Criminal Justice Review

Volume 33 Number 1
March 2008 48-63
© 2008 Georgia State University
Research Foundation, Inc.
Satisfied in the Jail? 10.1177/0734016808315586
http://cjr.sagepub.com
hosted at
Exploring the Predictors of Job http://online.sagepub.com

Satisfaction Among Jail Officers

Tammy L. Castle
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA

This study investigated the predictors of job satisfaction among 373 jail correctional officers in
one state in the Northeast. The research questions were guided by the plethora of literature on
the workplace experiences of prison correctional officers, including the “Importation-Differential
Experiences” and “Work-Role Prisonization” models. This study advances the literature on the
workplace experiences of correctional officers by focusing on officers who work in a jail setting.
The results indicated that for jail correctional officers in this study, a lower level of education,
greater supervisory support, lower job stress and lower general stress were significant predic-
tors of higher job satisfaction. Based on the findings, suggestions are made for future research.

Keywords: correctional officers; job satisfaction; jails; prisons; job stress

J ob satisfaction among correctional officers continues to be a topic of research interest,

and a variety of studies have examined work-related issues ranging from correctional
officer attitudes to job burnout (Lambert, Reynolds, Paoline, & Watkins, 2004). Many of
these studies included job satisfaction as a predictor variable and examined the impact of job
satisfaction on outcome variables such as stress and turnover (Dowden & Tellier, 2004). The
purpose of this study was to explore the predictors of job satisfaction, using the abundance
of literature on correctional officers as a conceptual guide.
The majority of the studies on correctional officers focused almost exclusively on prisons.
Although prisons and jails are both correctional settings, the population is different. Prisons
are state-operated facilities and typically house offenders sentenced to 1 year or more of
incarceration. Conversely, jails are locally operated facilities and

• receive individuals pending arraignment and hold them awaiting trial, conviction, or sentencing;
• readmit probation, parole, and bail-bond violators and absconders;
• temporarily detain juveniles pending transfer to juvenile authorities;
• hold mentally ill persons pending their movement to appropriate mental health facilities;
• hold individuals for the military, for protective custody, for contempt, and for the courts as
witnesses;
• release convicted inmates to the community upon completion of sentence;
• transfer inmates to federal, state, or other authorities;
• house inmates for federal, state, or other authorities because of crowding of their facilities;
• sometimes operate community-based programs as alternatives to incarceration (Harrison
& Beck, 2006, p. 7).

48
Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015
 Castle / Job Satisfaction Among Jail Officers 49

Jails also differ from prisons in the high volume of admissions and average length of
stay. The average length of stay (LOS) in the jail has been estimated at between 15 and 20
days, although many individuals are released within 24 hours (Austin, 1999, p. 3). In 2005, a
total of 747,529 people were housed in local jails, a 4.7 % increase from the previous year
and more than the 1.2 % increase in the number of people under state jurisdiction (Harrison &
Beck, 2006, p. 7). The differences between jails and prisons may contribute to a unique
work environment.
Some scholars have noted the lack of research focus on officers working in the jail, versus
prison, environment (Lambert et al., 2004; Lovrich & Stohr, 1993; Stohr, Lovrich, & Wilson,
1994). This study sought to augment previous literature on jail correctional officers; thus,
some of the significant findings from previous studies are reported.

Literature Review
Research studies on correctional officers and the work environment have included job
satisfaction as a predictor and outcome variable. As a predictor variable, job satisfaction has
been found to predict a number of different variables, including job turnover (Byrd,
Cochran, Silverman, & Blount, 2000; Wright, 1993), job burnout (Lindquist & Whitehead,
1986; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986), job stress (Dowden & Tellier, 2004), and correctional
absenteeism (Lambert, Edwards, Camp, & Saylor, 2005). In fact, one recent study suggested
that the variable job satisfaction was the strongest predictor of job stress over any other
variables (Castle & Martin, 2006).
Other studies have included job satisfaction as the outcome variable and some of the pre-
dictors include role problems (Hepburn & Knepper, 1993; Van Voorhis, Cullen, Link, &
Wolfe, 1991; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986), participation in decision making (Hepburn &
Knepper, 1993; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986), supervisory support (Britton, 1997; Cullen,
Link, Wolfe, & Frank, 1985; Jurik & Winn, 1987; Van Voorhis et al., 1991), and views on
policies and American Correctional Association standards (Paoline, Lambert, & Hogan,
2006). These studies tend to distinguish between personal or individual level variables and
organizational types of variables. In addition to the plethora of literature on correctional
officers, a conceptual focus was used to guide and specify the variables used in this study.

Conceptual Focus
One way to frame what the research has shown regarding job satisfaction among correc-
tional officers is provided by two models termed the Importation-Differential Experiences
model and the Work Role-Prisonization model (Van Voorhis et al., 1991). The two models
were adapted from a previous study on the impact of race and gender on correctional officer
orientation (Van Voorhis et al., 1991). Van Voorhis et al. (1991) described the Importation-
Differential Experiences model as concerning “the impact of individual and demographic
factors on one’s experiences with and perceptions of the work environment” (p. 473).
Conversely, the Work Role-Prisonization model focuses on organizational experiences and
argues that some work-specific factors are better predictors of experiences in the workplace
than individual differences.

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

50 Criminal Justice Review

The Importation-Differential Experiences model builds from early correctional research

conducted to explain inmates’ adaptation to confinement. Van Voorhis et al. (1991) modified
the model to apply to occupational experiences; hence, the officers “import” attributes into
correctional work that influences their work experiences. According to Van Voorhis et al.
(1991), based on the Importation-Differential Experiences model, “Individual attributes
such as age, race, sex, gender, and education affect work perceptions and experiences
because individuals bring with them, or import, onto the job different orientations and sta-
tuses which then influence their work experiences” (p. 473).
The theoretical underpinnings of the Work-Role Prisonization model developed in the
sociology of work literature (Van Voorhis et al., 1991). The organizational model, also
known as the job model, focused on organizational features of the workplace. Feldberg and
Glenn (1979) noted that the job model assumes that employee attitudes and behaviors in
and out of work are determined by the workers’ “occupational socialization, class/status of
occupation, and social relations of work” (p. 527). In addition, work-related attitudes and
behaviors of correctional officers vary by gender. For men, work is the primary explanatory
variable, whereas personal characteristics and family relationships are more important for
women (Jurik & Halemba, 1984).
Organizational theorists would contend that structural factors of the job strongly influence
the employees and the organizational effects surpass any effects on attitudes and behaviors
resulting from individual attributes. For example, when testing the gender model, Jurik and
Halemba (1984) found that gender was not the primary explanatory variable of job satis-
faction among correctional officers, and the attitudes of the women were more a function
of their position in the organizational structure and the immediate working conditions.
Building from previous research, Van Voorhis et al. (1991) applied both models to prison
correctional officer experiences in the workplace. The goal of this study was to apply the
models to jail correctional officers.

Individual-Level Factors
The individual-level factors in this study also have been described as personal variables
(Paoline et al., 2006) and are imported into the work environment (Van Voorhis et al., 1991).
According to Lambert, Hogan, and Barton’s (2002) summary of literature on correctional
officer job satisfaction, the research studies have “primarily focused on attributes such as
educational level, race, gender, age, and tenure as variables representing personal character-
istics” (p. 120). For the purposes of this study, the impact of the individual level variables—
including gender, age, race, education, and correctional experience (also known as tenure
or time on job)—on job satisfaction among jail officers was examined.
The research findings on the predictive utility of individual-level factors have been mixed.
Some studies on race have found a significant difference between racial groups on job
satisfaction (Blau, Light, & Chamlin, 1986; Britton, 1997; Cullen et al., 1985; Cullen, Link,
Cullen, & Wolfe, 1989; Lambert et al., 2004; Van Voorhis et al., 1991). The way in which
the results were reported varies among the studies. For example, in four of the studies
(Byrd, Cochran, Silverman, & Blount, 2000; Cullen et al., 1985, 1989; Van Voorhis et al.,
1991), White correctional officers reported higher job satisfaction than non-White officers.

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

 Castle / Job Satisfaction Among Jail Officers 51

Conversely, two studies (Blau et al., 1986; Britton, 1997) found that non-Whites reported
lower levels of job satisfaction. In general, more studies have found no difference among
racial categories in level of job satisfaction (Camp & Steiger, 1995; Grossi & Berg, 1991;
Hepburn & Knepper, 1993; Jurik & Halemba, 1984; Jurik & Musheno, 1986; Jurik &
Winn, 1987; Walters, 1993; Wright & Saylor, 1992). According to Lambert et al. (2004),
the relationship between race and job satisfaction may be changing, or may be a function
of the time period the studies were conducted or the location of the prisons.
Similarly, the results of studies examining level of education on job satisfaction have been
mixed. In a few studies, level of education was positively correlated with job satisfaction
(Grossi & Berg, 1991; Grossi, Keil, & Vito, 1996; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986), indicating
that a higher level of education resulted in increased job satisfaction. On the contrary, several
research studies indicate that a higher level of education is associated with decreased job
satisfaction (Camp & Steiger, 1985; Cullen et al., 1985, 1989; Griffin, 2001; Jurik &
Halemba, 1984; Jurik & Mesheno, 1986; Jurik & Winn, 1987; Van Voorhis et al., 1991).
Furthermore, no significant differences were found between the two variables in two stud-
ies (Blau et al., 1986; Hepburn & Knepper, 1993). Overall, the results may suggest a neg-
ative relationship between level of education and job satisfaction but are too mixed to be
conclusive.
Regarding gender, most studies have found no relationship between gender and job sat-
isfaction (Blau et al., 1986; Britton, 1995; Cullen et al., 1985, 1989; Grossi & Berg, 1991;
Hepburn & Knepper, 1993; Jurik & Halemba, 1984; Jurik & Musheno, 1986; Jurik &
Winn, 1987; Lambert et al., 2004; Saylor & Wright, 1992; Van Voorhis et al., 1991; Walters,
1992). Although there have been a few studies that have found higher job satisfaction
among female correctional officers (Britton, 1997; Camp & Steiger, 1995), the majority of
the research findings indicate no significant differences in gender.
Similar to the findings on gender, many of the studies on age and job satisfaction found no
significant differences (Hepburn & Knepper, 1993; Jurik & Winn, 1987; Van Voorhis et al.,
1991; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986), although two studies did find a positive correlation
between age and job satisfaction (Blau et al., 1986; Camp & Steiger, 1995). In addition,
Griffin (2001) found a positive relationship between age and job satisfaction but only for
female correctional officers. Lambert et al. (2004) found older jail officers were more satis-
fied with their jobs, but this was true only when supervisory jail staff was included in the
analysis, and Paoline et al. (2006) found that as age increased, job satisfaction increased.
Other studies have investigated the relationship between correctional experience and job sat-
isfaction, rather than age, and found a positive correlation (Grossi & Berg, 1991; Grossi et al.,
1996). No association was found in several other studies that included correctional experience
as a predictor variable (Cullen et al., 1985; Jurik & Winn, 1987; Van Voorhis et al., 1991).

Organizational-Level Factors
Organizational-level factors, described as organizational climate variables in Griffin (2001),
are characteristics of the individual’s work environment. According to Van Voorhis et al.
(1991), organizational features of the work environment, and characteristics of the job,
impact the correctional officer’s experiences in the workplace, and this relationship is
stronger than the impact of individual-level factors. Although researchers have examined

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

52 Criminal Justice Review

multiple organizational-level factors, the discussion here will be limited to the ones
addressed in this study which include role conflict, administrative or organizational
strengths, supervisor and peer support, satisfaction with salary, opportunities for promo-
tion, perceptions of danger, job stress, and general stress.
In studies on correctional officers, both role ambiguity and role conflict have been examined.
Role conflict may occur when the position requires officers to provide both custody and
treatment functions to the inmate (Cullen et al., 1985; Pogrebin, 1978). In addition, the
expectations or duties of the correctional officer may not be clear. Combined together, the
variable role problems has been negatively associated with job satisfaction (Hepburn &
Albonetti, 1980; Hepburn & Knepper, 1993; Lambert et al., 2004; Whitehead & Lindquist,
1986; Van Voorhis et al., 1991).
In addition to role problems, administrative or organizational strengths, including par-
ticipation in decision making and the ability to influence the organization, has been found
to increase job satisfaction (Stohr et al., 1994; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). Furthermore,
as a lack of administrative strengths has been positively linked to job stress (Auerbach,
Quick, & Pegg, 2003; Cheek & Miller, 1983; Finn, 1998; Stohr et al., 1994; Veneziano,
1984), the variable was included. Similarly, both supervisory support (Cullen et al., 1985;
Griffin, 2001; Grossi et al., 1996; Lambert, 2004; Van Voorhis et al., 1991) and peer support
(Cullen et al., 1989; Grossi & Berg, 1991), designated as organizational level variables in
previous studies (Cullen et al., 1985; Grossi & Berg, 1991), have been found to be positively
correlated with job satisfaction.
When satisfaction with salary has been included as an organizational level variable,
no significant differences were found in two studies (Camp & Steiger, 1995; Hepburn &
Knepper, 1993), although Lambert et al. (2004) did find perceptions of pay to be positively
associated with job satisfaction. Likewise, the perception of promotional opportunities pre-
dicted job satisfaction for both males and females (Jurik & Halemba, 1984). Furthermore,
although a relationship between perceptions of the job as dangerous and job satisfaction has
not been found, perceptions of danger, or safety concerns, has been positively correlated with
job stress (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Auerbach et al., 2003; Cullen et al., 1985; Finn, 1998;
Grossi & Berg, 1991; Grossi et al. 1996; Lombardo, 1981; Triplett, Mullings, & Scarborough,
1996, 1999). Because some variables have been found to predict job satisfaction and job
stress (Dowden & Tellier, 2004), perceptions of danger was included.
Two final organizational variables were included in the analysis: job stress and general
stress. Job satisfaction and job stress typically are examined as separate outcome variables,
although job satisfaction has been found to impact job stress (Dowden & Tellier, 2004). The
relationship between the two variables remains unclear and for this reason job stress, as
defined by Cullen et al. (1985) as “the psychological discomfort or tension which results
from exposure to stressors” (p. 507), was included as an organizational level variable. A
second stress variable was included, termed general stress for the purposes of the study,
because upon examination the individual items seem to focus on different aspects of stress
(see the appendix). Auerbach et al. (2003) also examined both job-specific stress and general
stress as possible predictors of job satisfaction and found different predictors for each; thus,
both variables were included in this analysis as a measure of two different types of stress.
The job stress variable focuses on the short-term impact of the job and how an individual

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

 Castle / Job Satisfaction Among Jail Officers 53

feels while at work with items such as, “When I’m at work, I often feel tense or uptight”
and “I usually feel that I am under a lot of pressure when I am at work.” The general stress
variable focuses on the long-term impact of the job on the individual with items such as, “I
feel that I’ve become harsher towards people since I took this job,” “I worry that this job is
hardening me emotionally,” and “I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to
face another day on the job.”
Finally, the variable average daily population was included as a control variable in the
study based on the researcher’s conversations with one jail warden. The researcher wanted
to include the jail class as a control variable based on the discussion with the warden about
how jail size may impact job satisfaction and stress. The warden suggested that jail staff
may not be familiar with the jail class system (which is based on population); however, the
staff would know the average daily population of the jail in which they worked. For this
reason, the variable was included as a proxy measure for jail size.
Overall, the findings on job satisfaction are mixed, so the Importation-Differential
Experiences and the Work-Role Prisonization models (Van Voorhis et al., 1991) were used
to guide the research questions. From the models as well as prior research on the work envi-
ronment of correctional officers, two categories of variables were examined in this study.
The individual level variables include gender, age, race, education, and correctional expe-
rience (also known as tenure or time on job). The organizational level variables include role
problems, administrative or organizational strengths, supervisor and peer support, satisfac-
tion with salary, opportunities for promotion, perceptions of danger, job stress, and general
stress. Furthermore, the majority of the research studies on the work environment of cor-
rectional officers were conducted using a sample of prison officers, although two recent
studies did utilize officers employed in the county jail system (Griffin, 2001; Lambert et al.,
2004). The purpose of this study is to examine the predictors of job satisfaction among an
often overlooked group.

Research Questions
The research questions were guided by the literature on correctional officer work expe-
riences, but focused (or specified) by the acknowledgment of the significant differences
between jails and prisons. Thus, the research questions for this study focused on two broad areas:
individual-level factors (Importation-Differential Experiences model) and organizational-
level factors (Work-Role Prisonization model).
Specifically, the research questions are as follows: (a) What impact do individual-level
factors (gender, age, race, education, correctional experience) have on job satisfaction
among jail correctional officers? and (b) What impact do organizational-level factors (role
problems, administrative strengths, supervisory and peer support, and job conditions
[salary and opportunity for advancement and promotion], perceptions of danger, job and
general stress) have on job satisfaction among jail correctional officers?

Method
Participants
All of the 62 county level jails in one Northeastern state were contacted regarding par-
ticipation in the study. The wardens from 25 jails granted access, yielding a total population
Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015
54 Criminal Justice Review

Table 1
Jail Population and Sample by Class
Jail Class County Population in State Number of Jails Number of Jails in Sample

Class 1 1,500,000 or more 1 1

Class 2 1,499,999 to 800,000 1 0
Class 2a 799,999 to 500,000 3 0
Class 3 499,999 to 210,000 11 4
Class 4 209,999 to 145,000 7 3
Class 5 144,999 to 95,000 9 3
Class 6 94,999 to 45,000 24 12
Class 7 44,999 to 20,000 5 1
Class 8 Less than 20,000 6 0

Source: Information obtained from the General Information Form—2004 compiled by the State Department of
Corrections.

of 2,188 jail officers. The term jail officer is used because the state sampled refers to indi-
viduals as correctional officer if their role is only to provide a custody function at the jail.
This is to distinguish the correctional officer from other occupations in the jail, such as
deputy sheriff, treatment staff, and so forth. A packet was distributed to the officers
employed in these jails in September 2004, which included the survey, 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
response rate, follow-up phone calls were made to the designated contact person; however,
no additional surveys were returned.
Information on the jails, including class and number of officers employed, was obtained
from the General Information Form—2004 provided by the State Department of Corrections
(see Table 1). The State Department of Corrections was contacted regarding obtaining a
report that includes demographic information on all officers employed in the state’s jails.
Unfortunately, the only information that the state compiles regarding jail officers concerns
the approximate number of officers employed in each jail. Therefore, information regarding
the jail population and sample is provided in Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of the total population, including age, race, and gender, was
unknown at the time of study. For this reason, the sample of officers in this study (see Table
2) cannot be compared to the population regarding demographic characteristics because the
information was not compiled by the State Department of Corrections. The inability to
compare the officers in the sample to the total population is one of the limitations of the
study.
Most of the surveys in the sample came from Class 6 jails (n = 12), which is comparable
to the population of jails in the state. The second largest group of surveys in the sample
(n = 4) came from the second largest category in the population, Class 3. The sample of
jails in this study mirrors the jail population with one exception. There were no surveys
returned from jails in Class 2, 2a, or 8. For that reason, the results of this study are limited
to the jails listed above.
Descriptive statistics for the respondent officers are presented in Table 2. The overall
sample consisted of 270 (72.4%) males and 103 (27.6%) females, and the officers ranged

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

 Castle / Job Satisfaction Among Jail Officers 55

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Individual and Organizational Level Factors (N = 373)
Variable Valid n Valid % Variable Valid n Valid %

Individual level
Gender Education
Male 270 72.4 Some high school 3 .8
Female 103 27.6 GED or diploma 135 36.1
Age Some college/post-secondary 136 36.4
20 to 30 95 25.4 Associate degree 44 11.8
31 to 40 143 38.3 Bachelor degree 44 11.8
41 to 50 93 24.9 Some graduate work 2 .5
Older than 50 42 11.3 Graduate degree 7 1.9
Other 3 .8
Race
Caucasian 331 88.7 Average Daily Population
Non-Caucasian 41 11.3 50 to 100 193 51.7
501 to 1,000 24 6.4
Correctional experience (months) 1,001 to 1,500 118 31.6
0 to 50 155 41.6 1,501 to 2,000 38 10.2
51 to 100 89 23.8
101 to 150 46 12.3
151 to 200 57 15.2
More than 200 27 7.4

Variable M SD Range α

Organizational level
Role problems 18.21 9.80 0 to 44 .76
Dangerousness 32.88 9.42 2 to 50 .82
Supervisory support 24.10 13.08 0 to 58 .83
Peer support 22.29 10.93 0 to 49 .81
Administrative strengths 42.93 19.52 2 to 90 .84
Job stress 33.13 12.98 2 to 60 .86
General stress 24.02 11.92 0 to 50 .83
Dependent variable scale
Job satisfaction 36.51 13.45 0 to 60 .90

in age from 22 to 63 years, with a mean of 38 years. Due to a lack of variance in race, the
variable was collapsed into White (n = 330 or 88.7%) and non-White (n = 43 or 11.3%).
Regarding education, the majority of respondents reported receiving a general equivalency
diploma (GED) or diploma (135 or 36.1%) or some college or postsecondary school (136
or 36.4%) as highest level of education completed. For this reason, the variable was
collapsed into a dichotomous variable with two categories: 1 = college degree (associate’s,
bachelor’s, master’s) and 0 = no college degree (some high school, GED, high school
diploma, some college). The mean for correctional experience was 85 months.
Descriptive statistics for the scale variables and the alpha coefficients for each scale are
presented in Table 2.

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

56 Criminal Justice Review

Measures
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable, job satisfaction, was conceptualized as level of satisfaction with
one’s occupation. Job satisfaction was measured using a six-item index summed together,
developed by Hepburn and Knepper (1993; see the appendix). Although the reliability coeffi-
cient was not reported by Hepburn and Knepper (1993), a more recent study using the scale
reported the reliability coefficient as .87 (Griffin, 2001). All of the item-total correlations were
above the minimum standard of .40 (Clark & Watson, 1995) and the alpha coefficient was .90,
considered to be very high (DeVellis, 2003). In addition, the alpha coefficient was higher than
the .87 reported in the Griffin (2001) study that used the same measure.

Independent Variables
Based on the conceptual focus and previous research, the independent variables were
separated into two categories: individual- and organizational-level factors.

Individual-level factors. Individual-level factors included gender, correctional experience

(measured as the number of months employed in corrections), and education (measured as a
dichotomous variable as mentioned previously). Age (measured in number of years) and race
were included as individual-level variables, as is common among studies on correctional officers
(Paoline et al., 2006). As mentioned previously, due to the lack of variance, the race variable was
collapsed into a dichotomous variable, with 1 = White and 0 = non-White.

Organizational-level factors. Seven scales were used to measure the organizational fac-
tors of perceptions of danger, role problems, administrative strengths, supervisory support,
peer support, job stress, and general stress. All of the scales were measured on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Two single items were used to
measure perceptions of opportunity for advancement in the organization and level of satis-
faction with salary. The items are presented in the appendix.
The correlation among the two stress scales was examined to ensure that the two scales
were not highly correlated (above .90), indicating that the scales were measuring the same
variable. Due to a correlation .66, both scales were included because it was determined that
the scales were measuring different variables. Dowden and Tellier (2004) also examined
both stress scales and concluded that the items on the general stress scale were similar to
previously used burnout scales (Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986); thus, the two scales were
measuring different concepts. In order to distinguish between the two scales, the terms job
versus general stress were used.

Results
A Multivariate Ordinary Least Squares regression model was utilized to examine the impact
of the individual- and organizational-level factors on job satisfaction. The multivariate results
are presented in Table 3.

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

 Castle / Job Satisfaction Among Jail Officers 57

Table 3
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Results of the Impact of Individual and
Organizational Level Variables on Jail Officers’ Job Satisfaction
Independent Variable Unstandardized Coefficients Standard Error Standardized Coefficients

Individual level
Gender 2.40 1.29 .08
Correctional experience –.01 .01 –.07
Level of education –2.73* 1.30 –.09
Age .10 .07 .07
Race 1.39 1.79 .03
Organizational level
Dangerousness .03 .07 .02
Role problems .10 .07 .07
Administrative strengths .08 .04 .12
Peer support –.06 .06 –.05
Supervisory support .17** .06 .16
Opportunity .32 .26 .06
Salary .42 .21 .09
Job stress –.18** .06 –.17
General stress –.36** .07 –.32
Control variables
Average daily population .00 .00 .08
R² = .41
F = 16.69
SE = 10.53

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

Four of the independent variables were statistically significant in the model. One of the
individual level variables, education, was significant when controlling for the effect of the
organizational variables, indicating that lower levels of education were associated with
higher levels of job satisfaction. Of the organizational level variables, supervisory support
was positive and significant, indicating that officers who reported more supervisory support
indicated higher levels of job satisfaction. Finally, both job stress and general stress were
negative and significant. Officers who reported more occupational and general stress indi-
cated less job satisfaction. Furthermore, these two variables were the most significant pre-
dictors of job satisfaction. Overall, approximately 41% of the variance in job satisfaction
was explained by the independent variables.

Discussion
Most of the literature on correctional officers focuses on employees of state and federal
correctional facilities; thus, the information regarding experiences in the jail setting is quite
limited. The Importation-Differential Experiences model and the Work-Role Prisonization
model were used to guide the research questions, the survey items, and analyses to deter-
mine the predictors of job satisfaction among jail correctional officers. Overall, the research

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

58 Criminal Justice Review

questions focused on both individual- and organizational-level factors and will be discussed
separately.

Individual-Level Factors
Level of education was the only significant individual-level factor in this study and was neg-
atively associated with job satisfaction. As supported in previous studies (Cullen et al., 1990;
Grossi & Berg, 1991; Grossi et al., 1996; Jurik & Halemba, 1984; Lindquist & Whitehead,
1986; Van Voorhis et al., 1991), having more education, specifically a college degree,
decreased job satisfaction. Researchers have suggested that the relationship between education
and job satisfaction involves two components: opportunities and utilization of skills.
Jail officers with a college degree may experience less job satisfaction because of the
lack of opportunities for advancement and promotion in correctional work, indicated by a
positive correlation (.05) in this study. The jail officer position is typically one of low salary
and prestige, although in some counties the custody function sometimes is the first step to
becoming a sheriff’s deputy, a more desirable position. Individuals hired with a college
degree may falsely assume that the degree will make the possibility of a promotion more
likely, even if such opportunities are not evidence upon hiring. The officers may become
frustrated and dissatisfied when the opportunities for advancement do not come to fruition.
Furthermore, the relationship may be a product of the lack of opportunities for college-
educated individuals in the workplace. More students today are obtaining college diplomas
than in the past, flooding the marketplace with college-educated graduates. Some individuals
with degrees in the social sciences, such as criminal justice, may have difficulty obtaining a
job related to their major and find that corrections work is one of their only options. These
individuals may seek temporary employment in the jail with the hope of advancement in the
organization or with the idea to work in the jail while looking for other options. When neither
of these possibilities becomes a reality, the officer is forced to stay as a result of the lack of
other employment opportunities for individuals with criminal justice degrees. Job dissatis-
faction may be the result.
In addition to opportunity, the officers may believe that they are not developing their full
potential, which leads to job dissatisfaction. The officer may possess abilities that are not
being utilized in the organization, such as administrative or business-related skills. Once the
officer discovers that the additional education is not an asset, the officer might remain in the
position, resentful and experiencing job dissatisfaction, or seek employment elsewhere.
The relationship between education, job satisfaction, and turnover should be explored in
future studies to determine whether officers with higher education continue careers as jail
officers. If officers choose to remain in the position, it would be important for organizations
to know what influenced the decision. Other factors, such as supervisory support, may
mediate the relationship between education and job satisfaction or turnover.

Organizational-Level Factors
Three of the organizational-level factors were significant. First, the variables job stress
and general stress were the most significant predictors of job satisfaction, based on the beta
weights of –.32 and –.17, respectively. It is clear from previous studies that stress and job
satisfaction are closely related. Job satisfaction predicts stress (Dowden & Tellier, 2004),

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

 Castle / Job Satisfaction Among Jail Officers 59

and stress predicts job satisfaction (Byrd et al., 2000; Lambert, 2004). Some of the same
variables also predict both stress and satisfaction (Paoline, et al., 2006).
Is the employee both dissatisfied and stressed? Can you be experiencing one without the
other? Is job dissatisfaction one of the first stages of burnout, followed by job stress? Future
research should attempt to further explicate the relationship between stress, satisfaction,
and burnout using longitudinal data. In addition, what factors mediate the relationship
between these variables? If researchers could determine which factors mediated the rela-
tionship, then the wardens or supervisors of the jails could address them by providing the
employee with support, allowing input in decision making, or any other variables found to
be significant.
The finding that supervisory support was a significant predictor of job satisfaction also
is important because supervisory support was a stronger predictor of job satisfaction than
level of education, with beta weights of .16 versus .09. The significance of this finding
highlights the impact of the supervisors on the jail officer’s emotional health. Having the
support of one’s supervisors also may reduce job turnover. Jail supervisors should be aware
of the impact they can have on the employee’s level of job satisfaction so that they can
implement changes in the jail, such as reaching out to the officers to see how things are
going, listening to the officers and letting them voice complaints and concerns (or provid-
ing an anonymous method and then addressing the concerns at meetings), and interacting
in a way that does not humiliate the officer.

Limitations
The findings in this study must be considered with caution, as there are several limitations.
First, the results are limited to the one state utilized in this study. The predictors of job sat-
isfaction may differ among other regions and states. A national survey of jail officers,
although impossible in this case, should be considered in the future to assess the regional
and state variations in predictors of job satisfaction.
In addition, the low response rate contributes to the lack of generalizability of the findings.
The low response rate was in part due to access issues, and future jail researchers may want
to consider other methods of distributing the surveys. In this study, access was negotiated
first with the warden or superior and then the surveys were mailed to the facility for the
point person to distribute to the officers. The researcher does not know if all of the surveys
were distributed, as follow-up was difficult. Therefore, the response rate may be higher in
fact because fewer surveys were delivered. As this was a major limitation of the study,
researchers may want to consider personally visiting each jail and discussing the study
specifically with the officers and collect the surveys on site.
Furthermore, there are other variables that should be considered in future jail studies. For
example, measures of environmental variables that may impact job satisfaction in the jail,
such as noise and lighting, should be included. As noted previously, the environment inside
a jail can be quite chaotic at times, and more often than the prison environment; thus, this
type of working environment might reduce the level of job satisfaction while increasing the
level of stress. Other work environment variables that should be examined also include
organizational commitment, as an individual’s level of commitment to the job and organi-
zation may impact job satisfaction.

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

60 Criminal Justice Review

Finally, some studies have examined job satisfaction and job stress as separate outcome
variables when investigating workplace experiences (Cullen et al., 1985; Grossi & Berg, 1991;
Van Voorhis et al., 1991); however, the relationship between the two variables has not been
clear in the literature. Which comes first? Does low job satisfaction eventually lead to stress?
Does stress lead to low job satisfaction? Answering these questions is beyond the scope of this
study. As the causal direction of the relationship between job stress and job satisfaction remains
unclear, future research should use longitudinal data and attempt to explicate this relationship.

Conclusion
Studies on the workplace experiences of correctional officers tend to focus on prison staff.
This study, along with a few others, attempted to fill the gap in the literature by focusing on
the jail setting. As found in this study, both individual- and organizational-level factors impact
job satisfaction; however, the findings should be considered with caution as they are repre-
sentative of a relatively small sample from one state. The workplace experiences of jail offi-
cers may vary by state and region. The jail is a unique working environment and remains an
understudied and often overlooked component of the criminal justice system.

Appendix
Measures/Items

Role Problems
My peers seldom agree on how to handle a work related problem.
The staff seldom follow the facility’s written rules.
What I actually do often conflicts with what policy dictates I do at work.
My job duties and work objectives are unclear.
There is a lack of communication between correctional officers on work-related issues.

Perceptions of Danger
Being a jail correctional officer is a dangerous job.
My job is a lot more dangerous than jobs outside corrections.
In my job, a person stands a good chance of being assaulted by the inmates.
There is really not much chance of getting hurt by the inmates in my job.
There is at least one assault on correctional staff by inmates monthly.

Supervisory Support
The people I work with often have the importance of their job stressed to them by their supervisors.
My supervisors often encourage the people I work with to think of better ways of getting the work
done which may never have been thought of before.
My supervisors often encourage us to do the job in a way that we really would be proud of.
My supervisors often encourage the people I work with if they do their job well.
My supervisors often blame others when things go wrong even when it may not be person’s fault.
When my supervisors have a dispute with one of my fellow officers they usually try to handle it in
a friendly way.
(continued)

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

 Castle / Job Satisfaction Among Jail Officers 61

Appendix (continued)

Peer Support
My fellow officers often compliment someone who has done his or her job well.
My fellow officers often blame each other when things go wrong.
My fellow officers often encourage each other to do the job in a way that we could really be proud of.
My fellow officers often encourage each other to think of better ways of getting the work done
which may never have been thought of before.
My fellow officers spend hardly any time helping me work myself up to a better job by showing
me how to improve my performance.

Administrative Strengths
The information I get through policies and the administration helps me perform my job effectively.
In this institution, it is often unclear who has the formal authority to make a decision.
It’s really not possible to change things in this institution.
I am told promptly when there is a change in policy, rules, or regulations that affects me.
I have the authority to accomplish my work objectives.
Employees do not have much opportunity to influence what goes on in the institution.
Under the present system, promotions are seldom related to employee performance.
Management at this institution is flexible enough to make changes when necessary.
In this organization, authority is clearly delegated.
In general, this institution is run very well.

Job Stress
When I’m at work, I often feel tense or uptight.
A lot of times, my job makes me very frustrated or angry.
Most of the time when I am at work, I don’t feel that I have much to worry about.
I am usually calm and at ease when I am working.
I usually feel that I am under a lot of pressure when I am at work.
There are a lot of aspects about my job that can make me pretty upset.

General Stress
I feel that I’ve become harsher toward people since I took this job.
I worry that this job is hardening me emotionally.
I treat some inmates as if they were impersonal objects.
Working with inmates all day is really a strain for me.
I feel fatigued when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job.

Job Satisfaction
I like the duties I perform in my job.
I am satisfied with my present job assignment.
I enjoy most of the work I do here.
My job suits me very well.
If I had the chance, I would get a job in something other than what I am doing now.
My job is usually worthwhile.

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

62 Criminal Justice Review

References
Auerbach, S. M., Quick, B. G., & Pegg, P. O. (2003). General job stress and job-specific stress in juvenile cor-
rectional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 25–36.
Austin, J. (1999). An overview of the nation’s jails. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3(2), 1–10.
Blau, J. R., Light, S., & Chamlin, M. B. (1986). Individual and contextual effects on stress and job satisfaction:
A study of prison staff. Work and Occupations, 13, 131–156.
Britton, D. (1995). Sex, violence, and supervision: A study of the prison guard as a gendered organization.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Britton, D. (1997). Perceptions of the work environment among correctional officers: Do race and gender matter?
Criminology, 35, 85–105.
Byrd, T. G., Cochran, J. K., Silverman, I. J., & Blount, W.R. (2000). Behind bars: An assessment of the effects
of job satisfaction, job-related stress, and anxiety on jail employees’ inclinations to quit. Journal of Crime
and Justice, 23, 69–93.
Camp, S., & Steiger, T. (1995). Gender and racial differences in perceptions of career opportunities and the
work environment in a traditionally White, male occupation. In N. Jackson (Ed.), Contemporary issues in
criminal justice: Shaping tomorrow’s system (pp. 177–190). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Castle, T. L., & Martin, J. S. (2006). Occupational hazard: Predictors of stress among jail correctional officers.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 65–80.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. B. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in scale development. Psychological
Assessment, 7, 309–319.
Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., Cullen, J. B., & Wolfe, N. T. (1989). How satisfying is prison work? Comparative
occupational approach. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, & Rehabilitation, 12, 89–108.
Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., Wolfe, N. T., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress.
Justice Quarterly, 2, 505–533.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31–47.
Feldberg, R. L., & Glenn, E. N. (1979). Male and female: Job versus gender models in the sociology of work.
Social Problems, 26, 525–538.
Gilliard, D. K. (1999). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 1998. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Griffin, M. L. (2001). Job satisfaction among jail correctional officers: Assessing the relative contribution of
organizational climate variables. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 219–232.
Grossi, E. L., & Berg, B. L. (1991). Stress and job dissatisfaction among correctional officers: An unexpected
finding. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35, 73–81.
Grossi, E., Keil, T., & Vito, G. (1996). Surviving “the joint”: Mitigating factors of correctional officer stress.
Journal of Crime and Justice, 19, 103–120.
Harrison, P. M., & Beck, A. J. (2006). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005. Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
Hepburn, J. R., & Albonetti, C. (1980). Role conflict in correctional institutions. Criminology, 17, 445–459.
Hepburn, J. R., & Knepper, P. E. (1993). Correctional officers as human service workers: The effect on job
satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 10, 315–335.
Jurik, N. C., & Halemba, G. J. (1984). Gender, working conditions, and the job satisfaction of women in a non-
traditional occupation: Female correctional officers in men’s prisons. Sociological Quarterly, 25, 551–566.
Jurik, N. C., & Musheno, M. (1986). The internal crisis of corrections: Professionalization and the work environment.
Justice Quarterly, 3, 457–480.
Jurik, N. C., & Winn, R. (1987). Describing correctional security dropouts and rejects: An individual or orga-
nizational profile? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 5–25.
Lambert, E. G. (2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff members. The Prison Journal, 84,
208–227.
Lambert, E. G., Edwards, C., Camp, S. D., & Saylor, W. G. (2005). Here today, gone tomorrow, back again the
next day: Antecedents of correctional absenteeism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 165–175.

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015

 Castle / Job Satisfaction Among Jail Officers 63

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2002). Satisfied correctional staff: A review of the literature on
the correlates of correctional staff job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 115–143.
Lambert, E. G., Reynolds, K. M., Paoline, E. A., & Watkins, R. C. (2004). The effect 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 Offender Counseling, Services, & Rehabilitation, 10, 5–26.
Lombardo, L. X. (1981). Occupational stress in corrections officers: Sources, coping, strategies, and implications.
In S. E. Zimmerman & H. D. Miller (Eds.), Corrections at the crossroads: Designing policy (pp. 2–28).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lovrich, N. P., & Stohr, M. K. (1993). Gender and jail work: Correctional policy implications of perceptual
diversity in the work force. Policy Studies Review, 12, 66–84.
Paoline, E. A., Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2006). A calm and happy keeper of the keys: The impact of
ACA views, relations with coworkers, and policy views on the job stress and job satisfaction of correctional
staff. The Prison Journal, 86, 182–205.
Pogrebin, M. (1978). Role conflict among correctional officers in treatment oriented correctional institutions.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 23, 149–155.
Saylor, W. G. (1983). Surveying prison environments. Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC: Federal
Bureau of Prisons.
Saylor, W. G., & Wright, K. N. (1992). Status, longevity, and perceptions of the work environment among federal
prison employees. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 17, 133–160.
Slate, R. N., & Vogel, R. E. (1997). Participative management and correctional personnel: A study of the perceived
atmosphere for participation in correctional decision making and its impact on employee stress and thoughts
about quitting. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 397–408.
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. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 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, 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, 371–385.
Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., & Wolfe, N. T. (1991). The impact of race and gender on correctional offi-
cers’ orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28, 472–500.
Walters, S. (1992). Attitudinal and demographic differences between male and female correctional officers: A
study of three Midwestern prisons. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 18, 173–189.
Walters, S. (1993). Gender, job satisfaction, and correctional officers: A comparative analysis. Justice
Professional, 7, 23–33.
Whitehead, J. T., & Lindquist, C. A. (1986). Correctional officer burnout: A path model. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 23–42.
Wright, K., & Saylor, W. (1992). Comparison of perceptions of the environment between minority and nonminority
employees of the federal prison system. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 63–71.
Wright, T. A. (1993). Correctional employee turnover: A longitudinal study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21,
131–142.

Tammy L. Castle is an assistant professor at James Madison University. She has conducted research projects
and published in the areas of serial murder, sexual behavior in prisons, ethnicity and crime, and the work envi-
ronment of correctional officers. Her research has been published in the American Journal of Criminal Justice,
The Prison Journal, International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, and the
International Journal of Cultural Studies.

Downloaded from cjr.sagepub.com at Univ of Illinois at Chicago Library on May 7, 2015