The Impact of Individual Factors,Job Characteristics,and Organizational Variables on Job Stress and Job Satisfaction Among Community Corrections Staff

Abstract

Community corrections (e.g., probation, parole, halfway houses) is the largest correctional placement in the United States, yet little research assesses community corrections staff experiences with job stress and job satisfaction. The purpose of this article is to extend the literature on community corrections officers by assessing the influence of individual factors, job characteristics, and organizational variables on both job stress and job satisfaction. In general, we found that the influence of individual factors and job characteristics differed for job stress compared to job satisfaction. Similarly, the impact of organizational factors on these outcomes also differed, although this was contrary to our expectations. Finally, job stress had a negative effect on job satisfaction and organizational factors had a larger impact on both job stress and job satisfaction, compared to individual and job characteristics. Our results provide a number of possible areas for departments to focus on in order to reduce job stress and increase job satisfaction among probation/parole and residential officers.

Keywords

community corrections probation officers job stress job satisfaction

Community corrections (e.g., probation, parole, halfway houses) is the largest correctional placement in the United States, with 4.7 million offenders (Carson & Anderson, 2016), compared to just 1.5 million for institutional corrections (Kaeble et al., 2015). In addition to the larger placement, community corrections staff typically supervise offenders who are able to live and engage in the community to varying degrees. Probation officers work with offenders who are serving a sentence of probation. These offenders live in the community but must report to a probation officer a set number of times a month to make sure they are following the rules and conditions of their probation, as well as meeting rehabilitation expectations. Parole officers are typically responsible for working with offenders who have been released early from prison to the community or to a halfway house. As part of this, they focus on rehabilitation goals in addition to making sure parolees are adhering to the rules and conditions of their parole. Residential officers, however, are responsible for maintaining the safety and security of work-release facilities or halfway houses for offenders on parole who are deemed not yet ready to live on their own out in the community. Some of the offenders in these facilities may be probationers who have violated probation conditions as well as parolees who are not ready to be in the community full time.

Although the job responsibilities of probation, parole, and residential officers differ significantly from correctional officers, particularly with the focus on rehabilitation, it is nonetheless a stressful and potentially dangerous work environment (Whitehead & Lindquist, 1985). Furthermore, while contact with offenders (nonviolent or violent) may not itself result in negative outcomes for staff members, perceptions of the dangerousness of the work environment may influence workplace outcomes such as job stress (Hartley et al., 2013; Paoline et al., 2015), which in turn may lead to low job satisfaction. Given the direct implications for the staff members themselves, as well as the potential impact on a greater number of actual offenders in community corrections, it is surprising that relatively little literature exists on the work experiences of community corrections staff compared to that of institutional corrections officers.

One aspect of work experiences that has received some attention in the community corrections literature is job stress. Studies have looked at both the impact of job stress on emotional exhaustion/burnout (Gayman & Bradley, 2013) and turnover intention (thinking about quitting or planning to quit; Lee, Joo, & Johnson, 2009; Simmons et al., 1997), as well as the actual determinants of job stress among probation officers (Slate et al., 2003; Wells et al., 2006, Whitehead & Lindquist, 1985). However, research has not yet examined the influence of job stress on residential officers nor has it further assessed the impact of job stress on job satisfaction among probation, parole, or residential officers. This is a significant oversight since job stress has consistently been found to predict job satisfaction for institutional correctional officers (Byrd et al., 2000; Castle, 2008; Cheeseman & Downey, 2012; Hogan et al., 2009; Lambert, 2004; Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Lambert et al., 2007; Lee, Joo, & Johnson, 2009).

Lambert and Paoline (2008) and Paoline et al. (2015) simultaneously considered the influence of individual factors, job characteristics, and organizational variables on job stress and job satisfaction among institutional correctional officers and found that some of the same factors predicted both outcomes. Additionally, they considered the relative impact of each set of variables (individual, job, and organization) on job stress. Similar to Van Voorhis et al. (1991), Paoline et al. (2015), and Getahun et al. (2008), they found that organizational variables had a greater impact than either of the other two groups (individual or job characteristics) of variables (Lambert & Paoline, 2008).

Job satisfaction itself, however, has only been minimally studied for community corrections staff, at least among probation officers. The few studies that have been conducted have analyzed the effects of job satisfaction on probation officer turnover intention (Lee, Phelps, & Beto, 2009; Simmons et al., 1997) and job stress (Simmons et al., 1997; Slate et al., 2003; Wells et al., 2006). But similar to the literature on job stress, no studies have yet examined job satisfaction among residential officers. Also, very few researchers have sought to determine the factors that predict job satisfaction among probation officers, with one exception. In their study of how job stress and job satisfaction impacted turnover intention, Simmons et al. (1997) also analyzed predictors of job stress and job satisfaction. They found that low job satisfaction led to higher stress and that higher stress led to lower job satisfaction.

What is clearly missing from this body of literature is an assessment of the predictors of job satisfaction and job stress for both probation/parole and residential officers. Very little literature exists on predictors of job satisfaction for probation and parole officers, and no literature currently exists on the antecedents of either job stress or job satisfaction for residential officers. Further, although studies on institutional corrections officers have found that organizational variables have a stronger impact on job stress and job satisfaction than either individual or job characteristics (Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Paoline et al., 2015), it has not yet been determined which category of variables have the strongest impact on either of these workplace outcomes for probation/parole and residential officers.

The purpose of this article is to extend the literature on community corrections officers by assessing the influence of individual factors, job characteristics, and organizational variables on both job stress and job satisfaction among community corrections staff. Following Lambert and Paoline (2008), we first consider the overall effects of individual, organizational, and job characteristic variables on job stress and job satisfaction, with job stress as a potential predictor of job satisfaction. Then we examine the influence of each set of variables (i.e., individual, job, and organizational) separate from the other two sets to determine the relative impact of each group of variables. As background for the present study, we turn first to a discussion of the empirical job stress and job satisfaction literature.

Literature Review

Job Stress

The first discussion of job stress among community corrections staff appears to be from the early 1980s (Whitehead, 1981). However, Whitehead (1981) used the terms job stress and burnout interchangeably, and the study was primarily focused on burnout as opposed to what is now considered to be job stress. Subsequent research using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach, 1982) has found that these two concepts are distinct and that job stress is actually a determinant of burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). In the more recent community corrections and institutional corrections literature, job stress and burnout have been treated as two different job-related experiences. As a distinct concept “job stress is typically considered to be the psychological feeling of anxiety, tension, and strain from the job” (Lambert et al., 2015, p. 399, referencing Van Voorhis et al., 1991). It has been linked to a number of negative personal outcomes, such as divorce and suicide (Cheek, 1984), in addition to problematic job-related consequences including lost productivity/reduced staff performance, increased risk of injury to staff and the public, as well as turnover intention and actual turnover of employees (Finn & Kuck, 2005; Lee, Joo, & Johnson, 2009; Lee, Phelps, & Beto, 2009; Simmons et al., 1997).

Three studies focusing on the determinants of job stress for probation officers were published between 1985 and 2005 (Simmons et al., 1997; Slate et al., 2003; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1985). Then in 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice released a report on the factors influencing stress, and what could be done to mitigate it, among probation and parole officers (Finn & Kuck, 2005). Since that report came out, a few more studies have looked at the impact of job stress on other job-related outcomes (Gayman & Bradley, 2013; Lee, Joo, & Johnson, 2009; Lee, Phelps, & Beto, 2009), and two additional studies were published looking at the factors predicting job stress among community corrections staff (Pitts, 2007; Wells et al., 2006).

With this background in mind, Whitehead and Lindquist (1985) published one of the first studies of job stress among community corrections staff. They focused specifically on the predictors of both job stress and burnout among 108 Alabama probation/parole officers. They found that probation/parole officers who were younger, had longer tenure, and perceived lower resource adequacy reported higher job stress, but that the other variables in the model (i.e., education level, marital status, residence—farm/small town versus other, contact hours, time spent on paperwork, input into decision making, role conflict, and social support) did not have significant effects on job stress among these subjects.

Simmons et al. (1997) focused their attention on the impact of individual factors and both job stress and job satisfaction on turnover intention among a random sample of Florida probation officers. In terms of job stress, Simmons et al. (1997) found that gender and job satisfaction predicted job stress, but that the other variables (i.e., age, race, marital status, education, prior law enforcement experience, current job classification, years of experience as a probation officers, and years of experience with the department of corrections) did not.

Subsequent research by Slate et al. (2003) included five variables as possible determinants of self-reported physical stress among their sample of 636 probation officers. They found that officers who were female, had longer job tenure, higher overall stress (i.e., a composite measure of four subscales measuring external, internal, job-related, and personal stress), and less job satisfaction indicated greater symptoms of physical stress. Input into decision making, however, was not significantly related to this outcome.

As noted above, in 2005, the National Institute of Justice published a report on job stress among probation and parole officers. This report included interviews with 45 probation/parole-related staff (including line officers, supervisors, counselors, trainers, and members of the American Probation and Parole Association), as well as a review of other published and unpublished stress-related materials (Finn & Kuck, 2005). The report examined job stress, its causes and consequences, and identified successful stress-reduction programs already implemented in some community corrections agencies. Finn and Kuck (2005) found that the three major reported sources of stress were high caseloads, paperwork, and deadlines. Other “lesser” sources of stress included supervisors, few advancement opportunities, and low salaries. In addition, Finn and Kuck (2005) investigated the ways in which officers cope with stress. They reported that many officers take extra sick days and request transfers and early retirement. However, they also found positive coping mechanisms, such as religion, exercise, and talking with coworkers and family.

A more recent study that looked at a number of potential influences on probation officer job stress was published in 2006. Wells et al. (2006) studied gender differences in job stress among 925 probation officers. They included several individual and organizational variables as possible predictors. They found that those who identified as managerial staff/supervisors and officers who reported having less input into decision making and lower job satisfaction also reported greater job stress. However, a number of variables were not significantly related to job stress, including gender, ethnicity, marital status, job tenure, sick days taken, and attitudes about participation in the workplace. (e.g., “Participation in decision making tends to make one feel better about one’s self.”)

Lastly, Pitts (2007) looked specifically at the influence of educational competency on job stress among 2,364 probation and parole officers from across 15 states. He found that officers who felt that their educational experience adequately prepared them for their job were less likely to report job stress compared to officers who indicated that their educational preparation was inadequate.

In summary, the few studies looking at probation officer job stress show mixed results as to what determines job stress. Some studies found that gender and job tenure were sometimes, but not always, significant. Similarly, a few studies found input into decision making to be significant, while others did not. More recent research also suggests that organizational characteristics have a greater impact on job stress and job satisfaction than individual characteristics (Getahun et al., 2008; Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Paoline et al., 2015). In addition to these studies, literature on correctional officer work experiences also addresses the connection between job stress and job satisfaction. Specifically, much of this literature finds that officers who report greater job stress indicate lower levels of job satisfaction (Castle, 2008; Cheeseman & Downey, 2012; Lambert et al., 2007; Lambert & Paoline, 2008). Together, these results suggest a need to further study the factors that influence job stress among community corrections, including both probation/parole and residential officers.

Job Satisfaction

While a few studies of probation officers have included job satisfaction in the analysis, they have not clearly defined this concept. In the institutional corrections literature,¹ job satisfaction has been defined as either an emotional reaction to one’s job (Cranny et al., 1992) or “the extent to which people like their jobs” (Lambert et al., 2007; Lambert et al., 2006; Spector, 1996, p. 214). Regardless of issues related to conceptualization, the importance of job satisfaction is well-documented in both the community corrections and institutional corrections literature. For example, several studies have found that job satisfaction impacts turnover intention (Lee, Joo, & Johnson, 2009; Lee, Phelps, & Beto, 2009; Matz et al., 2014; Simmons et al., 1997). Turnover intention is thinking about or planning to quit a job, which can lead to actual turnover of staff (staff quitting resulting in a need to hire new staff). Turnover is a significant factor for criminal justice organizations, particularly in a time of reduced funding at the local, state, and federal levels. Turnover increases the monetary burden of the organization for training and hiring as well as for overtime pay while new staff are trained (Lambert & Hogan, 2009b; Matz et al., 2014; Simmons et al., 1997). For community corrections officers, high turnover among staff may have negative outcomes for offenders as well. Caseloads increase during staff shortages, which may lead to less effective supervision, reduced attention to rehabilitation efforts, and a general lack of time and resources to effectively do one’s job (Lee, Joo, & Johnson, 2009; Simmons et al., 1997).

The importance of job stress is well-documented in the literature, yet very little research exists on what predicts job satisfaction for community corrections staff. Two exceptions are Simmons et al. (1997) and Getahun et al. (2008). As mentioned previously, Simmons et al. (1997) simultaneously studied the impact of several variables on job stress and job satisfaction on Florida probation officers. In regard to job satisfaction, they found significant effects for marital status, prior law enforcement experience, and job stress. Interestingly, with the exception of job stress and job satisfaction, the predictor variables were all individual factors as they did not include any job-related perceptions or organizational characteristics in the study. More recent research, however, suggests that organizational characteristics have a greater impact on both job stress and job satisfaction than individual characteristics (Getahun et al., 2008; Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Paoline et al., 2015). For example, Getahun et al. (2008) studied predictors of job satisfaction among a sample of 104 probation and parole officers and officers assigned to a work-release center. Of the individual-level variables included in the model (e.g., age, gender, race, marital status, education, job position), only one was significant. Getahun et al. (2008) found that probation/parole officers report

a higher degree of job satisfaction than work release staff. In terms of job-related variables, staff who reported greater meaningfulness of the job (e.g., job utilizes skills/abilities, job is challenging yet difficult, opportunities for creativity, job security) and less job stress also reported greater levels of job satisfaction. (p. 13)

Given that both job stress and job satisfaction may have a profound impact on community corrections agencies—its staff and its offenders—it is also important to assess the factors that impact both of these variables. Additionally, being able to point to the factors that have the greatest impact (i.e., individual, job, or organizational), agencies will be better able to take steps that may help improve work quality as well as potentially impacting the successfulness of offenders.

Job Characteristics

As previously noted, few studies have assessed what influences feelings of job stress and job satisfaction for community corrections staff. As such, we rely on the institutional corrections literature to frame our study, which focuses heavily on the work environment of correctional staff. In their extensive work on the correctional environment and its impact on correctional officers, Lambert and Paoline (2008) identify two primary dimensions of interest: job characteristics and organizational factors. Job characteristics are those that emphasize the employee’s specific job and their experience doing that job (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Lambert & Paoline, 2008).

In the minimal community corrections literature and the vast institutional correctional literature, job characteristics have included supervisor support and coworker support. Supervisor support generally refers to the degree to which staff feel supported by their supervisors or feel they can trust their supervisors, while coworker support measures how well people get along with their coworkers, how much they trust and can rely on them. In one of the first studies of probation and parole officer job stress, Whitehead and Lindquist (1985) found that officers who reported greater supervisor support also reported less job stress. Several later studies are consistent with Whitehead and Lindquist (1985; e.g., Armstrong et al., 2015; Griffin, 2006; Lambert & Hogan, 2009a; Paoline et al., 2015). Additionally, greater supervisor support or quality has been found to increase job satisfaction for correctional officers (Armstrong et al., 2015; Castle, 2008; Cheeseman et al., 2011; Griffin, 2001; Hogan et al., 2009; Lambert & Hogan, 2009a; Paoline et al., 2015). Similarly, research on correctional officers has found that staff who report greater levels of coworker support also report lower job stress (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Paoline et al., 2015) and greater job satisfaction (Lambert et al., 2010; Paoline et al., 2015).

Dangerousness is another common variable included as a potential predictor of job stress and job satisfaction in the correctional literature. It is typically measured by asking respondents to reflect on how dangerous they perceive their job to be and how likely they are to get hurt, particularly as compared to other jobs. Much of the research finds that higher perceptions of job dangerousness correspond with higher perceptions of job stress (Lambert & Paoline, 2005, 2008; Lambert et al., 2007; Paoline et al., 2015). Dangerousness has also been found to reduce job satisfaction among correctional officers (Cheeseman et al., 2011; Hogan et al., 2017; Lambert & Paoline, 2005).

Threat of harm differs from dangerousness, in that dangerousness is a perception of the dangerousness of one’s general work environment, while threat of harm refers to the actual experience of being threatened and/or harmed by inmates, probationers, or parolees, or feeling frightened by something an offender has said or done. Threat of harm has not been included as much in either the institutional correctional or community corrections research as a predictor of job stress or job satisfaction. However, it has been included in research on community corrections staff and found to be a predictor of secondary trauma (Lewis et al., 2013; Rhineberger-Dunn, Mack, & Baker, 2016) and burnout (Lewis et al., 2013).

Organizational Variables

Another important aspect of the overall work environment is organizational characteristics. Relying on Oldham and Hackman (1981), Lambert and Paoline (2008) define the organizational aspect of the work environment as “how an agency arranges, manages, and operates itself” (p. 544). Organizational factors, then, differ from job characteristics, in that they are those that are independent of individual employees who work in that environment (Lambert & Paoline, 2008). As a result, the policies and procedures for how an organization operates continue to exist even as staff turns overs. Recent studies have included such things as safety training, role ambiguity, lack of opportunities, and input into decision making to capture various organizational aspects of the workplace.

Although variables related to safety training have been included in a few recent studies, they vary dramatically in how they are measured. Most of these variables include an item on having been trained to keep oneself safe on the job. Studies that have included such a measure have found that staff who report greater adequacy of safety training report less job stress (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Griffin, 2006; Lambert & Paoline, 2005) and higher job satisfaction (Lambert & Paoline, 2005).

Role ambiguity generally refers to the clarity of one’s job duties, expectations, and scope of authority, as well as the general rules and regulations of the organization that relate to their job responsibilities. Role ambiguity has been included in an array of research on both corrections officers and community corrections, although it has been limitedly applied to job stress and job satisfaction. Of the research that does exist, some studies have found that lower role ambiguity results in lower job stress (Paoline et al., 2015) and greater job satisfaction (Griffin, 2001; Lambert & Hogan, 2009a; Lambert et al., 2002).

Lack of opportunities is frequently included in research on correctional staff but is not frequently found to be significant. Exceptions include Lambert et al. (2010) and Jiang et al. (2016). Lambert et al. (2010) found that lower promotional opportunities led to higher reports of emotional burnout among correctional staff, while Jiang et al. (2016) found that higher perceptions of promotional opportunities increased job satisfaction among Chinese community corrections staff.

Finally, input into decision making is one of the most widely included organizational variables in this area of research. Several studies have found that correctional officers who report greater input into decision making indicate less job stress (Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Paoline et al., 2015) and greater job satisfaction (Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Lambert et al., 2006) than those who indicate lower levels of input. Additionally, research on community corrections staff has also found that input into decision making influenced lower reports of job stress (Lee, Joo, & Johnson, 2009; Slate et al., 2003; Wells et al., 2006).

Current Study

As outlined above, there is a general lack of research on the predictors of job satisfaction for community corrections staff. Additional research is needed that addresses this deficit in the literature, particularly as it pertains to residential officers. What is clear from the scant research on job stress and job satisfaction among probation officers is that job stress impacts job satisfaction and that different individual, job, and organization characteristics impact job stress compared to job satisfaction. This suggests a need to assess if the predictors of job stress and job satisfaction are similar or if they differ in significant ways. Simmons et al. (1997) found that there were different predictors of stress and satisfaction. However, this study was limited because they included primarily individual characteristics as independent variables (e.g., demographics and tenure-related variables) while not considering job or organizational-related characteristics as well. This leaves a gap in the research since more recent literature on institutional correctional officers has found organizational factors to have greater impact on job stress and job satisfaction than individual characteristics (Hogan et al., 2009; Lambert & Paoline, 2008).

The purpose of this study is to extend the literature on community corrections officers by assessing the influence of individual factors, job characteristics, and organizational variables on job stress and job satisfaction among community corrections staff, including an examination of the impact of job stress on job satisfaction. Further, we were interested in analyzing the relative impact of each set of variables (i.e., individual, job-related, and organizational) on job stress and job satisfaction. We developed several hypotheses based on the existing community corrections literature as well as on Lambert and Paoline’s (2008) simultaneous study of job satisfaction and job stress among institutional correctional officers.

Hypothesis 1: The influence of individual factors will differ for job stress compared to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: The influence of job characteristics will differ for job stress compared to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: The influence of organizational characteristics will overlap for job stress and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: Job stress will have a negative effect on job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 5: Organizational factors will have a larger impact on both job stress and job satisfaction, compared to individual and job characteristics.

Method

Data Collection and Participants

The data for this study were collected from an online survey of community corrections staff members in the state of Iowa. Emails were initially sent to the directors of all eight Judicial District Departments of Corrections in the state. Each director was asked if they would be willing to assist us with a survey on workplace experiences of probation/parole and residential officers. Six of the eight district directors agreed to the request and were subsequently sent a separate email with a link to the survey. Each director then forwarded the email to the probation/parole and/or residential officers working in their district. Two reminder emails, at approximately 2-week intervals, were sent to directors who again forwarded them to the appropriate personnel. If they choose to, participants in each district were allowed to use work time to complete the survey. Data were collected anonymously using Qualtrics, which was specifically set to automatically strip IP addresses from completed surveys. The survey link was emailed to 615 probation/parole and residential officers. Surveys were completed by 277 community corrections staff members for a response rate of 45.04%. More specifically, for probation/parole officers, our response rate was 50.28% (n = 179of 356), and for residential officers, it was 37.12% (n = 98of 264).

Measures

Dependent variables

Job stress was measured with a single item asking participants to indicate how strongly they disagreed or agreed (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) with a statement about frequently feeling stressed out on the job. For job satisfaction, participants were asked to report on how satisfied they were with their job, where response categories ranged from 1 (not satisfied at all) to 4 (very satisfied).

Individual variables

We included five individual variables commonly used to predict job stress among institutional correctional officers. In terms of the female variable, participants were asked to indicate their gender, which was then coded 0 for male and 1 for female. Degree was assessed by asking participants to indicate on a scale of 1 (high school diploma or GED) to 6 (MA/MS degree) the highest degree they had earned. Perceptions of educational training were measured by asking participants to rate their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) with a statement indicating that their educational training had adequately prepared them for their current position. In regard to residential officer, participants were asked to report their current job title, which was then coded as 0 for probation/parole officer and 1 for residential officer. Finally, tenure was designed to tap an officer’s experience in community corrections and was measured with an item asking about the length of time in their current job with an agency. Response categories ranged from 1 (less than 1 year) to 6 (21 years or more).

Job characteristics

Based on the existing institutional corrections literature, we included four variables representing job characteristics. For all four variables, response categories ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Supervisor support was assessed by asking participants to indicate their agreement with four statements about experiences with their immediate supervisor, including the degree to which their supervisor cares about their well-being, takes time to learn about and help with their career goals, and listens to and considers their opinions. Similarly, coworker support was assessed by asking participants about their relationships with coworkers, including whether coworkers give positive feedback to each other, talk about both work-related and nonwork problems, and help each other improve performance on the job.

Dangerousness refers to participants’ perceptions of the dangerousness of their job environment and was measured with three statements about perceptions of how dangerous their work environment was, the relative dangerousness of their job compared to other jobs, and the likelihood of getting hurt in the context of their work responsibilities. Three items were used to measure threat of harm. This variable assessed the degree to which staff feared for their safety while working with clients or fear of things an offender had said or had done to them.

Organizational variables

Finally, four organizational variables were included in the analysis, based on the most common measures used in the institutional correctional officer literature on job stress. For all four, participants were asked how much they disagreed or agreed with each statement, where response categories ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Safety training was measured with 2 items designed to capture training experiences related to personal safety on the job in the office/facility and when working outside the building. Input into decision making was determined by asking participants to indicate their level of agreement with four statements about how much freedom they have to do their job, whether or not they can make decisions on their own, take part in making decisions that affect them, and have a say in what happens on the job. Role ambiguity was assessed with 4 items asking participants to respond to statements related to the clarity of duties, objectives, work expectations, and connection of work to organization goals. Lack of opportunities refers to participants’ perceptions of the degree to which they do not have opportunities to advance in the agency in which they currently work. Items included opinions on lacking proper opportunities to advance in the agency, having to look for a job with another agency to get promoted, hurting their career progress by staying in their current organization, having fewer opportunities to grown and learn new knowledge and skills, and feeling like they are at a standstill in their career. Individual items and Cronbach’s αs for the combined measures are presented in Appendix.

Results

Descriptive statistics for the study variables are presented in Table 1. As shown in the table, there was sufficient variation in both the dependent and independent measures. The mean and median values were similar, and in each case, with the exception of the residential officer variable, the mean was larger than the standard deviation. Together, this provides evidence that the variables used in the analysis were normally distributed.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables.

Variable	Code	N	%	Range	Mean	Median	SD
Dependent
Job stress				1–5	2.94	3.00	1.04
Job satisfaction				1–4	3.33	3.00	0.69
Individual
Female	0 = male	126	49.80	0, 1	0.50	1.00	0.50
	1 = female	127	50.20
Degree				1–6	3.98	4.00	1.02
Educational training				1–5	3.57	4.00	1.00
Residential officer	0 = p/po	179	64.60	0, 1	0.35	0.00	0.48
	1 = residential	98	35.40
Tenure				1–6	2.91	3.00	1.42
Job
Supervisor support				4–20	13.06	14.00	3.93
Coworker support				4–20	14.47	15.00	3.14
Dangerousness				4–15	10.63	11.00	2.52
Threat of harm				3–15	7.28	7.00	2.86
Organizational
Safety training				2–10	7.05	8.00	2.12
Input into decision making				1–16	9.55	10.00	3.05
Role ambiguity				4–20	7.70	8.00	2.81
Lack of opportunities				5–25	13.47	12.00	4.98

Note. N = 277.

Table 2 presents the correlation coefficients for the study variables. Job stress had significant negative correlations with job satisfaction, educational training, residential officer, supervisor support, safety training, and input into decision making, while it was positively correlated with tenure, dangerousness, threat of harm, role ambiguity, and lack of opportunities. Job satisfaction demonstrated significant bivariate correlations with each of these variables as well, although in the opposite directions, with the exception of residential officer and coworker support. More specific, while residential officer was significantly correlated with job stress, it failed to demonstrate a relationship with job satisfaction. In contrast, coworker support did not have a significant correlation with job stress, but it was positively correlated with job satisfaction.

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations Between Study Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. Job stress	1.00
2. Job satisfaction	−.45**	1.00
3. Female	.10	−.03	1.00
4. Degree	.01	.01	.23**	1.00
5. Educational training	−.27**	.16*	.20**	.16	1.00
6. Residential officer	−.17*	−.11	.09	−.26**	.06	1.00
7. Tenure	.17*	−.15*	−.07	−.05	.03	−.06	1.00
8. Supervisor support	−.30**	.43**	−.04	−.06	.18*	.04	−.17*	1.00
9. Coworker support	−.10	.28**	.04	.15*	.12	−.25**	−.10	.34**	1.00
10. Dangerousness	.25**	−.19**	−.07	−.07	−.07	−.06	−.01	−.07	−.04	1.00
11. Threat of harm	.32**	−.26**	.01	.02	−.05	−.05	.05	−.09	−.04	.43**	1.00
12. Safety training	−.26*	.45**	.08	−.09	.25**	.05	.04	.31**	.22**	−.21**	−.30**	1.00
13. Input into decision making	−.26**	.47−**	−.07	−.02	.15*	−.10	−.19**	.44**	.27**	−.02	−.12*	.33**	1.00
14. Role ambiguity	.37**	−.33**	−.06	.05	−.21**	−.13*	.13*	−.38**	−.20**	.09	.20**	−.30**	−.33**	1.00
15. Lack of opportunities	.41**	−.52**	.04	−.03	−.13*	.10	.30**	−.54**	−.34**	.13*	.17*	−.36**	−.45**	.42**	1.00

Note. N = 277.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

The ordinary least squares (OLS) regression results for the full models predicting job stress and job satisfaction are presented in Table 3. As shown in Columns 1 and 2, three individual variables were significant determinants of job stress. Females reported more job stress than males, while staff who indicated their educational training adequately prepared them for their job were less likely to experience job stress than those who reported less adequate training. Additionally, residential officers reported less stress than probation/parole officers. In terms of job characteristics, only one variable was statistically significant. Officers who reported they had been threatened by an offender were more likely to report job stress than those who had not had this experience. Lastly, two organizational variables predicted job stress for community corrections staff. Those who experienced more role ambiguity and those who reported they lacked opportunities to advance in their current agency were more likely to experience job stress than their counterparts.

Table 3.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results for Models Predicting Job Stress and Job Satisfaction.

Variable	Full Models				Entered as Blocks
	Job Stress		Job Satisfaction		Job Stress		Job Satisfaction
	B	β	B	β	B	β	B	β
Individual
Female	.33	.16*	.01	.01	.37	.18*	−.10	−.07
Degree	−.04	−.04	.01	.01	−.02	−.02	−.04	−.05
Educational training	−.20	−.20**	−.01	−.01	−.30	−.29**	.15	.21**
Residential officer	−.36	−.17**	−.20	−.14*	−.34	−.16*	−.20	−.14*
Tenure	.05	.06	−.02	−.05	.13	.18**	−.09	−.18**
R ²	—					.15**		.08**
Job
Supervisor support	−.01	−.02	.02	.12	−.07	−.28**	.06	.36**
Coworker support	.02	.05	.01	.03	.01	.02	.03	.14*
Dangerousness	.05	.11	−.02	−.05	.06	.14*	−.03	−.09
Threat of harm	.06	.16*	−.01	−.05	.09	.24**	−.05	−.19**
R ²						.19**		.26**
Organizational
Safety training	.01	.01	.08	.23**	−.04	−.08	.08	.26**
Input into decision making	−.01	−.04	.05	.19**	−.02	−.04	.05	.24**
Role ambiguity	.06	.17*	.01	.01	.08	.22**	−.01	−.06
Lack of opportunities	.05	.23*	−.02	−.13	.06	.27**	−.04	−.30**
R ²						.22**		.40**
Job stress	—	—	−.18	−.26**
R ²		.34**		.49**

Note. N = 277. B represents unstandardized coefficients; β represents standardized coefficients.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

The regression results for job satisfaction are also presented in Table 3 (Columns 3 and 4). Interestingly, only one individual variable predicted job satisfaction. Residential officers were more likely to indicate job satisfaction than probation/parole officers. Unlike the job stress model, none of the job characteristic variables had significant effects on job satisfaction. However, two organizational variables were statistically significant. Staff who reported that they had been properly trained to keep themselves safe on the job had higher job satisfaction than those who were less adequately trained in this regard. Also, more input into decision making was related to higher levels of job satisfaction among the community corrections staff in the study. Finally, job stress was a significant determinant of job satisfaction as well. Staff who indicated higher job stress also reported lower job satisfaction.

The last step of the analysis involved determining the relative impact of individual, job, and organizational factors on job stress and then job satisfaction. To do this, each separate group of variables was entered into an OLS regression equation without the two other groups. The findings from this set of models are presented in Table 3 (Columns 5 through 8). As seen in the table, the R2 values for organizational characteristics were higher (.22 for job stress and .40 for job satisfaction) than for individual characteristics (.15 for job stress and .08 for job satisfaction) or job characteristics (.19 for job stress and .26 for job satisfaction).

Discussion

The purpose of this article was to extend the literature on community corrections officers by assessing the influence of individual, job, and organizational factors on job stress and job satisfaction among community corrections staff. Our results provide support for Hypothesis 1, that the influence of individual factors differ for job stress compared to job satisfaction. Three individual variables (female, education training, and residential officer) were significant for job stress, while only one individual factor (residential officer) had a significant effect on job satisfaction. This means that only one variable, residential officer, was significant for both job stress and job satisfaction. These findings suggest that while both job stress and job satisfaction have important implications for staff, agencies, and the public, individual factors, for the most part, do not similarly impact these experiences.

Of particular note is that our results support previous research by Pitt (2007) indicating staff who feel their education adequately prepared them for the job have less stress than officers who feel educationally underprepared. As Pitts (2007) suggests, this is somewhat alarming, given the impact of job stress on job performance and turnover intention. These results suggest that community corrections agencies may find it advantageous to review hiring requirements, especially as they pertain to preference for particular degree programs that may better fit the job positions (Pitts, 2007). However, before any changes are made in this regard, it is highly recommended that further study is done to provide more specific information. For example, greater exploration of the specific aspects of educational training that help staff feel prepared for their jobs is needed, particularly as it may differ for probation/parole officers compared to residential officers. It may also serve as an opportunity for community corrections agencies to work more closely with relevant colleges/universities in the area. If specific aspects of educational training are helping staff, then communicating that to relevant educational institutions may serve to improve those skills. Similarly, if specific aspects of educational training are missing, discussing the possibility of incorporating these elements into an educational program may very well benefit the agency as well as the educational institution. The agency will have a better pool of potential applicants, and the students going through specific programs may be more likely to acquire jobs in their relevant career field.

The results also suggest a somewhat nuanced relationship between job position and our workplace outcomes, in that residential officers have less stress and are simultaneously less satisfied with their jobs. On the one hand, residential officers typically have more clearly defined job tasks and work during set hours in order to maintain security in the residential facilities, which may lead to less stress. Probation/parole officers’ job tasks are more complex, focusing on both rehabilitation and adherence to rules and law. They must meet one-on-one with offenders in their office, work on individual goals, and have a more direct link to an offender’s success or failure than do residential officers. On the other hand, a residential officer’s job does not allow for as much independent or critical thinking as a probation/parole officer’s job. Additionally, many residential officers may want to be probation/parole officers but need the experience as a residential officer in order to have the best chance at getting a probation/parole officer position. There is little room for career advancement within an agency as a residential officer, and it may take seven or more years before residential officers get promoted to probation/parole officer. Being a residential officer is not required for being a probation/parole officer but is discussed by staff as being a “promotion.” Together, minimal complex tasks and lack of advancement opportunities may lead to both less stress and lower satisfaction for residential officers compared to probation/parole officers.

The analysis also found moderate support for Hypothesis 2, that the influence of job characteristics differs for job stress compared to job satisfaction. One variable, threat of harm, was significant for job stress, while none of the job characteristics were significant for job satisfaction. It is interesting that staff who have been threatened by an offender have more job stress, yet the perception of how dangerous one’s job is compared to other jobs was not significantly related to it (or job satisfaction). These results are not wholly surprising, as they reflect the substantive difference between perception (dangerousness) and reality (actually having been threatened or harmed by an offender). Given the influence of having experienced threat of harm, different strategies may need to be implemented in order to assist staff after such incidents occur. This may not only be immediately after an incident but also several months later, as sometimes the full impact of such experiences may not be fully comprehended until some time has passed.

It is noteworthy that the physical reality of harm does not likewise impact job satisfaction. This suggests that whether or not staff found their jobs to be satisfying depends on other factors and not on the negative aspects of their job itself (i.e., dangerous work environment or having been threatened or harmed by an offender). In other words, staff who have been threatened by an offender are more likely to experience job stress, but their job satisfaction is not similarly impacted by this experience.

In regard to Hypothesis 3, we failed to find evidence that the influence of organizational characteristics overlaps for job stress and job satisfaction. Instead, our results suggest that role ambiguity and lack of opportunities increased job stress, but did not impact job satisfaction. Likewise, safety training and input into decision making increased job satisfaction, but did not influence job stress. These results were somewhat surprising, especially given that Lambert and Paoline (2008) found three organizational variables were significant for both job stress and job satisfaction (i.e., with greater instrumental communication, greater input into decision making, and greater promotional opportunities resulting in less stress and increased job satisfaction). The difference in our results with community correctional staff compared to Lambert and Paoline’s (2008) findings with institutional correctional officers could be explained by the very different work environments of these staff members. While both types of corrections staff work with offenders, community corrections officers work out of a (typically) unlocked facility or a residential facility, see offenders in their jobs and home environments, and typically work with less violent offenders. Institutional corrections officers, however, work in locked prisons with more violent offenders who are serving longer sentences.

It is also surprising that input into decision making was not significantly related to job stress, as found by both Slate et al. (2003) and Wells et al. (2006) but was a predictor of job satisfaction. According to Slate et al. (2003), allowing staff to have more input into decision making has been recommended by a number of prior studies. The lack of significance in our study might be due to the structure of the organization. Perhaps the probation/parole and residential officers who participated in this survey already feel they have strong input into decision making.

While there were somewhat mixed results in regard to the first three hypotheses, we found clear support for Hypothesis 4. Similar to the extensive literature on job stress and job satisfaction among institutional correctional officers (Byrd et al., 2000; Castle, 2008; Cheeseman & Downey, 2012; Hogan et al., 2009; Lambert, 2004; Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Lambert et al., 2007; Lee, Joo, & Johnson, 2009), we found that job stress had a significant negative effect on job satisfaction indicating that those who reported more job stress also had lower levels of job satisfaction. While there is arguably a certain amount of stress in our lives that is healthy, that motivates us to do a good job at whatever we are doing, it is also true that job stress can have negative personal and professional consequences. Reducing job stress should improve job satisfaction. Existing research has demonstrated that staff who are more satisfied with their jobs are more effective and productive in their work. They are also more likely to remain in their jobs, which in turn may lead to better client outcomes. When contemplating possible strategies for reducing job stress, agencies should first assess what aspects of job tasks, work environment, or organizational policies are playing a role in increasing stress among staff. While individuals experience the work environment differently, it is likely that there are similarities in stressors across individuals that have more to do with job tasks and organizational processes that an organization has more control over changing in an effort to improve job satisfaction.

The final focus of the analysis was to examine the separate impact of different types of independent variables on both job stress and job satisfaction. We found support for Hypothesis 5, with organizational factors having the largest impact on both job stress and job satisfaction, compared to individual and job characteristics. As discussed by Lambert and Paoline (2008), the fact that organizational variables have more impact than individual factors suggests that there is a better probability of being able to make changes to reduce job stress and improve job satisfaction among staff. Organizational changes can be made by administrators, while individual characteristics of staff cannot be modified. However, we caution that changes should not be made unilaterally. Policy and procedural changes will be more effective if administrators first understand how staff perceive the organization and are given the opportunity to voice their perspectives as well as participate the decision-making process.

Further, while we found a number of study variables to be significant predictors of job stress, we found very few for job satisfaction. Additional research is needed to assess the factors that influence job satisfaction among probation/parole officers and residential officers.

Limitations and Future Research

While our study provides new insight into the predictors of job stress and job satisfaction among community corrections staff, it is not without limitations that may have affected the results. The first is related to the sample size. With just under 300 participants, we were limited in the types of analysis we could complete as well as the number of variables we could include in the analysis. Future research would benefit from larger samples, particularly those that include participants from several different states. Our study includes only Iowa probation/parole and residential officers. Staff in other states may have different workplace experiences, depending on how their community corrections divisions are organized.

Relatedly, our response rate was approximately 45%. By some standards, this response rate is low. We targeted a specific group of professionals with an email invitation sent through their supervisors. Given this specific context, we might expect slightly higher response rates. With just under a 50% response rate, our results may be biased, with the participants being somehow different from the population we are referring to (Iowa probation/parole and residential officers). However, compared to the average response rate for email surveys, which is about 39% (Cook et al., 2000), we are slightly above average. Nonetheless, additional research on probation/parole officers and/or residential officers should seek ways to improve response rates.

Additionally, Iowa is a racially homogenous state, which is reflected in our predominately Caucasian sample. As a result, we were unable to assess race differences in job stress and job satisfaction, which makes the generalizability of our study somewhat limited. However, it is worth noting that other studies of community corrections staff include participants from only one state (Gayman & Bradley, 2013; Slate et al., 2003; Wells et al., 2006; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1985), and most studies have not included race (Slate et al., 2003; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1985), or race was not found to be a significant predictor of stress (Wells et al., 2006). Nonetheless, future research should seek to include a larger pool of community corrections staff from several states with most diverse populations in order to assess both racial and state-level differences in job stress and job satisfaction.

Our results suggest that staff who feel that their education adequately prepared them for the job have less stress than officers who feel educationally underprepared. However, our data are limited in that we are not able to pinpoint what aspects of their education made them feel prepared and what aspects of the job relate directly to this educational experience. Future research is needed to better understand the connection between educational experiences and reduced job stress. Similarly, our measures of job stress and job satisfaction are limited by the fact that they were both single-item indicators. While this provided us with a global assessment of these concepts, given the multidimensional nature of workplace outcomes like job stress and satisfaction, additional research using multi-item indicators would be beneficial to tease out our findings in greater detail. Further, while we found a number of study variables to be significant predictors of job stress, we found very few for job satisfaction. Additional research is needed to assess the factors that influence job satisfaction among probation/parole officers and residential officers.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations discussed above, our findings make a substantial contribution to the community corrections literature. Given that our results indicated a difference in probation/parole officer experience with job stress and satisfaction compared to residential officers, it suggests that different strategies may need to be employed in order to reduce job stress for probation/parole officers and increase job satisfaction for residential officers. Job satisfaction is known predictor of turnover intention, which can ultimately result in higher costs to an agency and impact the successful rehabilitation of offenders. Improving job satisfaction for residential officers may lead to lower turnover intention and lower turnover among these staff as well. Similarly, lack of opportunities to advance in the agency was found to increase job stress, and job stress in turn was found to decrease job satisfaction. Agency policies or discussion around advancement opportunities might mean less job stress, which in turn may increase job satisfaction. Ultimately, our results provide a number of possible areas for departments to focus on in order to reduce job stress and increase job satisfaction among probation/parole and residential officers.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A1.

Individual Items and Cronbach’s α Reliability Coefficients.

Variable	Item(s)	α
Job stress	I frequently feel stressed out on the job.	—
Job satisfaction	All in all, how satisfied are you with your job?	—
Female	What is your gender?	—
Degree	Please select your highest degree and, where applicable, indicate your field of study.	—
Educational training	My educational training (e.g., college) has adequately prepared me for my current career position.	—
Residential officer	What is your current job title?
Tenure	How many years have you been employed in your current position in this agency?	—
Supervisor support	My supervisor really cares about my well-being.My supervisor takes the time to learn about my career goals and aspirations.My supervisor actively helps me to prepare for my next career move.My supervisor listens to me and considers my opinion.	.89
Coworker support	My coworkers compliment someone who has done their job well.I am able to talk about work-related problems with my coworkers.I am able to talk about nonwork-related problems with my coworkers.My coworkers help one another when someone needs to improve their performance.	.79
Dangerousness	I work in a dangerous job.My job is A LOT more dangerous than other types of jobs.In my job, a person stands a good chance of getting hurt.	.83
Threat of harm	In the past 60 days, I have feared for my safety while working with a juvenile offender.I am or have been frightened by things a juvenile offender has said to me.I am or have been frightened by things a juvenile offender has done to me.	.78
Safety training	I have received proper training on how to keep myself safe while doing my job in the office/facility.I have received proper training on how to keep myself safe when working outside the building (e.g., on home visits).	.92
Input into decision making	How much freedom to you have as to how you do your job?How much does your job allow you to make decision on your own?How much does your job allow you to take part in making decisions that affect you?How much say to you have over what happens on your job?	.86
Role ambiguity	My job duties and work objectives are unclear to me.I am unclear about who I report to and/or who reports to me.I do not fully understand what is expected of me at work.I do not understand the part my job plays in meeting overall organizational goals.	.84
Lack of opportunities	I lack the proper opportunities to advance in this agency.If I want to get promoted I have to look for a job with another agency.I am hurting my career progress by staying with this agency.I have few opportunities to grow and learn new knowledge and skills in my job.I feel that I am at a standstill in my career.	.93

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported in part by a University of Northern Iowa’s College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Small Project Grant and a Graduate College Summer Fellowship.

ORCID iD

Gayle Rhineberger-Dunn

Note

References

Armstrong

G. S.

Atkin-Plunk

C. A.

Wells

(2015). The relationship between work–family conflict, correctional officer job stress, and job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 1066–1082. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815582221

Armstrong

Griffin

(2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.08.007

Byrd

Cochran

Silverman

Blount

(2000). Behind bars: An assessment of the effects of job satisfaction, job-related stress, and anxiety on jail employees’ inclinations to quit. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23, 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2000.972112

Carson

E. A.

Anderson

(2016). Prisoners in 2015. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Office of Justice Programs. U.S. Department of Justice.

Castle

T. L.

(2008). Satisfied in the jail? Exploring the predictors of job satisfaction among jail officers. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016808315586

Cheeseman

K. A.

Kim

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

(2011). Correctional officer perceptions of inmates and overall job satisfaction. Journal of Crime & Justice, 34, 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2011.580515

Cheek

(1984). Stress management for correctional officers and their families. American Correctional Association.

Cheesman

K. A.

Downey

R. A.

(2012). Talking ‘bout my generation: The effect of “generation” on correctional employee perceptions of work stress and job satisfaction. The Prison Journal, 92(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885511428796

Cook

Heath

Thompson

R. L.

(2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970934

10.

Cranny

Smith

Stone

(Eds.). (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. Lexington Books.

11.

Finn

Kuck

(2005). Stress among probation and parole officers and what can be done about it (NCJ Report No. 205620). Office of Justice Programs. U.S. Department of Justice.

12.

Gayman

M. D.

Bradley

M. S.

(2013). Organizational climate, work stress, and depressive symptoms among probation and parole officers. Criminal Justice Studies, 26, 26–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2012.742436

13.

Getahun

Sims

Hummer

(2008). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment among probation and parole officers: A case study. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice, 3, 1–16.

14.

Griffin

M. L.

(2001). Job satisfaction among detention officers: Assessing the relative contribution of organizational climate variables. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00086-1

15.

Griffin

M. L.

(2006). Gender and stress: A comparative of sources of stress among correctional officers. Journal of Comtemporary Criminal Justice, 22, 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986205285054

16.

Hackman

Lawler

(1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031152

17.

Hartley

Davila

M. A.

Marquart

J. W.

Mullings

J. L.

(2013). Fear is a disease: The impact of fear and exposure to infectious disease on correctional officer job stress and satisfaction. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9175-1

18.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

Jenkins

Hall

D. E.

(2009). The impact of job characteristics on private prison staff: Why management should care. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-009-9060-8

19.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

Kim

Mendenhall

Cheeseman

Griffin

(2017). Research note: Career stage and job satisfaction among southern correctional officers. Criminal Justice Studies, 30, 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2017.1370710

20.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Zhang

Jin

Shi

Xiang

(2016). Effects of work environment variables on job satisfaction among community correctional staff in China. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 1450–1470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816633493

21.

Kaeble

Maruschak

L. M.

Boncza

T. P.

(2015). Bureau of justice statistics (2015). Probation and Parole in the United States, 2014. Office of Justice Programs. U.S. Department of Justice.

22.

Lambert

(2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 84, 208–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885504265078

23.

Lambert

Hogan

(2009a). Creating a positive workplace experience: The issue of support from supervisors and management in shaping the job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of private correctional staff. Journal of Applied Security Research, 4, 462–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361610903176286

24.

Lambert

Hogan

(2009b). The importance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in shaping turnover intent: A test of a causal model. Criminal Justice Review, 34, 96–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016808324230

25.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton

S. M.

(2002). The impact of work-family conflict on correctional staff job satisfaction: An exploratory study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895806068572

26.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Griffin

(2007). The impact of distributive and procedural justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 644–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.09.001

27.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Griffin

M. L.

Kelley

(2015). The correctional staff burnout literature. Criminal Justice Studies, 28, 397–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2015.1065830

28.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

Jiang

(2010). A preliminary examination of the relationship between organizational structure and emotional burnout among correctional staff. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2010.00606.x

29.

Lambert

E. G.

Paoline

E. A.

(2005). The impact of medical issues on the job stress and job satisfaction of jail staff. Punishment & Society, 7, 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474505053829

30.

Lambert

E. G.

Paoline

E. A.

(2008). The influence of individual, job and organizational characteristics on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 541–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016808320694

31.

Lambert

E. G.

Paoline

E. A.

Hogan

N. L.

(2006). The impact of centralization and formalization on correctional staff job satisfaction and organizational commitment: An exploratory study. Criminal Justice Studies, 9, 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786010600615967

32.

Lee

W. J

Joo

H. J.

Johnson

W. W.

(2009). The effect of participatory management on internal stress, overall job satisfaction, and turnover intention among federal probation officers. Federal Probation, 73, 33–40.

33.

Lee

W. J.

Phelps

J. R.

Beto

D. R.

(2009). Turnover intention among probation officers and direct care staff: A statewide study. Federal Probation, 73, 28–39.

34.

Lewis

K. R.

Lewis

L.S.

Garby

T. M.

(2013). Surviving the trenches: The personal impact of the job on probation officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9165-3

35.

Maslach

(1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Prentice Hall.

36.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

(1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2, 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205

37.

Matz

A. K.

Woo

Kim

(2014). A meta-analysis of the correlates of turnover intent incriminal justice organizations: Does agency type matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.02.004

38.

Oldham

Hackman

(1981). Relationships between organizational structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 66–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392600

39.

Paoline

E. A.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

(2015). Job stress and job satisfaction among jail staff: Exploring gendered effects. Women & Criminal Justice, 25, 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2014.989302

40.

Pitts

W. J.

(2007). Educational competency as an indicator of job stress for probation and parole officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816666583

41.

Rhineberger-Dunn

Mack

K. Y.

Baker

K. M.

(2016). Secondary trauma among community corrections staff: An exploratory study. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55, 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2016.1181132

42.

Simmons

Cochran

J. K.

Blount

W. R.

(1997). The effects of job-related stress and job satisfaction on probation officers’ inclinations to quit. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887450

43.

Slate

R. N.

Wells

T. L.

Johnson

W. W.

(2003). Opening the manager’s door: State probation officer stress and perceptions of participation in workplace decision making. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 519–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703256526

44.

Spector

(1996). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. John Wiley.

45.

Van Voorhis

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 and Delinquency, 28, 472–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427891028004007

46.

Wells

Colbert

Slate

R. N.

(2006). Gender matters: Differences in state probation officer stress. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22, 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986205285381

47.

Whitehead

J. T.

(1981). The management of job stress in probation and parole. Journal of Probation and Parole, 13, 29–32.

48.

Whitehead

J. T.

Lindquist

(1985). Job stress and burnout among probation/parole officers: Perceptions and causal factors. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 29, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X8502900204