Article Review 4

Stressors.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Article Review 4

I Am Fried:

Stressors and Burnout Among Correctional Staff By Eric G. Lambert, Nancy L. Hogan, Shanhe Jiang and Morris Jenkins

Correctional facilities presentunique, albeit tough and de-manding, work places. Deal- ing with incarcerated individuals can place strain on employees — strain that, over time, can lead to job burnout. Burnout is a problem among correctional staff (Hurst and Hurst, 1997; Whitehead, 1989). In fact, Keinan and Malach-Pines (2007) reported that the correctional employees in their study had much higher levels of burnout than the lev- els found in the general population, even higher than police officers. Not only is burnout harmful to individ- ual employees, but also to correc- tional orgcinizations. Burnout among correctional workers can lead to de- creased work performance, with- drawal from or reduced qucdity of interactions with other employees, increased absenteeism, substance abuse and turnover intent/turnover (Carlson and Thomas, 2006; Garland, 2002; Neveu, 2007; Schaufeli cind Peeters, 2000). Garland (2002) ar- gued that "unless the burnout victim receives help and recovers, muster- ing the energy to function at an ordi- nary level will become a continual struggle." Simply put, job burnout in the field of corrections is harmful and costly to the employee, his or her family and friends, co-workers, in- mates, the organization and society in general (Garland, 2002; Schaufeli and Peeters, 2000).

Garland (2002) contended that burnout in the field of institutional corrections has not received the at- tention it demands. While burnout is costly, there has been little research on correctional staff burnout, partic- ularly in terms of identifying and un- derstanding its potential causes. Neveu (2007) indicated that he found only 16 published studies on correc- tional staff burnout and not all of these explored possible causes of burnout; therefore, this study was undertaken to examine the relation-

ship of Stressors (i.e., forces that cause stress) with correctional staff burnout. Specifically, the association of role confiict, role ambiguity, role overload, perceived dangerousness of the job, and amount of contact with inmates and its relationship to job burnout were explored among staff members at a privately run, nonfed- eral Midwestern correctional facility.

Literature Review Defining burnout. Chemiss (1980)

contended that burnout is the result of a three-stage process. The first stage is an imbalance of work forces, demands and resources, which, in turn, results in an emotional/psy- chological strain for the worker. The second stage is the consequences of the emotional/psychological strain where the person treats co-workers and clients in a detached, imper- sonal and even callous manner. Ad- ditionally, in the third stage, the employee feels he or she is ineffective in dealing with others and withdraws from others, ultimately becoming de- tached, cynical and disengaged. Chemiss theorized that organiza- tional factors, especially work Stres- sors, were responsible for job burnout. According to Maslach (1978), who is viewed as one of the pioneers in the study of burnout, burnout occurs when workers expe- rience "the gradual loss of caring about the people they work with. Over time, they find that they simply cannot sustain the kind of person¿ care and commitment required in the personal encounters that are the essence of their job." Maslach and Jackson (1981) viewed burnout as "a syndrome of emotioned exhaustion and cjmicism that occurs frequently among individuals who do 'people work* of some kind." They theorized that burnout was an extensive strain and psychological exhaustion expe- rienced by the worker. They argued that the three dimensions of burnout

are emotional exhaustion, deperson- alization and a reduced sense of per- sonal accomplishment (Maslach and Jackson, 1981). Emotional exhaus- tion refers to the feeling of being emotionally drained and fatigued from the job. Depersonalization refers to treating others impersonally, cal- lously and as objects. Ineffectiveness refers to a feeling of being ineffective in dealing with others at work, in- cluding a feeling of not making a pos- itive impact (Maslach and Jackson, 1981; Schaufeli and Peeters, 2000; Whitehead, 1989). Uke Chemiss (1980), Maslach and Jackson (1981) theo- rized that organizational factors, in- cluding work-related Stressors, are the primary cause for job burnout. The definition provided by Maslach and Jackson (1981) is the most widely accepted one and was used in this study.

Correctional stc^ burnout stud- ies. There is a small but growing body of published studies that have explored burnout among correctional employees. One of the focuses of this research has been to examine whether personal characteristics are related to burnout. The findings with sex, age, position, tenure, educa- tional level and race have been mixed and inconclusive. However, the re- search to date has found that burnout is more likely to be linked to work environment factors than with personal characteristics (Garner, Knight and Simpson, 2007). A lack of supervisory support, a lack of ad- ministrative support and a lack of support from co-workers have all been observed to lead to higher levels of burnout among correctional staff (Drory and Shamir, 1988; Garland, 2004; Neveu, 2007; Savicki, Cooley and Gjesvold, 2003). Perceived dan- gerousness of the job was observed to be positively associated with burnout (Garland, 2004), as were role overload and pressure to com- plete work (Savicki et al., 2003). A

Corrections Compendium 16 Summer 2009

lack of input into decision-making about the Job and the organization has been linked with increased burnout (Neveu, 2007; Whitehead, 1989). Both role conflict and role am- biguity have been reported as predic- tors of burnout (Drory and Shamir, 1988; Whitehead, 1989). Finally, in- creased contact with inmates has been postulated to lead to higher lev- els of burnout because inmates are usually unwilling and often manipu- lative clients (Morgan, Van Haveren and Pearson, 2002; Whitehead, 1989).

These studies theorize that work Stressors are important factors lead- ing to burnout among correctional employees; however, the previous studies have two major limitations. First, additional research is needed before definite conclusions can be reached on how workplace variables may or may not be associated with burnout. Replication is important, and additional studies on the associ- ation of work Stressors with burnout are needed in order to determine whether the relationships can be replicated. Second, there has been littie, if any, reseetrch examining the association of work Stressors as a group with correctional staff burnout. Most previous research has included one or two of the major forms of work Stressors. There is a need to examine, in a structured manner, the association of individual work Stressors with burnout in order to determine if the relationships dif- fer when other work Stressors are controlled for in the analysis. This information is necessary so that scholars and correctional adminis- trators can better understand work Stressors and how they may be re- lated with burnout. Building upon the previous correctional research on burnout, the association of the amount of contact with inmates, role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload and perceived dangerousness of the job with burnout, were explored.

Work Stressors and burnout: Research expectations. Stressors are conditions that place excessive demands on an individual and can lead to discomfort, strain and conflict for the individual (Finn, 1998). Work Stressors are those Stressors that are caused by workplace factors. The major types of work Stressors for cor- rectional staff are dealing with in- mates, role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload and perceived danger- ousness of the job (Finn, 1998). Working with inmates has been de-

Corrections Compendium

scribed by a significant number of correctional staff as demanding and stressful (Finn, 1998). This is proba- bly due to the never-ending demands and needs of inmates, and also the fact that some inmates are highly manipulative and sometimes oppose any help or direction from staff mem- bers (Cornelius, 1994); therefore, the amount of time spent each day inter- acting with inmates was hj^othe- sized to be positively associated with burnout. Thus, the more time a per- son spent interacting with inmates should be associated with an in- crease in reported level of burnout.

Role conflict occurs when behav- iors for a given job or position are in- consistent with one another (Rizzo, House and Lirtzman, 1970). In other words, role conflict is where "compli- ance with one set of pressures makes compliance with another set difflcult, objectionable, or impossible" (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980). This is a possi- bility among correctional staff who might be given conflicting orders, di- rections and tasks. In addition, role conflict may arise when a staff mem- ber reports to different supervisors who are not in agreement on what the employee should be doing or how he or she should cany out the as- signed tasks. Role conflict can cause frustration and strain for a person, which in the long run could result in burnout from the job. Hence, role conflict was hypothesized to be posi- tively related to burnout for correc- tional workers.

Role ambiguity results when there is a lack of information or there is uncertainty about carrying out the tasks and duties for a position (Rizzo et al., 1970). It occurs when the role for a certain position or job has not been clearly defined (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980). Role ambiguity can be a reality In corrections. Correc- tional employees can be told to use their discretion to handle matters, but if something goes wrong, their actions can be reviewed and ques- tioned, and disciplinary action can even result if a wrong course of ac- tion was undertaken. Role ambiguity can make it frustrating for an em- ployee to do the job. The lack of clar- ity and direction can lead to strain, frustration and anger. Over time, the worker can experience burnout. Thus, role ambiguity was hypothe- sized to have a positive relationship with correctional staff burnout.

Role overload occurs when an em- ployee is required to do too many

tasks for his or her job and/or is not provided sufficient resources for the job (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980). Sometimes there are unreasonable expectations in terms of what is ex- pected from the employee. Role over- load has been reported in the field of corrections, particularly with de- creased budgets and increased in- mate populations. A staff member may be required to manage more in- mates, a higher case load or in- creased work tasks than is ideal for the position. Role overload increases the pressure for the employee and can lead to a feeling of always being expected to perform at an overdrive level. This can wear a person down over time, resulting in increased like- lihood of burnout; therefore, role overload was hypothesized to have a positive relationship with burnout among correctional employees.

Many consider corrections to be a dangerous occupation. The threat of violence and actual violence are both very real issues (Finn, 1998). There is the possibility of violence each day in any correctional facility, including assaults, homicides, disturbances and riots. The perceived threat of vi- olence can lead to increased appre- hension and anxiety for correctional staff members who never know if their work shift will be peaceful or punctuated by violence. This can place a person oh a heightened sense that ultimately can contribute to burnout. Perceived dangerousness of the job was therefore hypothesized to be positively linked to burnout of correctional employees in this study. Dangerousness of the job refers to perceptions of the worker that his or her job is dangerous, which results in unsafe feelings on the job.

Methods Respondents. All the available

staff members at a private Midwest- ern maximum-security prison were provided a survey packet. At the time of the survey, the facility housed ap- proximately 450 juveniles who had been sentenced as adult offenders. Although there were about 220 total employees at the facility, only 200 were available to receive the packet. Some staff members were absent due to vacations, sick leave, temporary reassignment or for other reasons. The packet contained a cover letter, a survey, a numbered bifurcated raf- fie ticket and a return envelope. The cover letter explained the purpose of the survey, that participation was

Summer 2009

Table 1. Responses for the Burnout Items - Percentages Reported Item SD D N SA

Emotional Exhaustion Working with others is an emotional strain for me. I feel that I am burned out from my job. lam emotionally drained at the end of the day from my job. Impersonalization I feel that I treat some inmates as if they were impersonal objects. I feel that I have become more callous toward my co- workers. I am becoming less sympathetic to others at work The vast majority of time at work. I treat all inmates and staff with respect (RC). Ineffectiveness 1 feel that my co-workers value my assistance (RC). I feel that I am effective in solving problems at work (RC). I feel that I am a positive influence at this prison (RC). 1 have the ability to deal effectively with the problems of inmates (RC). I feel that I am positively influencing inmates with my work here (RC). I feel that I can create a relaxed atmosphere with inmates (RC).

21 16 13

6 1

4 0

61 52 44

48 3

9 6

II 14 16

13 8

26 16

6 16 18

24 52

53 58

1 2 9

9 37

9 21

Note. (RC) stands for the responses be reverse coded for index. N = 160. Percentages may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

voluntary, how to be part of the raf- fle and that all responses would be anonymous. A cash raffle of prizes ranging from $50 to $150 was of- fered to those individuals who re- turned a survey, regardless of whether the survey had been com- pleted. Employees were asked to re- turn half of the numbered raffle ticket in the provided return enve- lope and to keep the other half. The returned tickets were removed from the envelope and separated from the surveys before the surveys were ex- amined and entered into a database. This was done to ensure that there was no possibility of linking a partic- ular employee to a returned survey. Approximately a month after the sur- vey packets were provided to employ- ees, a drawing of raffle tickets was held at an employee function, and in- dividuals with a winning raffle ticket were awarded a particular cash prize. Unclaimed prizes were donated to the employee organization.

Because 160 surveys were com- pleted and returned (i.e.. 80 percent response rate), no follow-up survey was done. In terms of position. 62 percent of the respondents held a custody position and 38 percent worked in other areas of the facility (e.g.. unit management, education, medical, food service, etc.). About 22 percent of the respondents indicated

that they were a supervisor of other workers. Fifty-nine percent of the re- spondents were men. The mean age was 35.77 years, with a standard de- viation of 10.82. The mean tenure was 20.64 months, with a standard deviation of 13.84. Because the facil- ity had been in operation for less than flve years at the time of survey, the tenure of the employees was low. Fifty-three percent of the respon- dents did not have a college degree and 47 percent had some type of col- lege degree (associate, bachelor, graduate or professional). With re- gard to race. 79 percent were white and 21 percent were nonwhite. At the time of the survey. 61 percent of the total prison staff were men. 81 percent were white and the median age was 33; therefore, the respon- dents appeared to be similar to the total prison staff population in terms of sex. race and age.

Dependent variables. The de- pendent variable in this study was a composite of the three burnout measures theorized by Maslach and Jackson (1981) (emotional exhaus- tion, depersonalization and ineffec- tiveness in dealing with others at work). The burnout items are pre- sented in Table 1. These items were answered by a five-point Likert re- sponse scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The items

were summed together to form an index, which had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.81.

Independent variables. Role conflict was measured using five items (e.g.. "I regularly receive con- flicting requests at work from two or more people" and "Sometimes I am criticized by one supervisor for doing something ordered by another su- pervisor") adapted from Ivanvevich and Matteson (1980). The five items had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.73 and were summed together to form an index. Role ambiguity was measured by four items (e.g.. "I do not always understand what is expected of me at work" and "I clearly know what my work responsibilities are" [reverse coded for index]). The items were from Rizzo et al. (1970). The four items, which had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.70. were summed together to form an index of role ambiguity. Role overload was measured using three items (e.g.. "I am responsible for al- most an unmanageable number of assignments and/or inmates" and "The amount of work required in my job is unreasonable"). The items were adapted from Ivancevich and Matteson (1980). The three items were summed together to form an index of role overload, which had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.77. Finally, perceived dan- gerousness of the job was measured using five items (e.g.. "In my job. a person stands a good chance of get- ting hurt" and "I work at a dangerous job"). The items were from CuUen et al. (1989). The index created from summing these five items had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.78. Each of the items for role conflict, role ambi- guity, role overload and perceived dangerousness of the job were an- SAvered by a five-point Likert re- sponse sccile. ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Respondents were asked the aver- age daily contact they had with in- mates. See Table 2 for how this variable was coded eind the response options. Finally, the personal char- acteristics of working in a position (variable name is custody), supervi- sory status (variable name is super- visor), sex (variable name is male), age. tenure, educational level (vari- able name is college degree) and race (variable name is white) were included in this study as control variables.

Corrections Compendium 18 Summer 2009

Findings The percentage responses for the

burnout Items are presented in Table 1. Although the majority of respon- dents did not appear to be suffering from burnout, there were staff mem- bers who did report that they were experiencing burnout to some de- gree. For example. 18 percent of the respondents indicated that they felt burned out from their job, and 26 percent indicated that they were emotionally drained to some degree at the end of the day from their job. Approximately 23 percent of the re- sponding prison employees either agreed or strongly agreed that they felt that they had become more cal- lous toward their co-workers. Fur- thermore, almost one-third of those who responded indicated that they felt that they were becoming less sympathetic to others at work. About 13 percent indicated that they felt that their co-workers did not value their assistance at work. Similarly. 12 percent of the respondents marked that they did not feel that they had a positive influence on the inmates with whom they had contact while at work. It is important to note that none of the respondents had worked for more than five years at the facility. It is possible that the number of correctional staff report- ing symptoms of burnout could in- crease as the tenure of employees at the facility rises over time.

The descriptive statistics for the variables used in this study are pre- sented in Table 2. The typical re- spondent was a white male who was in his early to mid-30s. had worked at the facility for about 1.5 years, did not have a college degree, held a non- supervisory custody position and had contact with inmates for more than half of the day. There appeared to be significant variation in both the dependent and independent vari- ables. The median and mean were similar to one cinother for the vari- ables, suggesting that the variables were normally distributed. In addi- tion, the skewness and kurtosis sta- tistics indicated that the variables were normally distributed.'

For the indexes, the Cronbach's alphas, a measure of internal relia- bility, were equal to or greater than 0.70. which is viewed as good (Carmines and Zeller, 1979). Overall, the typical respondent reported a moderate degree of role conflict, role ambiguity and role overload (i.e., the

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics ofthe Variables

Variable Custody

Supervisor

Male

Age Tenure College Degree

White

Average Amount of Daily Contact With Inmates

Role Conflict Role Ambiguity Role Overload Perceived Dangerousness of the Job Burnout

Description 0 = did not work in a custody position (38%) 1 = worked in custody (62%) 0 = not a supervisor (79%) 1 = a supervisor of other employees (21%) 0 = female (41%) 1 = male (59%) Measured in continuous years Time at facility in months 0 = no college degree (53%) 1 = college degree (47%) 0 = Nonwhite(21%) 1 = White (79%) 1 = less than 1 hour (17%); 2 = 1 to 2 hours (6%); 3 = 3 to 4 hours (9%); 4 = 5 to 6 hours (19%); 5 = 7 or more hours (49%) 5-item index, a = 0.73 4-item index, a = 0.70 3-item index, a = 0.77 5-item index, a = 0.78

13-item index, a = 0.81

Median 1

33 17 0

15 9 8 16

Min 0

19 0 0

8 4 3 6

Max 1

68 53 !

25 19 15 25

Mean 0.62

0.21

0.59

35.77 20.64 0.47

0.79

3.78

15.29 9.22 8.44 16.01

29.70

Stdev 0.49

0.41

0.49

10.82 13.84 0.50

0.40

1.51

3.96 2.86 2.67 4.32

6.65

Note. Min stands for minimum value. Max stands for maximum value, and Stdev stands for standard deviation. N = 160.

median and mean were at the halfway point of the range for each of these indexes). Likewise, many staff members were at the midpoint for the measure of perception of the job being dangerous. Finally, median and mean values for the job burnout index were at the midpoint as well. Specifically, the job burnout index ranged from a minimum value of 15 and a maximum value of 54, and the median and mean for this index were 29 and 29.70, respectively.

Ordinary least squares (OLS) re- gression was used to estimate the as- sociations of role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload, perceived dangerousness of the job and aver- age daily contact with inmates with burnout, controlling for the shared associations of position, supervisory status, sex, age, tenure, educational level and race. Thus, OLS regression allows for the effects of a variable to be estimated while controlling for the shared effects with the other inde- pendent variables. This allows for the independent effects of a variable on another variable to be estimated. Ad- ditionally, OLS is the most common method used to examine the rela- tionship of work environment vari- ables on a work outcome variable. The results of the OLS regression equation are presented in Table 3.

While not reported, the correlation matrix, variance inflation factor (VIF) scores and tolerance values did not indicate a problem with coUinearity or multicollinearity. High coUinearity and multicollinearity are when an in- dependent variable (or variables) shares a large part of its variance with the other independent variables in the regression equation, and .this can lead to incorrect results.

The R-squared statistic was 0.46. which means that about 46 percent of the variance in the burnout meas- ure was explained by the independ- ent variables. Among the control variables, only tenure had a statisti- cally significant relationship. As tenure increased, so did the level of reported burnout. Role ambiguity and role overload both had positive associations with correctional staff burnout. As role conflict increased, so too did the level of burnout. Like- wise, as role overload rose, the level of reported burnout increased. Role conflict, perceived dangerousness of the job and contact with inmates all had nonsignificant associations with burnout in this study. This means that they probably do not have a sta- tistically significant relationship with job burnout, at least not in the cur- rent study. By examining the stan- dardized regression coefficients (i.e..

Corrections Compendium 19 Summer 2009

Table 3. Relationships of Role Stressors

Variable Custody Supervisory Male Age Tenure College Degree White Average Amount of Daily Contact With Inmates Role Conflict Role Ambiguity Role Overload Perceived Dangerousness of the Job

R-squared

b 2.52 -1.52 -1.09 -0.04 0.08 -0.73 -0.22 -0.52

0.02 0.96 0.60 -0.03

F = 10.33

With Correctional SE 1.40 1.30 0.91 0.04 0.03 0.87 1.03 0.29

0.15 0.20 0.19 0.14

df = 12, 147

Staff Burnout B

0.18 -0.09 -.008 -0.06 0.16* -0.06 -0.01 -0.12

0.01 0.41** 0.24** -0.02

0.46**

* p < 0 . 0 5 **p<0. 01 Note. For a description of how the variables were measured, see Table 2. N = 160. b represents the unstandard- ized regression coeflficient, SE represents the standard error of the regression coefficient, B represents the standardized regression coefficient, and df represents the number of degrees of freedom for the F-ratio test.

the values in the B column in Table 3), the size of the association can be estimated. Role ambiguity had the largest relationship with staff burnout, followed by role overload and tenure. In fact, the results suggested that the size of the relationship between role overload and job burnout was more than twice that of the relationship between role ambiguity and burnout or the association between tenure and burnout.

Discussion Some h3T3otheses were supported

while others were not. Role ambiguity and role overload both had statisti- cally significant positive associations with Job burnout. As each increased, so did the level of burnout. The re- sults suggest that correctional em- ployees may want clearly deñned roles, directions, expectations and guidance for their Jobs, and that they do not want to be overloaded in their assigned Job tasks. Without such, they are much more likely to suffer from burnout. It is difficult to com- plete job tasks and duties when there is a lack of clarity of what is to be done and how it is to be done. A lack of direction and clarity can lead to apprehension among employees who fear being punished for not doing their Jobs correctly. Over time, the apprehension and fear wears on staff members, with burnout being a possible outcome. Similarly, over- loading an employee can cause him

or her to experience apprehension, frustration and resentment. Role overload may result in employees feeling overwhelmed and underap- preciated. These are feelings that cause staff to question their Job and their purpose in the organization. In the long run, it leads them to feel burned out by their Job. Interest- ingly, tenure had a positive relation- ship with burnout. This finding suggests that the negative and trying experiences from working in a cor- rectional facility may be cumulative and, in the long term, can result in an increased likelihood of burnout. Additionally, this association may re- ñect that some workers did not ad- Just well to working in. the prison.

Opposite of what was hypothe- sized, neither role confiict nor per- ceived dangerousness of the Job was linked with burnout among the cor- rectional employees in this study. It would seem rational to postulate that an employee who is adrift in a diffi- cult Job because he or she does not receive clear directions, or receives conflicting orders from others, would experience burnout. There are two possible explanations for this find- ing. First, the issue of measurement needs to be considered. In the litera- ture, there are two major forms of role conflict. The first type, the one measured in this study, is when em- ployees receive conflicting informa- tion and directions on how to carry out their tasks. This is individual

role conflict. An example of this would be when two different super- visors order a correctional offlcer to complete different tasks at the same time. While the ñrst type of role con- flict deals with aspects of the Job, the other type results from conflicts in the organizational goals and objec- tives. Organizational role conflict oc- curs when an organization has two or more goals (i.e., purpose for exist- ing) that are in conflict with one an- other. In the fleld of corrections, punishment and treatment are two competing goals. Many staff mem- bers are to occupy roles of both an enforcer and an advocate. These or- ganizational roles are often at odds with one another and can result in a correctional staff member experienc- ing role conflict (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980). If the second type of role conflict was measured, it is possible that it could be linked with burnout among correctional work- ers. A second explanation is that role conflict has no impact on burnout, particularly once the shared associa- tions of role ambiguity and role over- load are taken into account. Sometimes role conflict, role ambi- guity and role overload are theorized to be part of a larger concept called role stress or role strain (Ivancevich and Matteson, 1980); therefore, there is probably some degree of overlap between role conflict, role ambiguity and role overload. More- over, role ambiguity and role over- load probably cause greater stress for correctional workers than role conflict. Conflicting directions £ind orders may not be as disruptive when compared with unclear, am- biguous directions and orders. Like- wise, being overloaded may be far more' taxing on an employee than being given conflicting orders. There is clearly a need for additional re- search on the relationships of role conflict, role ambiguity and role overload with Job burnout among correctional staff members.

Unexpectedly, perceived danger- ousness of the Job was not associ- ated with correctional staff burnout. Maybe dangerousness is not a stres- sor for correctional workers, as many may have come to expect the possi- bility of violence on the Job and do not worry too much about it. In ad- dition, the feeling of being in danger may give some employees a sense of duty and even excitement rather than being stressed over it. It could be that, rather than being stressed

Corrections Compendium 20 Summer 2009

by working a potentially dangerous job, some workers may take pride in working such a Job as it Is a form of public service. While the perception that the Job is dangerous may keep a person a bit more aware of his or her surroundings, it does not necessar- ily mean that it causes such stress that could result in burnout from the Job. Thus, the relationship between perceived dangerousness of the Job and burn-out may be positive for some respondents, negative for other respondents or not associated at all.

In contrast to the hypothesis, av- erage amount of daily contact with inmates was not statistically linked with burnout in this study. It should be noted that this finding has been observed in other studies. Previous studies also have found that the amount of contact with inmates is not associated with burnout (Morgan et al., 2002; Whitehead, 1989). It could be that type of contact is more important than the overall amount of time spent with inmates. If most of the contact is ordered and manage- able, then there would be little rea- son that a strain would be caused on a person. On the other hand, if most of the contact is chaotic, confronta- tional and threatening, then the chances of burnout might be greater because of the increased strain and frustration experienced by the staff member. There is a need for addi- tional research to determine whether the type of contact with inmates is associated with burnout. It is also possible that working with inmates is not a salient cause, but rather orga- nizational factors, as proposed by Cherniss (1980) and Maslach and Jackson (1981), are the primary cause for Job burnout. The results of this study support this contention.

Conclusion This was a single study. There is

a need for more research on correc- tional staff Job burnout. Future re- search should replicate the findings reported here at other correctional facilities. In addition, research needs to examine whether the results vary by type of correctional organization, such as Juvenile, Jail and prison. Dif- ferent measures of role Stressors should be tried, as well as examining the associations of other role Stres- sors on staff members. Moreover, continued research is needed to ex- plore other possible correlates of Job burnout among correctional staff, in- cluding the relationships of other

work environment areas. Future stud- ies may wish to examine why employ- ees opted to work in the field of institutional corrections and whether this influenced them experiencing burnout. Correctional staffs expec- tations for the Job, the objective gap between expectation and reality, and the perceived gap between expectation and reality may affect their Job burnout. For example, Freudenberger (1980) postulated that individuals who were highly idealistic and wished to change the lives of others for the better were much more likely to experience burnout than staff members who had more realistic ex- pectations about the Job.

Another shortcoming of this study is that it used cross-sectional data (i.e., data were collected at one point in time), which is a limitation be- cause the data do not allow for causality to be demonstrated. This is why the terms "association" and "re- lationship" were used rather than "effects" and "impact." Association and relationship mean that the Stressors and burnout are correlated with one another but not necessarily that the Stressors cause burnout. It is possible that experiencing burnout led the respondents to perceive role confiict, role ambiguity, role overload and dangerousness of the Job differ- ently than those who were not expe- riencing burnout from the Job.^ In order to demonstrate possible causcd- ity, temporal ordering must be shown, as well as ruling out other potential causes for the relationship. Thus, fu- ture longitudinal studies are needed to demonstrate a temporal order be- tween the Stressors of role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload and dangerousness of the Job with burn- out from the Job. Additionally, the measures for role conflict, role ambi- guity, role overload and darigerous- ness of the Job were based on perceptions.^ Therefore, high per- ceived levels for any of these areas do not necessarily mean they are accu- rate reflections. In addition, the re- sults of this study do not indicate why role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload or dangerousness of the Job occur in the field of corrections. It could occur because of administra- tive reasons or it could be other forces that lead to role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload and/or dan- gerousness of the Job. Therefore, there is a need to explore the accu- racy of these measures in future studies and what leads to each.

Future research on Job burnout among correctional staff is impor- tant, particularly studies that focus on the causal process. This type of research will provide in-depth and clearer information on what con- tributes to correctional stciff burn- out. This information is needed to aid both correctional administrators and scholars on the issue of burnout in the fleld of corrections. Only with more research will the issue of burnout and its causes be fully un- derstood. Without this knowledge, combating the problem will be diffl- cult and probably ineffective.

If the flndings are replicated and it is shown that the Stressors in this study lead to burnout, then the find- ings in this study have administra- tive implications. At the very least, there is a need for correctional ad- ministrators to be aware of the issue of Job burnout and to take steps to address it. For those workers already suffering from some degree of burnout, there is a need for inter- ventions to help them. Employees need to be provided with ongoing workshops and training sessions that address the issue of burnout and how to overcome it (Keinan and Malach-Pines, 2007). There is also a need to develop support systems for employees to turn to for help when they experience burnout (Keinan and Malach-Pines, 2007; Schaufeli and Peeters, 2000). These interventions deal with burnout after it has already started. In the long run, it is best to address the causes of burnout so as to stop it from occurring in the first place or to minimize it from happening.

This study suggests the need to address role ambiguity and role over- load. If it is shown that role ambigu- ity and role overload are the result of workplace factors rather than indi- vidual factors, workplace changes may help with the problem. In order to reduce role ambiguity that results from workplace forces, there is the need to ensure that staff know what their responsibilities are, what is ex- pected of them, and that the rules and regulations are clear. There should be a systematic review of the rules, regulations and policies, com- munication patterns, superior/sub- ordinate interactions, and training to ensure that ambiguity does not re- sult from workplace forces. This type of review is linked to the organiza- tional structure area of formaliza- tion. Formalization is making sure things are standardized, clear and

Corrections Compendium 21 Summer 2009

concise. It is making sure that em- ployees understand their tasks and the proper methods for carrying out their duties. It is also making sure that employees are aware of the for- malization and address any concerns they may have about it; therefore, formalization focuses both on codifi- cation and observation (Pandey and Scott, 2002). Codification is making sure things are standardized and provided to employees in writing. Ob- servation is ensuring that staff mem- bers are informed of the codification, that they are expected to follow for- malized rules and regulations, and that any questions or uncertainty that they have will be addressed (Pandey and Scott, 2002).

There should be an investment to ensure that there is meaningful com- munication between memagement and employees. Most workers gener- ally desire clear rules, regulations, policies and directions to guide them in accomplishing their jobs, and they want easy access to this information. In addition, there must be communi- cation between correctional adminis- trators and staff members to determine why role ambiguity is arising and how it can best be corrected. Role ambiguity could be the result of workplace factors or individual work- ers who are not a good fit for working in the field of institutional correc- tions. Only with a review of why it is occurring can effective interventions to reduce role ambiguity be put into place. Workers must be able to ask fi-ank questions and express their concerns without fear of retaliation. Reducing role ambiguity within a cor- rectional organization is not an easy undertaking, regardless of whether it results from administrative practices or from w^orkers themselves.

Correctional administrators also need to make efforts to combat the issue of role overload for employees. This means undertaking efforts to determine the level of role overload among employees and why it arises. Job and task analysis should be completed to ensure the workloads for each position are fair, balanced and reasonable. This analysis should also examine the equipment needed for the position to ensure it is up-to- date and is in good working order. In addition, conducting such a review will help determine if role overload arises because of administrative rea- sons or because of employee reasons. Regardless of how or why role over- load may occur, employees should be

provided avenues to discuss their concerns Involving overload and how the problem can be addressed. Only with efforts to deal with the problem Ccin the issue of role overload be bet- ter understood and addressed. If forced to select between reducing role ambiguity or role overload in the short term, it is recommended that attention be given to role ambiguity for two reasons: role ambiguity had the largest association with burnout of all the variables examined; and administrators may be better able to address role ambiguity.

In closing, employees are critical elements of any correctional facility. Correctional staff burnout can be devastating not only for the staff member but also for co-workers, in- mates and the correctional organiza- tion itself. There is a need to identity and understand the potential causes of burnout among correctional staff. Only with this information will it be possible to combat burnout. Thus, there is a need to examine how dif- ferent aspects of the work environ- ment may be related to burnout. In this study, the associations between burnout and several Stressors, in- cluding amount of contact with in- mates, role confiict, role ambiguity, role overload and perceived danger- ousness of the Job with correctional staff burnout, were examined. It was found that both role ambiguity and role overload had statistically signif- icant positive relationships with burnout. These are two areas in which administrators should focus their efforts to reduce bumout among the staff at correctional facilities. It is hoped that this study will spur more research on how role Stressors are as- sociated with burnout among correc- tional employees. Too much is at stake to ignore the issue of burnout and how role Stressors contribute to burnout. Burnout in the field of cor- rections weuTEints much more atten- tion than it has received m the past.

ENDNOTES ' Skewness refers to the symmetry of the dis- tribution. A normal distribution (i.e., beil curve) is symmetrical and the mean and me- dian will be at (or near) the center of the dis- tribution. Kurtosis refers to the peakedness of the distribution. If there is a large positive kurtosis value, this indicates that the distri- bution has a very thin, high peak and few cases in the tail areas. If there is a large nega- tive kurtosis value, this indicates that there is almost no peak to the distribution of Ccise val- ues Euid most of the cases fall in the tail areas.

^ Thus, it is recognized that although the Stressors in this study are related to burnout, it does not mean that they cause burnout. This point was raised during the review process. For example, feeling ineffective may lead to increcised perceptions of role overload and role ambiguity. The direction of the rela- tionship needs to be tested by future studies.

' This point was also raised during review. It is possible that inefficient employees may feel that they are overloaded by work or suffer conflict and ambiguity. Thus, there is a need to explore how accurate these measures are in terms of measuring role conflict, role ambi- guity and role overload.

REFERENCES Carlson, J. and G. Thomas. 2006. Burnout among prison caseworkers and corrections officers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43, 19-34.

Carmines, E. and R. Zeller 1979. Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, Calif.; Sage.

Cherniss, C. 1980. Professional bumout in human service organizations. New York: Praeger.

Cornelius, G. 1994. Stressed out: Strategies for liv- ing and working with stress in corrections. Laurel, Md.: American Correctional Association.

Cullen, F., B. Link, J. Cullen and N. Wolfe. 1989. How satisfying is prison work? A comparative occupational approach. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 14,89- 108.

Drory, A. and B. Shamir. 1988. Effects of orga- nizational and life véiriables on job satisfaction and burnout. Group and Organization Studies, 13, 44M55.

Finn, P. 1998. Correctional officer stress: A cause for concern and additional help. Federal Probation, 62, 65-74.

Freudenberger, H. 1980. Burnout: The high cost of high achievement. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press.

Garland, B. 2002. Prison treatment staff burnout: Consequences, cause and preven- tion. Corrections Today, 64,116-120.

Gairland, B. 2004. The impact of administrative support on prison treatment staff burnout: An exploratory study. The Prison Journal, 84,452- 47i.

Garner, B., K. Knight and D. Simpson. 2007. Burnout among corrections-based drug treat- ment stciff: Impact of individual and organiza- tional factors. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51,510- 522.

Corrections Compendium 22 Summer 2009

Hurst, T. and M. Hurst. 1997. Gender difter- ences in mediation of severe occupational stress among correctional officers. American Journal of CriminalJustice, 22,121-137.

Ivancevich, J. and M. Matteson. 1980. Stress and work: A managerial perspective. Glenview, 111.: Scott Foresman and Co.

Keinan, G. and A. Malach-Pines. 2007. Stress and burnout among prison personnel: Sources, outcomes, and intervention strate- gies. CriminalJustice and Behavior, 34,380-398.

Masiach, C. 1978. Job burnout: How people cope. Public Welfare, 36, 56-58.

Maslach, C. and S. Jackson. 1981. The meas- urement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99-113.

Morgan, R., R. Van Haveren and C. Pearson. 2002. Correctionai officer burnout: Further analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 144-160.

Neveu, J. 2007. Jailed resources: Conservation of resources theory as applied to burnout among prison guards. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 28, 2M2.

Pandey, S. and P. Scott. 2002. Red tape: A re- view and assessment of concepts and meas- ures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 553-580.

Rizzo, J., R. House and S. Lirtzman. 1970. Roie conflict and ambiguity in complex organiza- tions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.

Savicki, V., E. Cooley and J. Gjesvold. 2003. Harassment as a predictor of job burnout in corrections officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 602-619.

Schaufeli, W. and M. Peeters. 2000. Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: A lit- erature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7,19-48.

Whitehead, J. 1989. Burnout in probation and corrections. New York: Praeger.

Eric G. Lambert is a professor in the De- partment of Criminal Justice at Wayne State University. Nancy L Hogan is a pro- fessor in the School of CriminalJustice at Ferris State Unitiersity. Shanhe Jiang is a professor and Morris Jenkins is an asso- ciate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Toledo.

Jailhouse Shock Continued from page 15

del Carmen, R.V. 1991. Civil liabilities in Amer- ican policing: A text for law enforcement per- sonnel. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Brady.

Goodwin V. Hamilton County, WL 1840259 (E.D. Tenn. 2005).

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989).

Harris v. City ofCircleville, WL 211363 (S.D. Ohio 2008).

Harris u. Ostrout, 65 F.3d 912 (llth Cir 1995).

Hause v. Vaught, 993 R2d 1079 (1993).

Henderson u. Gordineer, WL 840273 (D.S.C. 2007).

Jasper v. Thalacker, 999 F2d 353 (8th Cir 1993).

Johnson v. Glick, 481 R 2d 1028 (2nd Cir. 1973).

Johnston, D. 1981. Stop! Or I'll throw my net at you. Police Magazine, 4, 23-28.

Kappeler, V.E. 2001. Critical issues in police civil liability. Prospect Heights, 111.: Waveland.

Kornblum, R.N. and S.K. Reddy. 1991. Effects of the taser in fatalities involving police con- frontation. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36,434- 448.

Kuha V. City of Minnetonka, 365 F 3d 590 (8th Cir 2004).

Lee a Ferraro, 284 F3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2002).

Lolli V. County of Orange, 351 F3d 410 (9th Cir. 2003).

Marquart, J.W. 1986. Prison guards and the use of physical coercion as a mechanism of pris- oner control. Criminology, 24, 347-366.

Martin, M. 1961. The unconscious diabetic pa- tient. American Journal of Nursing, 61, 92-94.

McBride v. Clark, WL 581139 (W.D. Mo. 2006).

McDowell V. Rogers, 863 F2d 1302 (6th Cir. 1988).

Monell V. Department of Social Services, City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

Monroe v. Arpaio, WL 3054067 (D. Ariz. 2005).

Ndaula v. Holliday, WL 1098954 (W.D. La. 2007).

Norman v Taylor, 25 F.3d 1259 (4th Cir 1994).

Orem v. Rephann, 523 F 3d 442 (4th Cir 2008).

Pipkins V. Pike County, Arkansas, WL 1521714 (W.D. Ark. 2007).

Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981).

Poteet V. Polk County, Tennessee, WL 1138461 (E.D. Tenn. 2007).

Ramirez v. Johnson, WL 2254317 (N.D. Fla. 2007).

Ready, J., M.D. White and C. Fisher. 2008. Shock value: A comparative analysis of news reports and official police records on TASER deployments. Policing, 31, 148-170.

Riley V. Dorton, 115 F 3d 1159 (4th Cir 1997).

Rizzo V. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976).

Robertson, J.E. 2006. Recent legal develop- ments: Correctional case law, 2004-2005. Crim- inal Justice Review, 31, 185-204.

Robertson, J.E. 2007. Recent legal develop- ments: Correctional case law 2006. Criminal Justice Review, 32, 184-204.

Rosen, C.J. 1990. Jail law. The Prison Journal, 70, 24-37.

Ruffin V. Commonwealth, WL 4928 (Va. 1871).

Sparks V. Reno County Sheriff's Department, WL 1664007 (D. Kan. 2004).

Turner 0. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).

Tyson u. Dykes, WL 3357189 (S.D. Miss. 2007).

Valentine v. Richardson, WL 80129 (D.S.C. 2008).

Stephens v. City of Butler, Alabama, 509 F.Supp.2d 1098 (S.D. Ala. 2007).

Williams, H.E. 2008. Taser electronic contml de- vices and sudden in-custody death: Separating evidence from conjecture. Springfield, 111.: Thomas.

Wilson V. Spain, 209 F.3d 713 (8th Cir 2000).

Vidisha Barua, Ph.D., Esq., and Robert M. Worley, Ph.D., are assistant professors of criminal justice at Penn State University, Altoona.

Corrections Compendium 23 Summer 2009