al., 1997; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989; Whitehead et al., 1987). Serving as statistical controls to better assess the effect of officer voluntary resignation intentions on their professional orientations, measures of each were included in analyses.

Robinson et al. (1997) hypothesized that officer stress, which may be a product of role conflict and ambiguity as well as other factors such as increased workload, non-existent on-site therapy services, and perceptions of job dangerousness, could lead to officer frustration with the job and a diminished desire to fully invest in the mission of their employing agency. When individuals feel stressed, they sometimes become irritable, unmotivated, and languid, which are characteristics that can undermine an officer’s ability to provide counseling for inmates (Whitehead et al., 1987). Such characteristics, moreover, could actually lead to officer preferences for unfavorable treatment of offenders. Stress could contribute to officer skepticism of inmates and a desire to treat them punitively because they perhaps view inmates negatively. Overall then, experiencing stress, even in the form of role conflict and ambiguity, could lead to officers expressing fewer inclinations to provide counseling services to inmates, and instead greater penchants to judge offenders as corruptible and treat them harshly.

Workers who express satisfaction with their job and believe they are receiving personal support from coworkers, according to Whitehead et al. (1987), oftentimes project such favorable dispositions onto others. They feel they are being valued and respected, they are content with an important aspect of their life, and, as a result, often feel a need to reciprocate these feelings onto others. As they are mentally satisfied with vital dimensions of their lives, they hold a generally positive life orientation, which, for correctional officers, could lead to them counseling inmates, judging them favorably, and interacting with them in pro-social manners.

Demographic traits of officers, in addition to the above noted workplace variables, have been tested in regression models by past researchers to determine their influence on officer professional orientations. Older and female officers in two studies were found to affiliate themselves more with the counseling roles orientation and less with the punitive (Farkas, 1999; Jackson & Ammen, 1996), whereas age increases in Whitehead and Lindquist’s (1989) examination shared inverse and significant associations with the social distance philosophy. Greater degrees of job satisfaction in the Lasswell (2010) and Robinson et al. (1997) studies correlated positively with the counseling roles orientation and negatively with the punitive. Finally, in Whitehead and Lindquist’s (1989) study, African American officers expressed stronger preferences, when compared with their White counterparts, for the counseling roles orientation.

Collectively among all the research conducted on the Klofas and Toch (1982) orientation inventory, differences in these philosophies were observed, as well as variability in their significant predictors. Some studies found that officers expressed strong favoritism for the counseling roles orientation and little for the punitive, whereas others uncovered contrary findings. Across each study, significant predictors ranged from officer race to job satisfaction, but these were only noted in a handful of studies with few supportive replications. Given these relatively equivocal findings and how no study to date has examined the role of officer voluntary resignation intentions in predicting these orientation inventories, a need arises to broaden this body of literature by exploring whether officer desires to terminate employment share significant relationships with their professional philosophies.

Correctional Officer Voluntary Resignation Intentions

Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, and Meglino (1979) defined turnover intent, or a voluntary resignation intention, as “the cognitive process of thinking of quitting, planning to stay or leave, searching for alternative employment, and desiring to leave the current job” (p. 494). Factors associated with correctional officer turnover intentions include decreased job satisfaction, heightened stress and burnout, elevated perceptions of job dangerousness, just to name a few (Ferdik, 2016; Ferdik & Smith, 2015; Ferdik, Smith, & Applegate, 2014; Jurik & Halemba, 1984; Lambert, 2006). Although numerous studies have evaluated predictors of officer turnover intentions, few have explored whether this variable affects broader corrections agencies. Findings from several studies that explored outcomes of employee turnover intentions revealed how thoughts about quitting often led labor force workers to experience apathy for their present job and to withdraw almost entirely from their professional responsibilities (Krausz, Koslowsky, & Eiser, 1998; Lachman & Diamant, 2007). Workers who were not only considering voluntary termination but actively searching for substitute employment no longer were invested in their current job and expressed little desires to fulfill its missions. Furthermore, some studies even found stronger inclinations to terminate employment to negatively affect job commitment, involvement, and satisfaction (Cohen & Golan, 2007; Lachman & Aranya, 1986). A recent meta-analysis by Podsakoff, LePine, and LePine (2007) supported many of these conclusions.

Keeping this information in mind, one could argue that correctional officers who are intending to leave their job and perhaps even exploring alternative employment avenues are no longer invested in the mission of their employing corrections institution. As explained earlier, correctional facilities are largely still adhering to rehabilitative ideals of inmate reform, which require officers to hold favorable opinions of inmates, work with them on more personal levels, act as their counselors when necessary, and encourage their active involvement in treatment (Moon & Maxwell, 2004; Phelps, 2011, 2012). The professional interests of those officers considering alternate employment may lie elsewhere, as a result. As they desire to distance themselves from their present job, they may not be interested in reforming inmates, communicating with them interpersonally, assisting them with their needs, or even satisfying the objectives of their employing prison. Desires to terminate employment may also decrease the quality of work produced by the officers and their motivation to interact with inmates, and ultimately, may lead to complete withdrawal from the job. Adding to this, officers may even be seeking a different vocation because they had negative interactions with inmates and, as a consequence, hold negative judgments of them. They may, therefore, favor harsher and more punitive treatment of offenders. Turnover intentions, in the end, may contribute to officer misalignment with the present goals of corrections, preferences for more rapacious treatment of inmates, and a complete withdrawal from the job. Although an established body of research has explored turnover intent as an outcome, no study has examined whether it shares a relationship as a predictor variable with officer professional orientations. This is an important research oversight as, once again, officer orientations can greatly shape how they interact with and treat inmates, which in turn can affect offender behavioral and mental health outcomes (Farkas, 1999; Jackson, 1992; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989). Given how the Klofas and Toch (1982) inventory has been credited for being a comprehensive inventory of officer orientations that can afford great insight into their dispositions toward inmates and their profession, it is important to evaluate these orientations in particular and whether turnover intentions share a relationship with them.

Methods

Respondents

Electronic survey data were gathered from correctional officers employed within South Carolina’s eight state-run maximum security facilities¹ (a state prison system that strongly advocates for inmate reform through the provision of rehabilitative services). Permission to conduct the investigation was granted by five corrections administrative officials, who also pilot tested original versions of the survey instrument, as well as by panel members of a university institutional review board (IRB). Cover letters informing respondents of the voluntary and confidential nature of the study, its purpose, and the identity of research staff members accompanied every survey. Visitations to all eight maximum security prisons were made by the lead author in an attempt to maximize response rates and the total sample size.² During each visit, officers were briefed that their collective responses would be used to improve working conditions, would not be shared with outside parties, and that they could complete the questionnaire at either workplace computer stations or any Internet-connected computer outside work (given its electronic availability). Weekly reminder emails during the data collection period were submitted to prison wardens, who explained how during every roll call meeting, officers were informed of the confidential nature of the study and reminded to complete one questionnaire. Of the 1,076³ maximum security correctional officers working throughout the state at the time of the study, 649 completed and returned usable instruments, resulting in a 60.3% response rate (see Table 1 for a breakdown of respondent characteristics).⁴ Measurement operations for the variables of interest to this study are described below.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Variables Used in Analysis.

Variables	Code or minimum-maximum	M or n	SD or percentage	Factor loadings
Counseling roles	3-12	7.57	2.18	—
Rehabilitation programs should be left to mental health professionals	1-4	2.42	0.84	0.61
Counseling is a job for counselors, not correctional officers	1-4	2.56	0.86	0.88
If an officer wants to do counseling, he or she should change jobs	1-4	2.61	0.83	0.86
Corruption of authority	5-20	16.14	2.71	—
A good principle is to not get close to inmates	1-4	3.22	0.77	0.66
Personal relations with inmates invites corruption	1-4	3.46	0.72	0.72
You can’t trust inmates	1-4	2.97	0.90	0.42
You must keep conversations with inmates short and businesslike	1-4	3.26	0.73	0.48
If officers are lenient with inmates, they will take advantage of us	1-4	3.18	0.75	0.47
Social distance	3-12	7.31	1.66	—
An officer should work hard to earn an inmate’s trust	1-4	2.27	0.78	0.52
It is important for officers to have compassion	1-4	2.72	0.69	0.62
Sometimes officers should be advocates for inmates	1-4	2.33	0.72	0.50
Punitive orientation	4-16	10.79	2.11	—
There would be much less crime if prisons were less comfortable	1-4	2.67	0.99	0.61
Improving prison conditions makes matters worse for officers	1-4	2.31	0.84	0.76
A military regime is the best way of running a prison	1-4	2.43	0.91	0.89
Rehabilitation programs are a waste of time and money	1-4	2.29	0.75	0.44
Turnover intentions	2-10	6.54	1.72	—
How likely is it you will be at this job 1 year from now?	1-4	2.47	0.99	0.57
How actively have you searched for another job in the last year?	1-4	2.88	0.84	0.51
Do you desire to voluntarily quit your job?	0-1	0.32	0.47	0.65
In the last 12 months, have you thought about quitting your job?	0-1	0.54	0.49	0.59
Coworker acceptance	4-24	15.50	4.10	—
A feeling that work-related opinions are valued by coworkers	1-6	3.17	1.29	0.45
A feeling that opinions are misunderstood by coworkers^a	1-6	4.17	1.20	0.48
A feeling that you work well with coworkers	1-6	4.31	1.32	0.70
A feeling that there is open communication between you and your coworkers	1-6	3.86	1.42	0.67
Role conflict	4-16	10.19	2.51	—
I receive conflicting requests from two or more people at work	1-4	2.55	0.82	0.65
When a problem comes up at work, people rarely agree on how to resolve it	1-4	2.58	0.84	0.65
I have to bend rules to get things done	1-4	2.20	0.82	0.55
I have to do things without adequate resources and materials	1-4	2.84	0.87	0.63
Role ambiguity	4-16	7.75	2.45	—
I clearly know what my work duties are	1-4	1.72	0.76	0.63
The rules we have to follow are clear	1-4	2.00	0.83	0.60
I am unclear who reports to me^a	1-4	1.94	0.81	0.50
I do not always understand what is expected of me at work^a	1-4	2.09	0.84	0.52
Job satisfaction	3-12	5.94	1.72	—
I live and breathe my job	1-4	2.12	0.76	0.66
The major satisfaction in my life comes from work	1-4	2.05	0.71	0.75
The most important things that happen in my life occur at work	1-4	1.77	0.59	0.67
Officer stress	5-20	13.05	3.38	—
A lot of times my job makes me frustrated	1-4	2.84	.088	0.71
I am usually under much pressure when at work	1-4	2.61	0.85	0.55
When at work, I often feel tense or uptight	1-4	2.48	0.81	0.65
I am usually calm and at ease when at work^a	1-4	2.43	0.80	0.63
There are many aspects of my job that upsets me	1-4	2.65	0.83	0.77
Race^b	0 = White	286	44.1%	—
Race^b	1 = non-White	363	55.9%	—
Age^c	1 = 18-23	39	6.0%	—
	2 = 24-29	122	18.8%	—
	3 = 30-35	192	29.6%	—
	4 = 36-41	63	9.7%	—
	5 = 42-47	73	11.3%	—
	6 = 48-53	85	13.1%	—
	7 = 54 or older	74	11.4%	—
Gender	0 = male	372	57.8%	—
Gender	1 = female	272	42.2%	—
Education	1 = less than HS	2	0.03%	—
	2 = HS/General education degree	184	28.5%	—
	3 = some college	207	32.0%	—
	4 = 2 year/associate’s	143	22.1%	—
	5 = 4 year/bachelor’s	94	14.6%	—
	6 = graduate degree	16	0.02%	—
Tenure	1 = less than 1 year	70	11.3%	—
	2 = 1-2 years	115	18.6%	—
	3 = 3-6 years	151	24.4%	—
	4 = 7-10 years	107	17.3%	—
	5 = 11-15 years	66	10.7%	—
	6 = 16-20 years	64	10.3%	—
	7 = 21-25 years	27	0.04%	—
	8 = 26-30 years	16	0.03%	—
	9 = 31 or more years	3	0.01%	—
Work shift	0 = day shift	370	57.4%	—
Work shift	1 = night shift	275	42.6%	—
Institution of employment	0 = Kirkland	99	15.3%	—
Institution of employment	1 = non-Kirkland	550	84.7%	—

Note. n = Total in category; HS = high school.

Reverse coded.

There were a total of 360 self-identified African American respondents, two American Indian, and one Hispanic respondent. Given the limited variance in non-White respondents, officers in this category were collapsed.

Although it would have been preferable to measure age, tenure, and education as continuous variables, Department of Corrections administrative officials requested that they be measured categorically.

Correctional officer professional orientations⁵

Borrowed from Klofas and Toch (1982), respondents were asked to provide their level of agreement to 15 items measuring the counseling roles, concern with corruption of authority, social distance, and punitive orientations. Response options across all items were rank ordered on 4-point Likert-type scales adopting the values of 4 = strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree. For the former, three indicators were used to measure this concept. Higher values corresponded to enhanced support for counseling, with this variable operationalized as an additive scale (α = .83; mean inter-item = .44). Concern for corruption of authority was captured with five items, with greater values representing heightened concern over the corruptibility of inmates, and all items were summed together to form a composite index (α = .79; mean inter-item = .32). Social distance consisted of three items, where increased response values denoted stronger inclinations to reduce distance between officers and inmates. A composite social distance variable was created after adding together all three items (α = .81; mean inter-item = .42). The punitive orientation scale consisted of four items, with elevated response values signaling stronger support for a punitive ideology, and all items were operationalized as an additive index (α = .87; mean inter-item = .49).⁶

Correctional officer turnover intentions

Mobley et al. (1979), as noted above, constructed a four-part model of turnover intentions consisting of (a) thinking of quitting, (b) planning to either stay or leave, (c) searching for alternative employment, and (d) desiring to leave the current job. Four separate survey items, derived from Sager, Griffeth, and Hom (1998), were used to capture each of the four different dimensions of officer turnover intentions, where each one individually measured its corresponding part. Table 1 contains the items, which were either rank ordered on 4-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 = very likely, 2 = likely, 3 = unlikely to 4 = not at all likely (for Item 1 in the table), or 1 = not at all actively, 2 = not actively, 3 = somewhat actively, and 4 = very actively (for Item 2). Remaining items were measured dichotomously (0 = no, 1 = yes). Higher turnover intentions were represented by greater response values, and all items were summarized to form a combined inventory (α = .81; mean inter-item = .41).

Correctional officer workplace and control variables

Past researchers have found demographic and work environment characteristics of correctional officers to statistically significantly predict their professional orientations (Farkas, 1999; Jackson, & Ammen, 1996; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989). These variables include officer ratings for coworker acceptance, role conflict and ambiguity, job satisfaction, and stress. Measures of these variables were included in this study as statistical controls, and their measurement operations are described herein. Officers were initially asked to consider the previous 6 months and respond to four items measuring the degree to which they had experienced any type of support from their colleagues. Borrowed from Garcia (2008), these items were measured on 6-point scales adopting the following values: 1 = very rarely, 2 = rarely, 3 = now and then, 4 = often, 5 = very often, and 6 = all the time, with higher values denoting greater support (α = .79; mean inter-item = .52). Role conflict and ambiguity measures were borrowed from Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, and Clarke (2005), and each consisted of four separate items. These items were rated on 4-point Likert-type scales with response values 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree. Greater values reflected increased degrees of work-related conflict and ambiguity (role conflict, α = .73; mean inter-item = .39, and role ambiguity, α = .75; mean inter-item = .39). Respondents were asked to rate three items measuring their degree of satisfaction with the job on 4-point Likert-type scales ranging from 4 = strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree, with higher values reflecting greater satisfaction (α = .77; mean inter-item = .35). These scale items were borrowed from Lambert, Hogan, and Dial (2011). Survey-takers were finally asked to rate five items on similar 4-point Likert-type scales designed to assess their degree of job-related stress (α = .87; mean inter-item = .40). All items were borrowed from Garcia (2008), with greater values reflective of heightened stress levels. Demographic controls, finally, included race, age, gender, education level, employment tenure, work shift, and institution of employment.⁷ See Table 1 for a list of items used to measure all variables analyzed in this study.

Plan of Analysis

Examination of potential relationships between correctional officer turnover intentions and professional orientations required the estimation of several statistical procedures. First, descriptive figures for all analyzed variables as well as factor loadings for relevant survey items were summarized and reported in Table 1. Second, a frequency distribution containing respondent’s answers to each professional orientation item was created, and this output is located in Table 2. Table 3 contains the bivariate correlations computed for all variables included in this study. Finally, a series of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression equations were estimated to explore in a multivariate setting the role of officer turnover intentions in predicting their orientations toward inmates and their profession more generally. Table 4 houses all regression model output. Diagnostics revealed few concerns over either collinearity or multicollinearity as none of the correlation coefficients reported in Table 3 surpassed .55, whereas variance inflation factors (VIFs) never rose above 2.17, and the lowest tolerance score registered was 0.46. According to Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2010), these figures are acceptable from a collinearity and multicollinearity standpoint. Analyses were performed using STATA 14.0.⁸

Table 2.

Frequency Distribution of Correctional Officer Professional Orientations.

Scales and items	Agreement (%)	Disagreement (%)
Counseling Roles
Rehabilitation programs should be left to mental health professionals	48.65	51.35
Counseling is a job for counselors, not correctional officers	39.35	60.65
If an officer wants to do counseling, he or she should change jobs	35.85	64.15
Corruption of Authority
A good principle is to not get close to inmates	84.15	15.85
Personal relations with inmates invites corruption	91.29	08.71
You can’t trust inmates	70.75	29.25
You must keep conversations with inmates short and businesslike	87.84	12.16
If officers are lenient with inmates, they will take advantage of us	82.45	17.55
Social Distance
An officer should work hard to earn an inmate’s trust	35.80	64.20
It is important for officers to have compassion	69.37	30.63
Sometimes officers should be advocates for inmates	41.47	58.53
Punitive Orientation
There would be much less crime if prisons were less comfortable	52.98	47.02
Improving prison conditions makes matters worse for officers	31.70	68.30
A military regime is the best way of running a prison	40.54	59.46
Rehabilitation programs are a waste of time and money	39.76	60.24

Note. Valid percentages are reported. Agree–disagree percentages are collapsed from original response categories that consisted of strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree.

Table 3.

Zero-Order Correlations (N = 649).

Variables	Y1	Y2	Y3	Y4	X1	X2	X3	X4	X5	X6	X7	X8	X9	X10	X11	X12	X13
Y1 Counseling roles	1
Y2 Corruption	−.31**	1
Y3 Social distance	.27**	−.35**	1
Y4 Punitive	−.27**	.27**	−.14**	1
X1 Turnover intentions	−.25**	.14**	−.13**	.27**	1
X2 Coworker	.24**	−.09*	.16**	−.27**	−.27**	1
X3 role conflict	−.24**	.11**	−.09*	.27**	.28**	−.48**	1
X4 role ambiguity	−.22**	−.07	−.11**	.17**	.15**	−.42**	.50**	1
X5 Job satisfaction	.18**	−.19**	.27**	−.14**	−.22**	.23**	−.21**	−.15**	1
X6 Officer stress	−.20**	.19**	−.14**	.28**	.40**	−.48**	.55**	.36**	−.27**	1
X7 Race	.06	−.01	−.12**	−.12**	.08	−.03	−.16**	.02	−.08*	−.06	1
X8 Age	.08	−.19**	.14**	−.23**	−.05	.05	−.06	.12**	.04	−.08	.08	1
X9 Gender	.05	.05	−.11**	−.04	−.01	−.03	−.12**	−.03	−.11**	−.07	.34**	.03	1
X10 Education	.05	−.01	.06	−.05	−.03	.01	.03	.03	−.07	−.02	.09*	.02	.07	1
X11 Tenure	.12**	−.16**	.03	−.18**	.01	.04	.07	.03	.04	.01	.10*	.52**	.02	−.03	1
X12 Work shift	−.06	.04	.04	.03	.01	−.03	.01	.02	.04	−.01	−.03	.02	−.06	−.03	−.06	1
X13 Institution	−.01	−.07	−.10*	.06	−.04	−.01	.02	−.04	.06	−.01	−.29**	−.04	−.06	−.09*	−.06	−.01	1

p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed test).

Table 4.

OLS Regression Models for the Correctional Officer Professional Orientation Scales.

Variables	Counseling Roles		Corruption of Authority		Social Distance		Punitive
Variables	b (β)	(SE) t ratio	b (β)	(SE) t ratio	b (β)	(SE) t ratio	b (β)	(SE) t ratio
Turnover intentions	−0.13 (−.10)	(0.08) −2.69**	0.10 (.19)	(0.09) 2.01*	−0.07 (−.07)	(0.06) −1.15	0.14 (.11)	(0.07) 2.68**
Coworker acceptance	0.04 (.07)	(0.03) 1.16	0.03 (.02)	(0.03) 0.38	0.02 (.05)	(0.02) 0.86	−0.02 (−.04)	(0.03) −0.68
Role conflict	−0.06 (−.07)	(0.08) −0.86	0.05 (.04)	(0.07) 0.65	0.05 (.07)	(0.05) 0.98	0.04 (.04)	(0.06) 0.63
Role ambiguity	−0.13 (−.15)	(0.05) −2.43*	−0.15 (−.14)	(0.06) −2.54**	−0.04 (−.07)	(0.04) −1.06	0.02 (.02)	(0.05) 0.37
Job satisfaction	0.06 (.05)	(0.07) 0.86	−0.16 (−.11)	(0.11) −1.56	0.25 (.26)	(0.07) 3.68***	0.01 (.01)	(0.08) 0.05
Officer stress	0.01 (.01)	(0.05) 0.15	0.15 (.20)	(0.05) 3.10***	−0.03 (−.06)	(0.03) −0.87	0.07 (.12)	(0.05) 1.53
Race	−0.07 (−.02)	(0.24) −0.28	0.21 (.04)	(0.28) 0.77	−0.46 (−.13)	(0.17) −2.62**	−0.36 (−.08)	(0.24) −1.52
Age	−0.05 (−.04)	(0.07) −0.72	−0.19 (−.14)	(0.08) −2.30*	0.16 (.18)	(0.05) 3.12***	−0.14 (−.13)	(0.06) −2.31*
Gender	0.11 (.02)	(0.23) 0.49	0.36 (.07)	(0.26) 1.38	0.04 (.01)	(0.17) 0.25	0.14 (.03)	(0.22) 0.63
Education	0.07 (.03)	(0.10) 0.66	0.01 (.01)	(0.12) 0.02	0.10 (.07)	(0.07) 1.45	−0.01 (−.01)	(0.10) −0.09
Tenure	0.17 (.14)	(0.07) 2.64**	−0.14 (−.10)	(0.08) −1.81^†	−0.02 (−.02)	(0.04) −0.38	−0.10 (−.09)	(0.06) −1.66^†
Work shift	−0.11 (−.02)	(0.20) −0.54	0.15 (.03)	(0.24) 0.61	0.03 (.01)	(0.15) 0.20	0.01 (.01)	(0.20) 0.05
Institution	−0.37 (−.04)	(0.35) −1.01	−0.46 (−.05)	(0.41) −1.11	0.64 (.11)	(0.29) 2.21*	−0.04 (−.01)	(0.33) −0.13
Constant	8.07	(1.18) 6.83***	17.20	(1.36) 12.61***	4.13	(0.94) 4.40***	10.38	(1.37) 7.59***
Adjusted R²	.18		.16		.14		.21
F test	6.06***		7.88***		4.55***		8.49***
n	598		599		598		599

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares; b = unstandardized regression coefficient; β = standardized regression coefficient; SE = robust standard errors.

†

p ≤ .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Findings

Frequency Distribution and Correlation Matrix Output

Percentage breakdowns for each item used to operationalize the professional orientation scales are provided in Table 2. Between approximately 35% and 48% of respondents believed that counseling is not a job for officers and that rehabilitation programming should be left to mental health professionals. A sizable percentage of respondents, ranging from roughly 70 to 91, expressed agreement with the concern for corruption of authority measures, signaling a heightened preoccupation with this issue among the current sample of officers. Between 35% and 69% of survey-takers believed that officers should work hard to acquire inmate trust, have compassion for offenders, and even act as their advocates. Finally, for the punitive orientation questions, between an estimated 31% and 52% of officers agreed that prisons should be made less comfortable for inmates, military regimes are the optimal way of running penitentiaries, and rehabilitation programs are not worthy of monetary investment.

Bivariate correlations for all examined variables are reported in Table 3. Confirming initial hypotheses, correctional officers reporting greater voluntary resignation intentions shared statistically significant and inverse associations with the counseling roles (r = −.25, p < .01) and social distance orientations (r = −.13, p < .01). Instead, increased desires to terminate employment shared positive connections with the concern for corruption of authority (r = .14, p < .01) and punitive inventories (r = .27, p < .01). Wolfe (2011) noted though that bivariate estimates rest upon rather lenient statistical tests, thus requiring multivariate modeling with control variables to see whether these results withstand more robust analyses.

Regression Model Output

Found within Table 4 are the separate OLS regression equations estimating the influence of officer turnover intentions on their professional orientations. Within the counseling roles model, heightened desires to terminate employment displayed an inverse and statistically significant connection with this orientation (β = −.10, p < .01). Positive and statistically significant relationships were instead observed between stronger turnover intentions and the concern for corruption of authority (β = .19, p < .05) and punitive orientations (β = .11, p < .01). Social distance was the only orientation to not share any significant relationship with officer desires to resign. Among the statistically significant controls were role ambiguity, officer stress, and job satisfaction, as well as several of the demographics such as race, age, and tenure where each shared relationships with select orientations. These latter findings are in concert with previous literature that found officer demographics and working conditions to significantly predict select CO (correctional officer) orientations. Adjusted percentages of explained variance across all linear estimations ranged between 14% and 21%, which is consistent with the fairly modest R² values uncovered in previous studies (Farkas, 1999; Lasswell, 2010; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1989).

Discussion and Conclusion

Correctional officers play a pivotal role in the functioning of prison systems as they are responsible for important job demands that include supervising inmates, monitoring their conduct, establishing wider institutional order, and, as of recently, even performing more human services–oriented tasks such as counseling offenders and creating correctional environments conducive for inmate rehabilitation (Moon & Maxwell, 2004). Successful performance of these demands requires that officers, in an increasingly professionalized prison environment, display positive sentiments toward inmates and the rehabilitative ideals that underpin most prison systems (Gordon, 2006; Moon & Maxwell, 2004). Since officers exert arguably the greatest influence on inmate conduct, especially while they are incarcerated, they must be willing to adhere to the goals of prison systems, which are to rehabilitate inmates and prepare them for eventual community re-entry. Four professional orientations, or judgments about inmates and the general purpose of corrections, to which officers can ascribe include the counseling roles, concern with corruption of authority, social distance, and punitive ideologies (Klofas & Toch, 1982). Authors have customarily found officer demographics and working conditions to significantly predict each orientation. Currently though, no study has explored the influence of officer voluntary resignation intentions, and to address this, questionnaire data were collected from a statewide population of maximum security correctional officers. Findings may serve policy purposes in terms of informing correctional administrators who are interested in continuing rehabilitative practices about which officers are most likely to support these objectives.

Approximately half of all officers agreed that counseling should not be a component of their job, prisons should be made less comfortable for inmates, and monetary investments should be withheld from rehabilitation programs. Aside from one item under the social distance inventory, an overwhelming majority of officers expressed concern over the corruptibility of inmates, and relatively few inclinations to minimize social distance with them and offer emotional support. With the exception of the Whitehead et al. (1987) and Whitehead and Lindquist (1989) analyses, overall, these findings conform to previous literature conducted on the professional orientations of officers (Farkas, 1999; Jackson & Ammen, 1996; Klofas & Toch, 1982; Lasswell, 2010; Robinson et al., 1997). Within this pool of research, it is clear that officers share strong preoccupations over the corruptibility of inmates, and that not all of them advocate for either rehabilitation as a correctional philosophy or counseling as part of their profession. This may present problems for correctional administrators who are championing expansion of treatment-oriented services for incarcerated offenders. If the staff charged with delivering these services to inmates, or at the very least advocating for them, reject these ideals, then this may interfere with an inmate’s ability to not only receive these potentially beneficial services but also become reformed by them in turn (Farkas, 1999; Robinson et al., 1997). Recidivism rates may therefore increase, and offender mental health issues may go unresolved. Growing humanization movements witnessed throughout correctional systems in the United States require officers to interact pro-socially with inmates, counsel them when necessary, and perform job demands that extend beyond custodial responsibilities to include more human services–oriented ones (Gordon, 2006; Phelps, 2011, 2012; Robinson et al., 1997). If correctional systems are staffed with officers who are disinclined to perform these tasks, then this possibly presents complications for successful inmate reformation.

Aside from exploring the professional orientations of correctional officers, this study was equally interested in evaluating factors related to them. Of most importance here was an assessment of whether officer desires to voluntarily terminate their employment shared statistically significant associations with each professional philosophy. Those officers who expressed stronger turnover intentions were less likely to believe that counseling should be a part of their job, more likely to be concerned over the possible corruptibility of inmates and more likely to advocate draconian conditions of confinement for incarcerated offenders. A possible explanation for the first result could be that those officers wishing to sever employment ties with their institution are not committed to successful inmate reform. They are not interested in the well-being of inmates, are not emotionally invested in whether they are successfully rehabilitated, and do not want to expend additional energy toward this job by offering therapy-type services to offenders. Their value systems, mostly as a result of wanting to distance themselves from their current employment, may not align with the missions of the prison. As explained above, studies that have explored employee turnover intent found that those who desired to leave their profession were no longer emotionally tied to it and cared little about whether its missions were fulfilled (Cohen & Golan, 2007; Krausz et al., 1998; Lachman & Diamant, 2007). Since they desire to terminate employment, the orientations of these officers may misalign with those of their prison.

Harmful and violent confrontations with incarcerated offenders have, in some studies, led many correctional officers to develop negative judgments of inmates (Crawley, 2004; Jackson & Ammen, 1996). Some of these officers no longer wished to communicate with them, desired to distance themselves from offenders, and even began expressing hostility for the broader inmate population. Slovic, Fischhoff, and Lichtenstein (2000) even found among a sample of U.S. general population members that after undergoing violent confrontations with certain people, in response, sample members became more aggressive and unreceptive toward those who harmed them. Various studies have found that when correctional officers perceived high levels of danger from offenders, were harmed by and had negative interactions with them, they were far more likely to terminate their employment with their host corrections agency (Ferdik et al., 2014; Lambert et al., 2005). Regarding the present study, for those officers perceiving inmates as agents of corruptibility and desiring harsher prison sentences for them, perhaps they underwent traumatic experiences with these offenders, thereby leading to their desires to terminate employment and, in turn, judge in an inauspicious way inmates. Officers who wish to sever employment ties may dislike aspects of their job, including the very inmates they are tasked with supervising. In turn, desires to seek alternative employment may have contributed to officer skepticism about the morality of inmates and, moreover, desires to treat them harshly as a response. Inmates could be the very reason why some officers are eager to leave their current position, which may be creating a healthy level of distrust and aggressiveness toward them.⁹

Against this backdrop, several points should be raised. Prisons rely heavily upon the invaluable contributions of correctional officers if they are to function effectively and deliver necessary treatment services to inmates, which as this study demonstrated, could all be compromised by their desires to terminate employment (Crawley, 2004). Lambert et al. (2010) even commented on this point when writing,

The success or failure of prison programs depends on staff support and cooperation . . . If staff are unwilling to perform the tasks necessary for successful implementation of rehabilitation programs, this can harm inmates. In addition, the development of negative attitudes about treatment may further reduce the extent to which correctional staff members adequately perform their requisite tasks and duties. This may lead to a decline in the quality of services provided in the facility, which, in turn, may lead to inmate disorder . . . In the end, how staff members treat and interact with offenders can influence the behaviors of inmates. (p. 1017)

Turnover intentions in other work domains and as illustrated by past studies can compromise worker commitment to their current profession and lead to a lack of productivity (Krausz et al., 1998; Lachman & Diamant, 2007). For corrections officers, and as explained by Lambert et al. (2010), this has the potential to seriously undermine a prison’s efforts at reforming offenders. From a correctional policy standpoint then, measures must be taken by administrative officials to retain these most crucial employees. Countless studies have revealed how the fundamental concern of most correctional officers when it comes to their continued employment is their financial compensation (Matz, Wells, Minor, & Angel, 2013). Unfortunately, and because the majority of correctional expenditures are already diverted toward staff salaries, this essentially handcuffs administrative officials’ attempts at appeasing officer compensation demands (Ferdik et al., 2014). This notwithstanding, other less costly solutions to the problem of correctional officer turnover intent have been proposed.

For instance, officer retention starts at the recruitment stage of the entire employment process. Although such efforts are currently underway, administrative officials are advised to continue to advertise the position of correctional officer to those candidates expressing sincere interest in a prolonged career in this field. Hiring personnel could administer entry-level surveys to incoming recruits, question them about their career and life ambitions, and ensure that their professional goals align with the mission of the employing prison institution and what it has to offer. During the recruitment phase, officials can communicate the advantages of being a CO, such as contributing greatly to society by keeping it safe through the monitoring of offenders, job stability, and benefits packages (Ferdik et al., 2014). Given how correctional officer desires to voluntarily terminate employment have been connected to such factors as reduced morale and strained relationships with supervisors, relatively inexpensive interventions can be introduced to rectify these issues as well. Managerial personnel could issue certificates of appreciation to officers exceeding expectations, incorporate officers into professional decision making, communicate more understandable information about the job and what is demanded of officers so as to avoid problems such as role conflict and ambiguity, and implement training programs that adequately prepare officers for the difficulties of this line of work (Lambert et al., 2010; Management and Training Corporation, 2011; Matz et al., 2013).

Other recommendations to improve officer retention, and ones that would come at reduced cost to administration, include issuing exit surveys to outgoing officers to understand why they are leaving. Such knowledge could help to better understand ways in which to keep currently employed officers (Ferdik et al., 2014). Finally, scholars have noted that many correctional officers suffer disproportionately high rates of job-related stress and burnout when compared with other professionals (Lambert et al., 2010). Veteran correctional officers or even mental health professionals already on-staff could be recruited as mentors to novice line staff to offer words of encouragement and strategies to combat the pressures of this job (Management and Training Corporation, 2011). Support of this nature could substantially improve the well-being of officers, thereby increasing their chances of remaining in this profession.

These policy recommendations, cautionary notes, and interpretation of findings come with several caveats related to design limitations of the present study. First, maximum security correctional officers employed within only one state-run prison system were analyzed in this investigation. Past studies that have explored officer professional orientations have surveyed officers employed within other security-level facilities, but given the limited number of these studies, future scholars are strongly encouraged to continue this line of inquiry by sampling officers across other geographic regions and facility types. Second, self-report surveys have been criticized on a number of fronts, namely, that they do not accurately measure respondent thoughts and beliefs and because they suffer from respondent self-reporting biases (Slovic et al., 2000). Attempts to overcome such limitations were made by personally visiting every surveyed institution and ensuring officers the highest level of study confidentiality and anonymity. Third, roughly 80% of unexplained variance remained between all model estimations, leading to the conclusion that other more salient predictors are accounting for correctional officer professional orientations. Whitehead and Lindquist (1989) suggested that other important variables such as officer personality traits should be entered into regression models predicting their orientations toward offenders and their job. Fourth, the cross-sectional nature of our data inhibits causal claims as the effects of our dependent variables may have preceded those of our explanatory measures. Finally, and as already addressed in endnote 7, several of the composite scales did not contain the full range of survey items designed to measure these variables. Mostly this was due to attempting to minimize the excessive length of the survey so as to not overburden respondents. As a result of these points and given the largely exploratory nature of this study with no other investigation to date having assessed the impact of officer turnover intentions on their professional orientations, all interpretations of results and policy suggestions await future confirmatory research to be supported.¹⁰

Notwithstanding these study limitations, our findings still offer important points of consideration for correctional administrators especially. Serious consequences can result from correctional officer turnover, and their intentions to leave can be a precursor to this. As these officers have yet to leave but are considering it, this can interfere with their ability or even desire to perform necessary functions to assist inmates. Administrative officials are strongly encouraged to devise strategies and policies aimed at retaining their line staff personnel, which again can consist of addressing their needs, speaking with them about their perceptions of the job, and making this line of employment more permanent for those who enter it (Ferdik et al., 2014). Just as much as inmates rely on officers for their successful reformation, administrators rely on officers to ensure this occurs. As correctional officers are arguably the most valuable workforce element of any correctional system, it is imperative that efforts continue to be made to ensure their happiness and continued employment within this profession.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Angrist

J. D.

Pischke

J. S.

(2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Applegate

B. K.

Cullen

F. T.

Fisher

B. S.

Vander Ven

(2000). Forgiveness and fundamentalism: Reconsidering the relationship between correctional attitudes and religion. Criminology, 38, 719-753.

Baglin

(2014). Improving your exploratory factor analysis for ordinal data: A demonstration using FACTOR. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(5), 1-15.

Bazemore

Dicker

T. J.

(1994). Explaining detention worker orientation: Individual characteristics, occupational conditions, and organizational environment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 297-312.

Bazemore

Dicker

T. J.

Al-Gadheeb

(1994). The treatment ideal and detention reality: Demographic, professional/occupational and organizational influences on detention worker punitiveness. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 21-41.

Burton

Dunaway

Wolfe

(1991). The correctional orientation of Bermuda prison guards: An assessment of attitudes toward punishment and rehabilitation. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 15, 71-80.

Cohen

Golan

(2007). Predicting absenteeism and turnover intentions by past absenteeism and work attitudes: An empirical examination of female employees in long term nursing care facilities. Career Development International, 12, 416-432.

Crawley

(2004). Doing prison work: The public and private lives of prison officers. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.

Crouch

B. M.

Alpert

G. P.

(1982). Sex and occupational socialization among prison guards: A longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9, 159-176.

10.

Cullen

F. T.

Lutze

F. E.

Link

B. G.

Wolfe

N. T.

(1989). The correctional orientation of prison guards: Do officers support rehabilitation? Federal Probation, 53, 33-42.

11.

Fabrigar

L. R.

Wegener

D. T.

MacCallum

R. C.

Strahan

E. J.

(1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299.

12.

Farkas

M. A.

(1999). Correctional officer attitudes toward inmates and working with inmates in a “get tough” era. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 495-506.

13.

Ferdik

(2016). An investigation into the risk perceptions held by maximum security correctional officers. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 1-21.

14.

Ferdik

Smith

H. P.

(2015). Maximum security correctional officers: An exploratory investigation into their social bases of power. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 4, 1-17.

15.

Ferdik

Smith

H. P.

Applegate

B. K.

(2014). The role of emotional dissonance and job desirability in predicting correctional officer turnover intentions. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 18(4), 4-20.

16.

Garcia

R. M.

(2008). Individual and institutional demographic and organizational climate correlates of perceived danger among federal correctional officers (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University-UMI-1456443). (Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Abstracts).

17.

Gordon

M. S.

(2006). Correctional officer control ideology: Implications for understanding a system. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 225-239.

18.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

19.

Hoffmann

J. P.

(2004). Generalized linear models: An applied approach. Boston, MA: Pearson.

20.

Horowitz

J. L.

(1997). Bootstrap methods in econometrics: Theory and numerical performance. In Kreps

Wallis

(Eds.), Advances in economics and econometrics: Theory and applications—Seventh world congress (pp. 189-222). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

21.

Ibragimov

Muller

U. K.

(2010). t-statistic based correlation and heterogeneity robust inference. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 28, 453-468.

22.

Jackson

J. E.

(1992). The impact of less-punitive values upon the role perceptions of correctional officers and their attitudes towards treatment programs for inmates in the Texas department of criminal justice-institutional division (Doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University-UMI-1244332). (ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Abstracts).

23.

Jackson

J. E.

Ammen

(1996). Race and correctional officers’ punitive attitudes toward treatment programs for inmates. Journal of Criminal Justice, 14, 153-166.

24.

Jacobs

J. B.

(1978). What prison guards think: A profile of the Illinois force. Crime & Delinquency, 25, 185-196.

25.

Jurik

N. C.

(1985). Individual and organizational determinants of correctional officer attitudes towards inmates. Criminology, 23, 523-539.

26.

Jurik

N. C.

Halemba

G. J.

(1984). Gender, working conditions and the job satisfaction of women in a non-traditional occupation: Female correctional officers in men’s prisons. The Sociological Quarterly, 25, 551-566.

27.

Klofas

J. M.

Toch

(1982). The guard subculture myth. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 19, 238-254.

28.

Krausz

Koslowsky

Eiser

(1998). Distal and proximal influences on turnover intentions and satisfaction: Support for a withdrawal progression theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 59-71.

29.

Lachman

Aranya

(1986). Job attitudes and turnover intentions among professionals in different work settings. Organization Studies, 7, 279-293.

30.

Lachman

Diamant

(2007). Withdrawal and restraining factors in teachers’ turnover intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 8, 219-232.

31.

Lambert

(2006). I want to leave: A test of a model of turnover intent among correctional staff. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2, 57-83.

32.

Lambert

Altheimer

Hogan

Barton-Bellessa

(2011). Correlates of correctional orientation in a treatment-oriented prison: A partial test of person-environment fit theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 453-470.

33.

Lambert

Hogan

(2009). The importance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in shaping turnover intent: A test of a causal model. Criminal Justice Review, 34, 96-118.

34.

Lambert

Hogan

Altheimer

Jian

Stevenson

(2010). The relationship between burnout and support for punishment and treatment: A preliminary examination. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 1004-1022.

35.

Lambert

Hogan

Dial

(2011). The effects of job involvement on private correctional staff: A preliminary study. Journal of Applied Security Research, 6, 158-183.

36.

Lambert

Hogan

Paoline

E. A.

Clarke

(2005). The impact of role stressors on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among private prison staff. Security Journal, 18(4), 33-50.

37.

Lariviere

M. A. S.

(2001). Antecedents and outcomes of correctional officers attitudes towards federal inmates: An exploration of person-organization fit (Doctoral dissertation, Carleton University-UMI-1451129). (Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Abstracts).

38.

Lasswell

J. L.

(2010). An assessment of individual and organizational characteristics and their impact on correctional officers’ perceptions of professionalism and treatment orientation (Doctoral dissertation, Indianan University of Pennsylvania-UMI-3411606). (Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Abstracts).

39.

Liang

K. Y.

Zeger

S. L.

(1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13-22.

40.

Management and Training Corporation. (2011). Correctional officers: Strategies to improve retention. Centerville, UT: Author.

41.

Matz

A. K.

Wells

J. B.

Minor

K. I.

Angel

(2013). Predictors of turnover intention among staff in juvenile correctional facilities: The relevance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 115-131.

42.

McKelvey

(1977). American corrections. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.

43.

Mobley

W. H.

Griffeth

R. W.

Hand

H. H.

Meglino

B. M.

(1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.

44.

Moon

Maxwell

(2004). Assessing the correctional orientation of corrections officers in South Korea. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 729-743.

45.

National Institute of Justice. (2007). Evidence-based practice to reduce recidivism: Implications for state judiciaries. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

46.

Paboojian

A. R.

Teske

(1997). Pre-service correctional officers: What do they think about treatment? Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 425-433.

47.

Pett

M. A.

Lackey

N. R.

Sullivan

J. J.

(2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

48.

Phelps

M. S.

(2011). Rehabilitation in the punitive era: The gap between rhetoric and reality in U.S. prison programs. Law & Society Review, 45, 33-68.

49.

Phelps

M. S.

(2012). The place of punishment: Variation in the provision of inmate services staff across the punitive turn. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 348-357.

50.

Podsakoff

N. P.

LePine

J. A.

LePine

M. A.

(2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 438-454.

51.

Raykov

Marcoulides

G. A.

(2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

52.

Robinson

Porporino

F. J.

Simourd

(1997). The influence of educational attainment on the attitudes and job performance of correctional officers. Crime & Delinquency, 43, 60-77.

53.

Rogers

(1993). Regression standard errors in clustered samples. State Technical Bulletin, 13, 19-23.

54.

Sager

Griffeth

Hom

(1998). A comparison of structural models representing turnover cognitions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 254-273.

55.

Slovic

Fischhoff

Lichtenstein

(2000). Facts and fears: Understanding perceived risk. In Slovic

(Ed.), Perception of risk (pp. 29-55). New York, NY: Earthscan.

56.

South Carolina Department of Corrections. (2013). Agency accountability report. Columbia: Author.

57.

Teske

R. H. C.

Williamson

H. E.

(1979). Correctional officers’ attitudes toward selected treatment programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 6, 59-66.

58.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2008). Correctional orientations of prison staff. The Prison Journal, 88, 207-233.

59.

Van Voohris

Cullen

F. T.

Link

B. G.

Wolfe

N. T

. (1991). The impact of race and gender on correctional officers’ orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 28, 472-500.

60.

Weber

(2010). Bacon: An effective way to detect outliers in multivariate data using Stata (and Mata). The Stata Journal, 10, 331-338.

61.

Wheeler

(1961). Role conflict in correctional communities. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

62.

Whitehead

J. T.

Lindquist

C. A.

(1989). Determinants of correctional officers’ professional orientation. Justice Quarterly, 6, 69-87.

63.

Whitehead

J. T.

Lindquist

C. A.

Klofas

J. M.

(1987). Correctional officer professional orientation: A replication of the Klofas-Toch measure. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 468-486.

64.

Wolfe

S. E.

(2011). The effect of low self-control on perceived police legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 67-74.

Analyzing Further Predictors of Correctional Officer Professional Orientations: The Role of Turnover Intentions

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Correctional Officer Professional Orientations

Correctional Officer Voluntary Resignation Intentions

Methods

Respondents

Correctional officer professional orientations 5

Correctional officer turnover intentions

Correctional officer workplace and control variables

Plan of Analysis

Findings

Frequency Distribution and Correlation Matrix Output

Regression Model Output

Discussion and Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

References

Correctional officer professional orientations⁵