OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD: Predictors of

Stress among Jail Correctional Officers

TAMMY L. CASTLE, Ph.D.t
University of West Florida

JAMIE S. MARTIN, Ph.D.

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

ABSTRACT: The plethora o f literature on correctional officers and the work

environment, more specifically occupational stress, has focused almost exclusively
on officers working in prison facilities. The primary purpose o f the current study
was to examine the predictors o f occupational stress and general stress among 373
jail correctional officers in one state in the Northeast, using the stressors identified
in the previous literature on prison correctional officers and occupational stress.
The results indicated that organizational strengths, perceived danger, role
problems, and job satisfaction were significant predictors o f both occupational
and general stress. In addition, gender and salary predicted occupational stress
while correctional experience and training predicted general stress. Suggestions
are made for administrators, as well as future research on the workplace exper-
iences o f correctional officers.

INTRODUCTION
Occupational stress among correctional officers continues to be a
topic of research interest and a plethora of studies have examined
work-related issues ranging from correctional officer attitudes to job
turnover (Dowden & Tellier, 2004). Few studies have examined the ex-
periences of correctional officers working the in jail, versus prison, envi-
ronment (Lambert, Reynolds, Paoline, & Watkins, 2004; Lovrich &
Stohr, 1993; Stohr, Lovrich, & Wilson, 1994). This study sought to aug-
ment previous literature on correctional officer stress and address the
gap by focusing on officers employed in a jail setting.
Humphrey (1998) noted that fatigue and passivity became evident
among individuals who worked in people-oriented occupations and
often this resulted in job burnout. Positions in the criminal justice sys-
tem require interaction with people on a daily basis however the inter-
action is usually negative in nature, making jobs in policing and

? Direct all correspondence to: Tammy L. Castle, University o f West Florida, Divi-
sion o f Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, 1170 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. 4/463, Fort
Walton Beach, FL 32548. Emaih tcastle@uwf.edu.

A M E R I C A N J O U R N A L O F C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E , Vol. 31 No. 1, 2006

9 2006 Southern Criminal Justice Association
66 STRESSAMONG JAIL CORRECTIONALOFFICERS

corrections inherently risky occupations. The adversarial nature of the

relationship between the "employee" and the "consumer" in the crimi-
nal justice system provides another layer of possible stressors not pre-
sent in other people-oriented occupations. Arguably, the conditions
that cause stress are most severe in the correctional system, where indi-
viduals are forced to supervise inmates being held against their will. As
Brodsky (1982) noted, "any organization or social structure which con-
sists of one group of people kept inside who do not want to be there
and the other group who are there to make sure they stay in will be an
organization under stress" (p. 75).
The definition of stress utilized in this study was introduced by Cul-
len, Link, Wolfe, and Frank (1985) who defined stress as "the psycho-
logical discomfort or tension which results from exposure to stressors"
and stressors as "the conditions which place excessive or unusual de-
mands on a person and are capable of engendering psychological dis-
comfort (that is, stress)" (p. 507).

Predictors of Occupational Stress in

Correctional Officers
The sources of stress vary among occupations. Research studies on
occupational stress among prison correctional officers have examined
both worker characteristics and working conditions to determine the
factors that have the greatest impact on stress. This study explores
three broad categories of stressors: individual level, organizational
level, and jail factors.
Studies examining the impact of worker characteristics, or individ-
ual level factors, on prison correctional officers have found some com-
mon themes. In a few studies, gender has been found to be a significant
predictor of stress, with female correctional officers reporting more
stress (Auerbach, Quick, & Pegg, 2003; Cullen et al., 1985; Triplett,
Mullings, & Scarborough, 1999). Females may not only experience
more stress in the workplace while trying to compete in a historically
male-dominated profession, but also may experience stress because of
other demands on their time outside the workplace, causing work-home
conflict (Triplett et al., 1999) and life stress (Cullen et al., 1985).
Dowden and Tellier (2004) noted that although the meta-analysis failed
to reveal an important role for gender, additional research is needed to
identify "differential specific predictors of work stress" (p. 42).
The variables age and correctional experience (or tenure) have
been confounded in research studies on stress; thus, often only one of
the variables is included in the analysis (Dowden & Tellier, 2004). Some
studies have found that officers with longer tenure or more correctional
 CASTLE AND MARTIN 67

experience report more stress (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Auerbach et

al., 2003; Britton, 1997; Cullen et al., 1985; Grossi & Berg, 1991; Poole
& Regoli, 1980). Officers who have worked at the facility longer may in
fact be experiencing symptoms of job burnout, brought about by pro-
longed exposure to stressors (Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986). In one
study, only male officers experienced more streess (Triplett et al., 1999),
while another study found a curvilinear relationship with officers who
worked at the prison less than one year or more than twelve years re-
porting more stress (Patterson, 1992). Regarding age, older officers
typically report more stress (Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Lindquist &
Whitehead, 1986; Saylor & Wright, 1992).
Perceptions of the dangerousness of the job (Armstrong & Griffin,
2004; Cullen et al., 1985; Finn, 1998; Grossi & Berg, 1991; Triplett, Mul-
lings, & Scarborough, 1996; Triplett et al., 1999) and role problems
(Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Cullen et al., 1985; Grossi & Berg, 1991;
Poole & Regoli, 1980; Triplett et al., 1996; Triplett et al., 1999;
Veneziano, 1984) are two variables that have consistently been found to
increase stress. Role problems, or ambiguous or conflicting expecta-
tions, may be a result of the correctional officer's responsibilities of
both providing a custody function and caring for the daily needs of the
inmates. These two roles may come into conflict with one another, and
as training typically focuses on custody and control, the officers may be
unprepared to handle other tasks. The perceived danger of the job is a
reality in this type of work and has more predictive utility than role
problems (Dowden & Tellier, 2004).
Finally, the results of race and education have been mixed. Only
one study found that having more education increased occupational
stress among prison correctional officers (Auerbaeh et al., 2003), possi-
bly because officers with more education are looking to utilize those
skills in the workplace, and when this does not come to fruition they
become dissatisfied and stressed. Regarding race, one study found that
minority officers experience more job stress than other officers (Brit-
ton, 1997), but the meta-analysis found the opposite (Dowden & Tel-
lier, 2004).
In addition to individual level factors, organizational factors have
been examined in the literature on prison correctional officers and
stress. Two variables, administrative strengths (effective communica-
tion, input in decision making, etc.) and job conditions (hours worked,
salary, opportunities for promotion, etc., see for example Auerbach et
al., 2003; Cheek & Miller, 1983; Finn, 1998; Lombardo, 1981;
Veneziano, 1984) have both been found to predict stress. The overall
strength of the organization seems to be a significant predictor of stress
in the workplace, and is not likely unique to correctional work. If of-
68 STRESSAMONG JAIL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

ricers believe that they have some control over what happens to them
and can actively participate in the decision making process, then it
stands to reason that they would be less stressed and more satisfied with
the job.
Having the support of the administration and from fellow officers
is important in any workplace and supervisory or agency support (Arm-
strong & Griffin, 2004; Auerbach et al., 2003; Cullen et al., 1985; Finn,
1998; Triplett et al., 1999) and peer support (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004;
Cullen et al., 1985; Finn, 1998; Grossi & Berg, 1991) have both been
found to decrease stress. In addition, overcrowding (Finn, 1998;
Veneziano, 1984), overtime (Finn, 1998), and shift work (Cheek &
Miller, 1983; Finn, 1998) have been found to increase stress.
Only one study examined differences in predictors of stress among
correctional officers working in a jail setting (Stohr et al., 1994). Over-
all, the researchers found that stress was impacted by management and
personnel practices. The officers who reported the highest levels of
workplace stress worked in two of the county jails where the worst per-
sonnel practices were reported. Like the studies on prison correctional
officers, the findings of the jail study highlight the importance of organi-
zational factors over demographic variables.
Jails and prisons are different working environments; thus, jail fac-
tors (e.g., those unique to that setting) may lead to stress in different
ways than prison factors. For this reason, one warden was contacted
and interviewed regarding variables not already identified that may im-
pact an officer's level of stress. Overcrowding was included and had
been previously addressed in one of the prison studies (Veneziano,
1984). Supervision style was included as a jail variable based on the
idea that more frequent or intense contact with the inmates may in-
crease stress. The hypothesis then was that officers who worked in di-
rect supervision jails would report more stress based on the fact that the
design and philosophy of these jails mandates more contact with the
inmates. Also, jail unit was included because the unit in which the of-
ricer works most of the time might impact stress (restricted or secured
housing versus work-release). Finally, training was included as a jail
factor because the amount of training an officer receives prior to em-
ployment is decided by the individual wardens of each jail and not dic-
tated by the state Department of Corrections. Therefore, the amount
of training prior to employment (if any) an officer receives might im-
pact their level of preparedness for the job.
The research questions were guided by the robust literature relat-
ing to prison correctional officer stress, but focused (or specified) by the
acknowledgment of the significant differences between jails and pris-
ons. Thus, the research questions for this study focused on three broad
 CASTLE AND MARTIN 69

areas: individual level factors, organizational level factors, and jail fea-
tures. More specifically, (a) what impact do individual level factors
(gender, perceptions of danger, role problems, correctional experience,
and education) have on occupational stress among jail correctional of-
ricers, (b) what impact do organizational level factors (administrative
strengths, supervisory and peer support, job conditions, and job satis-
faction) have on occupational stress among jail correctional officers,
and (c) what impact do jail features (inmate supervision style, jail unit,
overcrowding, and training) have on occupational stress among jail cor-
rectional officers?

METHODS
Participants
All of the 62 county level jails in one Northeastern state were con-
tacted regarding participation in the study. The wardens from 25 jails
granted the researcher access, yielding a target population of 2,188 cor-
rectional officers. A packet was distributed to the correctional officers
employed in these jails in September of 2004, which included the sur-
vey, a return envelope, and a cover letter describing the purpose of the
study. Of the 2,188 packets distributed, 373 usable questionnaires were
returned, yielding a response rate of 18%. Due to the initial low re-
sponse rate, follow-up phone calls were made to the designated contact
person, however no additional surveys were returned.
The overall sample consisted of 270 (72.4%) males and 103
(27.6%) females and the officers ranged in age from 22 to 63 years, with
a mean of 38 years, a median of 37 years, and a standard deviation of
9.760. Due to a lack of variation in race, the variable was collapsed into
Caucasian (n=330 or 88.7%) and non-Caucasian (n=43 or 11.3%). Re-
garding education, the majority of respondents reported receiving a
"GED or diploma" (n=135 or 36.1%) or "some college or post-secon-
dary school" (n=136 or 36.4%) as highest level of education completed.
The mean for correctional experience was 85 months, with a median of
63 months and a range of 2 to 408. Descriptive statistics for the scale
variables and the alpha coefficients for each scale are presented in Ta-
ble 1.

Measures
Dependent Variables
The two dependent variables were occupational stress and general
stress. The occupational stress scale was an attitudinal, self-report mea-
sure of job-related stress. Occupational stress was operationalized by a
70 STRESSAMONG JAIL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics for Scale Variables (N=-373)
Variable Mean SD Range a
Individual level
Role problems 18.21 9.80 0-44 .76
Dangerousness 32.88 9.42 2-50 .82
Organizational level
Supervisory support 24.10 13.08 0-58 .83
Peer support 22.29 10.93 0-49 .81
Administration strengths 42.93 19.52 2-90 .84
Job satisfaction 36.51 13.45 0-60 .90
Dependent variable scales
Job Stress 33.13 12.98 2-60 .86
General Stress 24.02 11.92 0-50 .83

six-item Likert scale (a=.86) modified from the scaled used by Cullen et
al. (1985). The general stress scale measured the officer's level of stress
that was the result of the experiences in the workplace, however, im-
pacted the officer outside of the jail. The five-item Likert scale (a=.83)
was adapted from the work environment section of the Prison Social
Climate Survey (Saylor, 1983), developed for use with employees of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Independent Variables
The independent variables were separated into three categories: in-
dividual level factors, organizational level factors, and jail factors. Indi-
vidual level factors included gender, education, and correctional
experience. In addition, two scales were included to measure role
problems and individual perceptions of danger. Four scales were used
to measure the organizational factors of supervisory support, peer sup-
port, administrative strengths, and job satisfaction. Single item indica-
tors were used to measure the organizational factors of understaffed,
overtime, and shift work. Furthermore, three jail factors, training, direct
supervision, and jail unit were identified as possible stressors. Single
item indicators were used to measure the three jail variables.
Role problems was measured using a five-item scale (a=.76),
adapted from the Cullen et al. (1985) study that measures the degree to
which officers experience role conflict or ambiguity. The scale included
items such as "What I actually do often conflicts with what policy dic-
tates I do at work" and "My job duties and work objectives are
unclear."
 CASTLE AND MARTIN 71

A five-item scale (a=.82) that measured perceptions of danger also

was adapted from the Cullen et al. (1985) study. The scale measured
the extent to which officers felt that their work was "dangerous," and
included items such as "Being a jail correctional officer is a dangerous
job" and "My job is a lot more dangerous than jobs outside
corrections."
Supervisory support was measured using a six-item scale (a=.83)
adapted from two previous studies (Cullen et al., 1985; Van Voorhis,
Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991). The scale measures the officers' percep-
tions of the level of supportive supervisor and agency relations. Scale
items included "My supervisor often encourage the people I work with
if they do their job well" and "When my supervisors have a dispute with
one of my fellow officers they usually try to handle it in a friendly way."
A five-item scale was used to measure peer support (a=.81), or the
officers' perceptions of the level of supportive peer relations, based on
a scale used previously in three studies (Cullen et al., 1985; Grossi &
Berg, 1991; Van Voorhis et al., 1991). Scale items included "My fellow
officers often compliment someone who has done his/her job well" and
"My fellow officers often encourage each other to do the job in a way
that we could really be proud of."
A ten-item scale was used to measure administrative strengths
(a--.84). The scale was taken from the work environment section of the
Prison Social Climate Survey (Saylor, 1983), developed to measure the
social climate in the federal prison system. Scale items included "The
information I get through policies and the administration helps me per-
form my job effectively" and "Employees do not have much opportu-
nity to influence what goes on in this institution."
Finally, a six-item scale, developed by Hepburn and Knepper
(1993), was included to measure job satisfaction (a=.90). The scale items
included "I like the duties I perform in my job" and "I am satisfied with
my present job assignment."
In addition to the individual, organizational, and jail factors, age,
race, and average daily population were included as control variables.
Age and the average daily population of the jail were measured as con-
tinuous variables and race was collapsed into a binary variable with
l=Caucasian and 0--Non-Caucasian.

RESULTS
Bivariate correlations were examined for high correlations be-
tween variables that may indicate the presence of multicollinearity.
The correlation between the independent variables "administrative
strengths" and "supervisory support" was the highest .65. In addition
72 STRESSAMONG JAIL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

to the bivariate correlations, tolerance statistics and variance inflation

factors were observed. The tolerance statistics for all of the models ex-
ceeded .2 and the variance inflation factors were all below 4, which indi-
cated that all of the variables were independent of one another; thus,
multicollinearity was not a serious p r o b l e m (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002).
Multivariate O L S regression models then were utilized to examine
the impact of the individual, organizational, and jail factors on occupa-
tional and general stress. The multivariate results are presented in Ta-
ble 2 by d e p e n d e n t variable.

TABLE 2
Multivariate Results by Dependent Variable
Occupational Stress General Stress
f3 SE f3 SE
Individual Level Factors
Gender .09* 1.25 -.04 1.10
Dangerousness .32** .06 .13"* .06
Role Problems .14"* .06 .13"* .06
Correctional experience .07 .01 .13" .01
Level of Education -.06 .45 -.01 .40
Organizational Level Factors
Administrative Strengths -.12" .04 -.24** .04
Peer Support -.07 .06 -.04 .05
Supervisory Support -.01 .06 .05 .05
Understaffed .01 1.10 -.06 1.00
Overtime .07 .51 -.03 .50
Shift Work -.03 1.70 .05 1.51
Opportunity -.08 .25 -.02 .23
Salary .10" .20 .06 .18
Job satisfaction -.33** .05 -.37** .04
Jail Factors
Training .07 .00 .09* .00
Overcrowding -.04 .80 -.03 .70
Specialized Unit .03 1.41 -.02 1.25
Direct Supervision -.00 1.24 .03 1.11
Control Variables
Age .01 .07 -.04 .06
Race .01 1.73 .02 1.54
Avgerage Daily Population -.12" .00 -.03 .00
R~ .42 .45
F ratio 11.94"* 13.78"*

*p<.05, **p<.01
 CASTLE AND MARTIN 73

Occupational Stress
Three individual level variables were significant predictors of occu-
pational stress: gender ([3=.10, p<.05), dangerousness ([3=.29, p<.001),
and role problems ([3=.144, p<.01). Female officers and officers who
reported perceiving the job as more dangerous, as well as experiencing
more role problems, reported higher levels of occupational stress. In
addition, three organizational level variables were significant including
administrative strengths ([3=-.12, p<.05), salary ([3=.09, p=.05), and job
satisfaction ([3=-.34, p<.001). Officers who reported a lack of effective
communication among the administration and within the organization,
more satisfaction with salary, and indicated less satisfaction with their
jobs also reported more occupational stress.
Of the control variables, age and race were not significant. Aver-
age daily population, coded as a continuous variable, was significant
when controlling for the effects of individual and organizational level
variables. The relationship was negative ([3=-.11, p<.05), indicating that
officers who worked in jails with fewer inmates reported more occupa-
tional stress.

General Stress
Three of the individual level variables, dangerousness ([3=.10,
p<.05), role problems ([3-.13, p<.01), and correctional experience ([3=.11,
p<.01), were positive and significant, indicating that officers who re-
ported perceiving more danger, experiencing more role problems, and
working at the jail the longest also reported higher levels of general
stress. Two of the organizational level variables, administrative
strengths ([3=-.25, p<.001) and job satisfaction ([3=-.38, p<.001), were
negative and significant, indicating that officers who reported less satis-
faction with their jobs, as well as fewer administrative and organiza-
tional strengths, also reported more general stress. Furthermore, one of
the jail factors, training ([3=.09, p<.05), was positive and significant, indi-
cating that officers who reported more hours of training prior to em-
ployment also reported more general stress. Finally, none of the
control variables were significant.
The variable job satisfaction exerted the most robust influence on
both occupational and general stress, highlighting the importance of the
connection between job satisfaction and stress. The models explained
approximately 42% of the variance in occupational stress and 45% of
the variance in general stress.
74 STRESSAMONG JAIL CORRECTIONALOFFICERS

DISCUSSION
A plethora of literature exists on occupational stress and correc-
tional officers who work in a state or federal correctional facility how-
ever, the information regarding experiences in the jail setting is quite
limited. The goal of this study was to examine the predictors of occupa-
tional and general stress on jail correctional officers, using the stressors
identified in the literature on prison correctional officers. The
predictors of stress in prison correctional officer studies were used to
guide the research questions, the survey items, and analyses to deter-
mine if the same stressors were identified for jail correctional officers.
Overall, the research questions focused on three areas: individual level
factors, organizational level factors, and jail factors. Using two differ-
ent measures of stress, this study suggests that the predictors of stress
for jail correctional officers are similar to predictors of stress for prison
correctional officers, with a few exceptions.
With regard to individual level factors, like the previous studies
that examined prison correctional officers (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004;
Auerbach et al., 2003; Cullen et al., 1985; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Finn,
1998; Grossi & Berg, 1991; Lombardo, 1981; Triplett et al., 1996; Triplett
et al., 1999), the officer's perception of danger significantly impacted
occupational stress and next to job satisfaction, this variable exerted the
most robust influence. Furthermore, perceptions of danger significantly
predicted general stress, supporting previous studies that emphasized
the predictive utility of this variable (Dowden &Tellier, 2004). The
strength and consistency of this finding in studies on prison correctional
officers, and in this study in particular, warrants further consideration.
It seems that regardless of the setting, prison or jail, the results are simi-
lar. By nature, the job of a correctional officer is a dangerous one. In
both prisons and jails, the role of the officer is to maintain order and
provide a secure environment. Although the safety concerns may be
different in prisons and jails, the threat of danger is continuously pre-
sent in both environments.
Furthermore, similar to past studies that explored the impact of
role conflict, having ambiguous or unclear expectations increased occu-
pational stress (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Cullen et al., 1985; Dowden
& Tellier, 2004; Grossi & Berg, 1991; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986;
Triplett et al., 1996; Veneziano, 1984) and general stress. The roots of
role conflict begin to emerge prior to employment. As with police
academy training, correctional officer training tends to focus on the cus-
tody, care, and control of inmates (Conover, 2001). Once officers actu-
ally begin the job, they discover that the responsibilities involve a lot of
interaction with inmates that primarily concern daily tasks. Also, jail
 CASTLE AND MARTIN 75

correctional officers sometimes have court related duties in addition to

the custody functions in the jail. This can create role conflict for the
officer, as the officer struggles with multiple roles which seem contra-
dictory to one another.
The findings regarding the impact of role problems on job stress
were observed by Dowden and Tellier (2004). The researchers noted
that the lowest levels of correctional officer stress were found in officers
working in a strict custody capacity. In these settings, the correctional
officer was fully aware of their roles and responsibilities, and role
problems did not impact stress. As the researchers suggested, the idea
of expanding the role of the officer to include custody and treatment
responsibilities in order to decrease stress and increase job satisfaction
may be premature. As Cheek and Miller (1983) recommended, im-
proved communication with supervisors and a clearer articulation of
job performance guidelines would be more appropriate than role ex-
pansion for reducing stress.
Studies that have examined age and/or correctional experience
have found the variables to be confounded, meaning that they are mea-
suring the same stressor and impact on stress. Therefore, researchers
typically only use one of the variables in the analysis (Dowden & Tel-
lier, 2004), although both age and correctional experience have been
found to increase occupational stress (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Brit-
ton, 1997; Cullen et al., 1985; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Grossi & Berg,
1991; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986; Patterson, 1992; Saylor & Wright,
1992; Van Voorhis et al., 1991). Correctional experience was a signifi-
cant predictor of only general stress, suggesting that the longer the of-
ricer works in the jail, the more likely he/she will report increased stress
outside of the jail setting.
In terms of organizational level factors, the results of this study
confirmed previous findings, as the officers who reported that the jail
was organizationally sound, meaning that the organization was running
well, reported less occupational and general stress. The role of the or-
ganization in increasing or decreasing stress is an interesting finding in
the studies on correctional officers. Although individual level factors
dearly have some relevance, some of the relationships became insignifi-
cant when controlling for organizational factors, further testifying to the
predictive utility of organizational features in studies focusing on work-
place experiences.
There are several implications to consider with these findings.
First, it is apparent that the officer's role in the organization is one of
the most important predictors of stress. The officers need to feel as if
they have some control over their work environment. Based on the
items in the "administrative strengths" scale, this control is realized in
76 STRESSAMONG JAIL CORRECTIONALOFFICERS

the form of having the freedom to make suggestions, having those sug-
gestions be taken seriously by supervisors, having some input in the
decisions that are made which affect the officers, and having some influ-
ence on changes that are made in the jail.
Supervisors should strive to create a working environment where
the officers feel comfortable discussing their concerns, but this alone is
not enough. The supervisors must also be flexible and communicate
well with the staff. The management needs to communicate to the of-
ricers that their suggestions and concerns are taken seriously, and of-
ricers need to see the efforts being made to address them.
Furthermore, the officers also must have the authority to do their job
effectively, and know that there are rewards based on employee per-
formance, such as salary increases or promotions.
An officer's salary and the opportunities that exist for advance-
ment and promotion in the organization have been found to impact
stress (Cheek & Miller, 1983; Finn, 1998; Triplett et al., 1996;
Veneziano, 1984). The variable opportunity did not significantly impact
occupational stress or general stress when examined as a separate varia-
ble. Level of satisfaction with salary was a significant predictor of occu-
pational stress, although the relationship was in an unexpected
direction. Correctional officers who reported more satisfaction with sal-
ary reported higher levels of occupational stress. For officers, higher
salaries may be associated with more responsibilities, and this variable
may actually be a proxy measure for work load or supervisory
responsibilities.
The relationship between job satisfaction and stress has been ex-
amined in several studies on correctional officers (Britton, 1997; Grossi
& Berg, 1991; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1987; Saylor & Wright, 1992;
Van Voorhis et al., 1991) and been found to be a significant predictor of
job stress (Dowden & Tellier, 2004). The results of this study support
this finding, with less job satisfaction increasing occupational and gen-
eral stress, and this independent variable had the most robust influence
on the two dependent variables.
The strength and consistency of this finding highlights the predic-
tive utility of job satisfaction. The relationship may be significant be-
cause it is possible that low job satisfaction is one of the first indicators
of job stress. The effect of exposure to stressors initially may result in
low job satisfaction, eventually leading to job stress, and possibly to job
burnout if the officer remains in the position. Furthermore, not only
does job satisfaction directly affect job stress, it is likely that job satis-
faction mediates the relationship between some of the independent
variables and stress. To further explicate the relationship between
stress and job satisfaction, longitudinal studies should be conducted so
 CASTLE A N D MARTIN 77

the proper causal order could be determined. In the future, researchers

should consider two questions in studies on job stress: "How does job
satisfaction mediate the effects of the independent variables on stress?"
and, "What is the causal order for job satisfaction, job stress, and job
burnout?"
With regard to jail factors, three of the jail variables--direct super-
vision, jail unit, and overcrowding--wee not significant predictors of
occupational or general stress, he lack of impact of direct supervision
may be due to the lack of variation in this variable, with the majority of
officers reporting direct (n=267) or mixed (n=68) types of supervision.
Similarly, only 33 officers reported working in a specialized unit, with
the majority working in general population (n=133) or a mixed unit
(n=167). Future jail researchers should further explicate the mixed unit
categories in order to fully examine the influence of this variable.
The lack of an impact of overcrowding on occupational stress and
general stress was unexpected. Based on the information about over-
crowding provided by the officers, 60% reported that the jail was oper-
ating at or below capacity and 40% reported the jail was overcrowded.
Since only one prior study examined overcrowding (Veneziano, 1984),
it is difficult to make any comparisons with prisons. The researcher ex-
pected jail overcrowding to impact stress simply based on the fact that
the officers are responsible for supervising and controlling more in-
mates, contributing to the already chaotic environment. Quite possibly,
the impact of the organizational stressors overpowers any effects from
jail crowding, although the situation may be exacerbated. For example,
with more individuals incarcerated, the threat of assault would likely
increase, however, the threat of danger is always present even when the
facility is not overcrowded. At least for jail correctional officers in this
sample, the effect of other stressors, such as the perception of danger,
exhibited more of an influence on stress.
The number of hours of training prior to the start of employment
only impacted general stress. The relationship was surprising because
more hours of training increased general stress. It is possible that the
relationship between training and general stress may be confounded
with other factors. For example, training and role problems were signif-
icantly correlated, and the relationship may be an artifact of the impact
of role problems. Given that the relationship between training and
stress was so limited, it may not be possible to determine or extract the
exact meaning. Also, the amount of training varies between jails be-
cause the amount of training required prior to employment is up to the
wardens of each jail. There is no uniform standard among jails; thus,
the variable may be a poor indicator of preparedness for correctional
responsibilities.
78 STRESS AMONG JAIL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Finally, the average daily population of the jail, as a proxy measure

for jail size, was included as a control variable and possible predictor of
stress. Average daily population predicted occupational stress, but in
the opposite direction than expected. Officers who reported a smaller
average daily population reported more stress. One explanation for
this finding may be that the connection between this variable to the
other independent variables. Officers who work in the smaller jails may
be overworked, less satisfied, less prepared due to a lack of training,
and have fewer opportunities for advancement and promotion. In addi-
tion, smaller jails have fewer resources and may lack an adequate num-
ber of staff to supervise the inmates. Furthermore, it is likely that in the
smaller jails the officers have multiple roles that include but are not
limited to the custody function. Future research studies on jail correc-
tional officers should continue to explore the relationship between jail
size and stress.
Overall, the fact that the jail variables did not contribute much to
the predictive utility of the model was unanticipated. The findings of
this study did however illuminate the role of organizational level factors
in predicting job stress and satisfaction, which may overpower the influ-
ence of any environmental differences. The results suggested that
predictors of job stress and job satisfaction are similar for officers work-
ing in prison and jails, although the significance may vary across set-
tings. Although many prisons have stress management programs for
employees, these programs often are lacking in jails. The benefits of
reducing the employee stress are numerous, including reducing the cost
of hiring new staff due to turnover, increased efficiency of the institu-
tion, and an increased attention to safety.
Furthermore, because of the sampling limitations, it is not possible
to generalize the results of this study beyond the sample. Due to the
lack of information available about the population under study, the
sample cannot be compared to determine whether it is representative of
the population. In addition, the low response rate impacts the ability to
generalize the findings. For this reason, the results of this study must be
viewed with caution.
Irwin (1985) noted that the primary purpose of the jail was to man-
age society's "rabble" (p. xiii). If managing society's "rabble" is the
primary purpose of the jail, then supervising the "rabble" is the primary
responsibility of the jail correctional officer. Hence, the responsibilities
of working in a jail are inherently different from working in a prison.
As Warden Wilson (personal communication, February 18, 2004) sug-
gested, working in a jail is similar to working in an emergency room,
based on the variety of short-term solutions and turnover that makes
working in a jail so unique.
 CASTLE AND MARTIN 79

Although the environments are qualitatively different, some of the

stressors are the same for both jail and prison correctional officers, as
evidenced by the current study. Whether the organizational influences
overpower any environmental differences between jails and prisons re-
mains to be seen through future research endeavors. Regardless, cor-
rectional researchers should not neglect the differences by focusing
their studies solely on prison facilities.

REFERENCES
Armstrong, G.S., & Griffin, M.L. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of
stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice,
32(6), 577-592.
Auerbach, S.M., Quick, B.G., & Pegg, P.O. (2003). General job stress and job-specific
stress in juvenile correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 25-36.
Britton, D. (1997). Perceptions of the work environment among correctional officers: Do
race and gender matter? Criminology, 35, 85-105.
Brodsky, C.M. (1982). Work stress in correctional institutions. Journal of Prison & Jail
Health, 2(2), 74-102.
Castle, T.L. (2005). Women in the jail: Predictors of occupational stress among correc-
tional officers. Unpublished manuscript.
Cheek, F.E., & Miller, M.D. (1983). The experience of stress for correction officers: A
double-bind theory of correctional stress. Journal of Criminal Justice, 11(2), 105-112.
Conover, T. (2001). Newjack: Guarding sing sing. New York: Vintage.
Cullen, F.T., Link, B.G., Wolfe, N.T., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correc-
tional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2(4), 505-533.
Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers:
A recta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31-47.
Finn, P. (1998). Correctional officer stress: A cause for concern and additional help. Fed-
eral Probation, 62(2), 65-75.
Grossi, E.L., & Berg, B.L. (1991). Stress and job dissatisfaction among correctional of-
" ricers: An unexpected finding. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Com-
parative Criminology, 35(1), 73-81.
Hepburn, J.R., & Knepper, P.E. (1993). Correctional officers as human service workers:
The effect on job satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 10(2), 315-335.
Humphrey, J.H. (1998). Job stress. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Irwin, J. (1985). The jail: Managing the underclass in American society. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Lambert, E.G., Reynolds, K.M., Paoline, E.A., & Watkins, R.C. (2004). The effects of
occupational stressors on jail staff job satisfaction. Journal of Crime and Justice,
27(1), 1-32.
Lindquist, C.A., & Whitehead, J T. (1986). Burnout, job stress, and job satisfaction
among southern correctional officers: Perceptions and causal factors. Journal of Of-
fender Counseling, Services, & Rehabilitation, 10(4), 5-26.
Lombardo, L.X. (1981). Occupational stress in corrections officers: Sources, coping,
strategies, and implications. In S. E. Zimmerman & H. D. Miller's (Eds.) Corrections
at the crossroads: Designing policy. 2-28. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
80 STRESS AMONG JAIL CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Lovrich, N.P., & Stohr, M.K. (1993). Gender and jail work: Correctional policy implica-
tions of perceptual diversity in the work force. Policy Studies Review, 12(1-2), 66-84.
Mertler, C., & Vannata, R. (2002). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods, 2nd ed.
Los Angeles: Pyrezak Publishing.
Patterson, B.L. (1992). Job experience and perceived job stress among police, correc-
tional, and probation/parole officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19(3), 260-285.
Poole, E.D., & Regoli, R.M. (1980). Role stress, custody orientation, and disciplinary
actions: A study of prison guards. Criminology, 18(2), 215-226.
Saylor, W.G., & Wright, K.N. (1992). Status, longevity, and perceptions of the work envi-
ronment among federal prison employees. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,
17(314), 133-160.
Saylor, W.G. (1983). Surveying prison environments. Unpublished manuscript. Washing-
ton, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Stohr, M.K., Lovrich, N.P., & Wilson, G.L. (1994). Staff stress in contemporary jails:
Assessing problem severity and the payoff of progressive personnel practices. Jour-
nal of Criminal Justice, 22(4), 313-327.
Triplett, R., Mullings, J.L., & Scarborough, K.E. (1996). Work-related stress and coping
among correctional officers: Implications from organizational literature. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 24(4), 291-308.
Triplett, R., Mullings, J.L., & Scarborough, K.E. (1999). Examining the effect of work-
home conflict on work-related stress among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 27(4), 371-385.
Van Voorhis, P., 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(4), 472-500.
Veneziano, C. (1984). Occupational stress and the line correctional officer. Southern
Journal of Criminal Justice, 8: 214-231.