FORUM on Corrections Research

Predictors of work stress among correctional officers

Master thesis, Carleton University ¹
William Millson²
Advisor: David Robinson
Committee Members: Mary Gick, Charles Gordon, Adelle Forth, and Lise Paquette

As early as the 1960s, researchers and practitioners identified stress as a prominent cause of physical and psychological problems in workers across a variety of occupational categories. It was not until the late 1970s that more attention was devoted to the human service sector. At about the same time, a greater number of studies were focusing on stress experienced by individuals employed in the correctional work environment, in particular, the correctional officer. As some researchers have noted, this focus of attention helped trigger a new research agenda where “...the prison guard was now a worthy, if not fashionable, object of study.”³

Over the past two decades, studies on the causes of stress among correctional officers have proliferated. Table 1 provides a summary of the empirically supported sources of stress for correctional officers to date. The findings are generally defined within five categories, with the specific causes of stress listed for each. The research indicates that the sources of stress are broad and suggests that stress can be explained quite differently from one individual to the next.

Of the various factors listed in Table 1, dangerousness (for example, threats to personal security) has demonstrated the most research support as a significant stressor for correctional officers. Another area that has gained more recent attention involves what has been described in Table 1 as internal organizational factors. For instance, issues such as career progression, communication, and decision-making have also shown to be significant causes of stress for correctional officers.

Although it is unequivocal that correctional officers experience stress at work, there have been shortcomings noted in the research literature. For one, the majority of knowledge in this area is based on research that has been conducted on relatively small samples drawn from one or a few worksites. Additionally, most studies examine a limited number of factors and report more descriptive than correlational or predictive results. As well, the limited range of factors and analyses has at times produced inconsistent findings.

Table 1

Causes of Stress for Correctional Officers Findings from the Research Literature
Extemal organizational factors	Internal Organizational factors
• Public's view of correctional ofticers	• Understafting
• Level of pay	• Overtime
	• Management support
Work environment	• Career progression
• Dangerousness	• Communication and decision-making
• Inmate interactions	• Role conflict and ambiguity
• Boredom
• Problems with co-workers	Attitudes toward correctional
	• Correctional Orientation
Demographic factors work	• Job Satisfaction
• Gender
• Education
• Correctional experience

Present Study

In order to address some of the limitations in the research on correctional officer stress, this study examined the influence of 27 separate factors on self-reported work stress among correctional officers. One of the specific strengths of the current study was that almost all of the various factors identified in Table 1 could be tested as possible predictors of stress. Other advantages included having a large sample of correctional officers (n = 1,358) across many institutions (46 Federal correctional institutions) as well as the inclusion of a larger number of internal organizational factors.

The data for this study was drawn from a database that was collected through a 1996 survey of Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) staff. The questionnaire included 18 sections and 43 composite scales and was adminis- random selection of CSC staff stratified by and occupational groupings. An external con- managed administration of the questionnaires, completed voluntarily and anonymously.⁴

In total, 7,157 CSC staff were randomly selected to participate in the survey, and 4,961 completed a questionnaire. This represents a response rate of 69%. Of these, 2,815 correctional officers were randomly selected and 1,358 completed questionnaires. Accordingly, the response rate was 48% – slightly higher than reported for other large, national surveys of correctional officers.

Results

The average length of time correctional officers had been working for CSC was 12.5 years while the length of time working at their present institution was 8.5 years. The smallest percentage of correctional officers (11.3%) were employed in minimum-security institutions, 52.8% in medium-security institutions, and 35.9% in maximum-security institutions. The average age was about 40, most were men (79.1%), and slightly less than half (46.1%) had a college or university degree.

Table 2 shows the scales examined in the study as possible predictors of job stress. These, in addition to the demographic variables of age, gender, education, and years employed were included in the overall analyses. Regression analysis was used to determine the relationship of these variables to job stress. A major benefit of this approach is that all 27 factors could be considered simultaneously in the analysis. It also provided the opportunity to “test” all the factors at the same time to determine which ones were the best predictors of job stress, as shown in Table 3.

Table 2

Scales Examined as Possible Predictors of Job Stress
External organizational factors	Internal organizational factors
• Greater accountability to the public	• Employment competition process
• Public image	• Organizational communication
	• Staff empowerment
Work environment	• Quality of supervision
• Perceptions of personal security	• Staff recognition
• Understanding of work procedures	• Fair treatment of employees
• Impact of shiftwork	• Performance appraisal
	• Career management
Attitudes toward correctional work	• Policy orientation
• Commitment to CSC	• Support for personal job development
• Support for CSC objectives	• Satisfaction with physical environment
• Rehabilitation	• Employment security
• Empathy toward offenders
• Punitiveness

Of the 27 factors entered into the regression analysis, a total of 9 were found to be statistically significant predictors of job stress. Table 3 rates the relative importance of each factor (for example, the variance accounted for in the prediction of job stress). Consistent with earlier research, the measure of perceptions of personal security or “dangerousness” was found to be the most important factor in determining sources of job stress. Staff empowerment (such as, changing things at work sites, ability to accomplish work objectives, etc.), a factor identified earlier as receiving more recent attention in the research literature, was also found to be a significant predictor of job stress. Other factors such as the impact of shift work, employment security, and understanding of work procedures were less important yet still significant, followed by career management, gender, years employed, and security level.

Table 3

Factor Predictive of Job Stress by Security Level
Relative Importance	Factors	Variance*
1	Perceptions of Personal Security	0.24
2	Staff Empowerment	0.05
3	Impact of Shiftwork	0.02
4	Employment Security	0.01
5	Understanding of Work Procedures	0.01
6	Career Management	< 0.01
7	Gender	< 0.01
8	Years Working for CSC	< 0.01
9	Security Level	< 0.01
* Variance refers to the amount of “ explaining power” of each factor. It is usually expressed in terms of “ variance accounted for” and represents the percentage of job stress explained by each factor. The total variance accounted for by all the factors entered into the regression analysis can range from 0.0 to 1.0, or 0% to 100%.

Although it is clear that dangerousness is one of the primary causes of job stress, this may be explained by the fact that many of the respondents worked in either medium (52.8%) or maximum (35.9%) security institutions. Since higher security institutions normally house more dangerous and violent offenders, this may increase the perceptions of dangerousness among correctional officers compared to less secure institutions. Accordingly, it is not surprising that dangerousness is one of the key sources of stress identified by correctional officers.

In order to explore the idea that perceived dangerousness may play less of a role in explaining job stress for lower security institutions, more detailed analyses were conducted on correctional officers employed in minimum, medium, and maximum security institutions. To facilitate the analyses, scores on the perceptions of personal security scale were divided into three levels: negative, undecided, and positive. For each perceived level of personal security, mean job stress scores were calculated. Figure 1 shows the results for each security level.

The trends in Figure 1 were the same across the three security levels mean job stress scores were higher for correctional officers with negative perceptions of personal security (feel they are at high risk of being assaulted) compared to those with more neutral or positive personal security perceptions (feel they are at low risk of being assaulted). These findings suggest that perceptions of dangerousness plays a significant role in job stress, regardless of the security level of the institution.

Figure 1
Mean Job Stress Scores by Pe rceived Level of
Personal Security

Given these findings, it may very well be the case that the causes of job stress are similar for correctional officers across the three security levels. To address this hypothesis and examine the influence of all 27 factors on job stress by security level, the regression analyses were repeated on correctional officers employed in minimum-, medium-, and maximum-security institutions. Table 4 shows the results (see Table 4).

Table 4

Factors Predictive of Job Stress by Security Level
Minimum-Security			Medium-Security		Maximum-Security
Relative Importance	Factor	Var.	Factor	Var.	Factor	Var.
1	Perceptions of personal security	0.22	Perceptions of Personal Security	0.27	Perceptions of Personal Security	0.21
2	Staff empowerment	0.09	Staff Empowerment	0.05	Career Management	0.07
3	Employment security	0.04	Employment Security	0.02	Impact of Shift work	0.03
4	Age	0.03	Understanding of Work Procedures	0.01	Employment Security	0.02
5	Understanding of work procedures	0.03	Performance Appraisal	0.01	Empathy Toward Offenders	0.02
6	Support for personal job development	0.03	Impact of Shift work	0.01	Staff Recognition	0.01
7	Impact of shift work	0.02			Staff Empowerment	0.01
8	Public image of CSC	0.03

The findings from the regression analyses were consistent in terms of the most important factor perceptions of personal security were the best predictor of job stress within each security level. Consistent with the results reported earlier, internal organizational factors were identified as the next greatest source of job stress staff empowerment for correctional officers in minimum- and medium-security institutions and career management for those in maximum-security institutions.

Discussion

This study provided an opportunity to further investigate the predictors of job stress in correctional officers. Results showed that perceptions of personal security or dangerousness were the best predictor of job stress for the overall sample. This finding is consistent with earlier research that has demonstrated dangerousness as one of the most important determinants of stress among correctional officers.

It was interesting to find that perceptions of personal security were also the best predictor of job stress within each institutional security level. In lower security institutions it was expected that factors other than dangerousness would be more important in explaining job stress. However, the results suggest that perceptions of personal security appears to be just as stress provoking in a minimum-security environment as working in a more secure and controlled environment. Even though inmates in minimum-security institutions report the lowest likelihood of staff being assaulted,⁵ the results are consistent with those found by researchers⁶ who have argued that feelings of danger may derive less from actual assaults and more from the realization that officers face the constant and often unpredictable possibility of victimization.

The study also highlighted the growing importance of internal organizational factors as additional predictors of job stress. The findings suggest that such organizational aspects of correctional work play a major role in influencing on-the-job stress. As found with more recent studies, higher levels of stress were reported for correctional officers who felt they were not “empowered” enough to perform their role effectively. The same holds true for those who report impediments in their career progression.

The results are encouraging for correctional decision-makers since the factors identified as major contributors to stress are alterable and amenable to change in management practices. Future research should explore how these factors can be addressed to reduce stress at work, thereby contributing to a more positive work experience for correctional officers.

---

1. Abstract from Millson, W. (2000) Predictors of work stress among correctional officers. Master thesis. Ottawa, ON: University Carleton.

2. 340 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, Ontario K1A0P9

3. Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., Wolfe, N. T., and Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2(4), 505-533.

4. Acomplete description of the methodology and a copy of the survey questionnaire can be obtained from the author.

5. Robinson, D., and Mirabelli, L. (1996). Summary of Findings of the 1995 CSC National Inmate Survey. Ottawa, ON: Correctional Service Canada.

6. Lombardo, L. X. (1981). Occupational stress in correction officers: Sources, coping strategies, and implications. In S. E. Zimmerman & H. D. Miller (Eds.), Corrections at the crossroads. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.