Correctional Service Canada
www.csc-scc.gc.ca
Common menu bar links
FORUM on Corrections Research
The Impact of Tenure and Status on Staff Perceptions of the Work Environment in U.S. Federal Prisons
|
Relatively little research has been conducted on differences among correctional staff based on their
type of position (custody versus non-custody), amount of contact with inmates, supervisory
responsibilities, tenure, experience and institutional security level. What research has been conducted
has focused on the manifestation of negative symptoms among employees, rather than on their
organizational experiences. Previous studies, for example, have identified numerous work-related problems experienced by prison employees, such as alienation, burnout, cynicism and job dissatisfaction. These findings may lead one to infer that working conditions in prisons are difficult and unpleasant. Yet, results of a U.£ Bureau of Prisons (BOP) study of its employees present a different picture. This paper describes the study and its findings, examining the issue of tenure in federal prisons - whether longevity of employment in prisons affects individuals' perceptions of their work environment. Generally, the study revealed widespread satisfaction among federal prison employees with regard to seven particular aspects of their work environment. A close look at the findings, however, reveals certain key differences among staff. For example, staff who had frequent contact with inmates, those who worked in custodial positions and employees with longer tenure generally had lower opinions of the work environment of federal prisons. Conversely, individuals with supervisory responsibilities had more positive views. Past Research on Tenure and Experience Longevity is one of the characteristics that has been associated with job dissatisfaction among prison employees. Cullen and colleagues(1) identified two contrasting, but plausible, views of the effects of experience on job perception. The first suggests that everyday pressures over time may lead correctional staff to burnout, leaving them with poor attitudes and negative perceptions of their work situation. The alternative perspective suggests that experience may provide valuable resources enabling officers to cope effectively with the stresses and strains of their jobs. Research findings generally support the first proposition, that favourable attitudes about working with inmates decline with tenure. Length of time as a correctional officer has been associated with less favourable attitudes about inmates,(2) less confidence in inmates' rehabilitative potential,(3) lower perceived legitimacy of inmates' social protests(4) and a greater orientation toward custody.(5) The effect of experience on how staff members perceive the organization is less clear. Jurik and Halemba(6) found greater job satisfaction among those who had been employed longer. However, subsequent research by Jurik and Winn(7) detected no significant difference based on length of experience. Cullen and colleagues(8) also failed to detect a relationship between correctional experience and job satisfaction. They did, however, find more work-related stress among those with longer tenure. Jurik and Musheno's research(9) failed to show that feelings of social distance from inmates declined among staff members with more experience. Methods In 1988, the Bureau of Prisons' Office of Research and Evaluation initiated a new research program designed to measure the organizational climates within its facilities. A survey questionnaire,(10) now administered to staff annually, was aimed at providing Bureau managers with critical information about the organization' 5 social climate as conveyed by staff perceptions and attitudes about the care and custody of inmates, crowding, the personal well-being of staff and the quality of work environments in Bureau facilities. In the first Prison Social Climate Survey, questionnaires were mailed to the homes of approximately half of the employees working in federal prisons. A total of 8,099 surveys were mailed to staff employed at 46 facilities (the total number of federal facilities at that time). Individuals were selected for inclusion in the survey using a sampling method that divided the population based on the presence or absence of five characteristics -employment in UNICOR (federal prison industries), minority status, gender, supervisory position and custodial position. A sample of staff who fell into each of these groups was randomly selected. A total of 3,325 usable questionnaires were received by the Office of Research and Evaluation, a response rate of 41%. Although this rate was lower than desired, the characteristics of those who did respond generally reflected the characteristics of the staff population, with three exceptions: black staff members were significantly under-represented in the sample, women were slightly under-represented, and supervisors and staff with greater longevity in the system (obviously overlapping groups) were over-represented. Measuring the Work Environment The Prison Social Climate Survey is divided into five main sections: socio-demographics and job experience, personal safety and security, quality of life, personal well-being and work environment. Of the four substantive sections, the work environment section explores aspects of organizational processes that traditionally have been associated with social climates. For the 1988 survey administration, this section included 57 items that measured seven different aspects of the work environment: Authority and Structure How well is the Bureau of Prisons organized and how well does it operate? Respondents indicate if the lines of authority are clearly delineated and how well the organization communicates change. Supervision Respondents are asked about the adequacy of supervision. Several items question whether or not the supervisor provides the direction and freedom necessary for respondents to do their job. Other items deal with job performance and feedback. BOP Satisfaction The respondents are asked whether or not they are satisfied with the Bureau of Prisons, whether they are likely to remain with the Bureau and how the Bureau compares with other prison systems. Institution Satisfaction Respondents are asked to compare their institution to others in the Bureau and if they prefer to continue working where they are now. Job Satisfaction Respondents' satisfaction with their particular jobs is evaluated. Personal Efficacy This section explores whether respondents feel that they deal effectively with inmates. It assesses influence, accomplishment and ease experienced while working with inmates. Job-related Stress This section estimates the impact of the job on the individual. Measuring Status and Experience The socio-demographic and job-experience section of the Prison Social Climate Survey contains a series of questions about respondent characteristics, such as frequency of contact with inmates, type of job, supervisory responsibilities, length of time with the Bureau of Prisons and security level of the facility in which respondents work. Additional information, which can be used as a control for other effects, is gathered on race, ethnicity, gender, age, previous experience in other prisons and shifts. Findings Overall, survey participants responded positively to the seven work-environment scales. With regard to authority, structure and supervision, most responses were positive. Only 27% of staff gave negative ratings to the authority and structure or quality of supervision in their facilities. Job and Bureau satisfaction were the most favourably viewed of the seven indicators of the work environment, with more than 70% of the subjects giving averaged responses in the positive range. There were slightly lower levels of institutional satisfaction, but still only 27% of staff gave negative ratings. Responses associated with personal efficacy suggested that most staff members feel that they are at least occasionally effective in dealing with inmates. Further, only about one out of seven (15%) reported that they were regularly troubled by job-related stress. These favourable ratings of the work environment are not what one would expect from reading the literature on prison staff. They suggest widespread positive feelings about the settings in which federal-prison employees work. Still, for all seven scales, a minority of respondents evaluated their facilities in the negative range. In some cases, this may indicate an incompatibility between the employee and the setting. In other cases, however, dissatisfaction may be systematically dispersed within some segment of the organization. To explore the possibility of systematic dissatisfaction, the study examined how staff response differed based on status and longevity. The analysis revealed that personnel working in custodial positions had less positive views than non-custodial personnel of the authority, structure and supervision within their facilities. They were less satisfied with their jobs, their institutions and the Bureau of Prisons. They also perceived themselves as less effective in working with inmates. However, they perceived lower levels of job-related stress than did non-custodial staff. In comparison to those with more limited contact, staff members who had frequent contact with inmates (irrespective of whether they were custodial or non-custodial) rated operational authority and structure, as well as the quality of supervision, less positively. In contrast, however, they reported feeling more efficacy in dealing with inmates. They also reported greater job-related stress. As might be expected, supervisors rated their work environment better than non-supervisors in all aspects except job-related stress where there was no difference. With regard to institutional security level, the survey found greater satisfaction at lower-security facilities. Findings with regard to tenure with the Bureau and at the respondent's particular institution are intriguing. Staff members with longer tenures with the Bureau of Prisons expressed lower levels of satisfaction with their current institution, but higher levels of satisfaction with the Bureau. Longer-term BOP employees also had more positive opinions about the authority and structure within their facilities. In contrast to these findings, employees with longer tenure at a particular facility were more satisfied with the institution than those who were newer, yet had more negative opinions about all other aspects of its work environment. Staff members newer to an institution rated authority, structure and supervision more positively than those who had been there longer. They expressed greater satisfaction with their jobs and with the Bureau. They also perceived themselves as having greater efficacy in working with inmates, although they reported higher levels of job-related stress. Positive associations were found between the age of employees and their perceptions of their work environment. Older staff members had more positive views on six of the seven scales. The only scale that was not influenced by age was the respondent's evaluation of the quality of supervision. Discussion The study findings lead to four significant conclusions about prison operations: Positive opinions about the work environment within prisons are prevalent among employees of U.S. federal prisons.
These findings suggest that a high priority for contemporary prison managers must be finding ways to increase teamwork, communication and decision making among prison staff who work most closely with inmates, without compromising the safety and security of prison operations. This study also discovered that individuals who have been employed by the federal prison system longer were more satisfied with the Bureau, but less satisfied with their current facility. Staff members newer to a particular facility rated its operations and supervision higher than longer-term employees, expressed greater job satisfaction with the Bureau, perceived themselves as more effective with inmates and were less troubled by job-related stress. The only work-environment variable rated higher by staff members who have been at a particular prison longer was institutional satisfaction. These findings appear to have detected differences in the way mobile and non-mobile staff members experience working in federal prisons. In the Bureau of Prisons, advancement opportunities are greater for those who are willing to relocate. There are simply more jobs open nationally than at any single facility. Furthermore, at the higher levels of management, there is an expectation that individuals will move periodically. Consequently, staff members who remain at a facility, either out of personal choice or because they are no longer promotable, reach a plateau in their careers. Because their career opportunities are more limited and their jobs may become routine, non-mobile staff members evidently come to be less satisfied with the Bureau of Prisons and their jobs, and are less positive about facility operations, supervision and their own effectiveness. Evidently, as they become resigned to remaining at their current location, their expression of satisfaction with that facility increases. In contrast, staff members willing to relocate have positive opinions about the Bureau of Prisons, but are less satisfied with their current situation. This is probably because they have moved and expect to move again in the future as they continue to progress in the organization, and because they consequently have not had time to build the level of commitment to the institution that develops over time. The potential for conflict between mobile and non-mobile employees is obvious as attitudes and allegiances differ between the two groups. Managers need to monitor the development of this phenomenon and seek creative ways to foster institutional commitment among mobile staff and job enrichment among stationary staff. Stationary staff members need ways to grow in their jobs, to experience new challenges and to undergo renewal. This study demonstrates that staff members are not uniformly negative about the working conditions in prisons, as previous research seems to suggest. However, important differences among staff members, based on their status and longevity, were detected. Future research is needed to test these findings in state prisons and to evaluate the ability of managers to manipulate environmental conditions to create more positive attitudes among certain segments of the staff. (1)F.T. Cullen, B.G. Link, N.T. Wolfe and J. Frank, "The Social Dimension of Correctional Officer Stress," Justice Quarterly, 2, 4 (1985): 505-533. (2)N.C. Junk, "Individual and Organizational Determinants of Correctional Officer Attitudes Towards Inmates," Criminology, 23, 3 (1985): 523-539. (3)B. Shamir and A. Drory, "Some Correlates of Prison Guards' Beliefs," Criminal Justice and Behavior, 8, 2 (1981): 233-249. (4)J.R. Hepburn, "The Erosion of Authority and the Perceived Legitimacy of Inmate Social Protest: A Study of Prison Guards," Journal of Criminal Justice, 12 (1984): 579-590. (5)E.D. Poole and R.M. Regoli, "Role Stress, Custody Orientation and Disciplinary Actions: A Study of Prison Guards," Criminology, 18, 2 (1980): 215-226. (6)N.C. Junk and G.J. Halemba, "Gender, Working Conditions, and the Job Satisfaction of Women in a Non-Traditional Occupation: Female Correctional Officers in Men's Prisons," Sociological Quarterly, 25 (1984): 551-566. (7)N.C. Junk and R. Winn, "Describing Correctional-Security Dropouts and Rejects: An Individual or Organizational Profile?" Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 1 (1987): 5-25. (8)Cullen et al., "The Social Dimension of Correctional Officer Stress." (9)N. C. Junk and MC. Musheno, "The Internal Crisis of Corrections: Professionalization and the Work Environment," Justice Quarterly, 3, 4 (1986): 457-480. (10)W.G. Saylor, "Surveying Prison Environments." Unpublished manuscript, Office of Research, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C., 1983. |
