Impact of Workplace Factors on Role-Related Stressors and Job Stress Among Community Corrections Staff

• Published date: 01 October 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403418787227
• Date: 01 October 2019
• Author: Kristin Yagla Mack,Gayle Rhineberger-Dunn
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418787227

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2019, Vol. 30(8) 1204 –1228

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403418787227

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Impact of Workplace Factors

on Role-Related Stressors

and Job Stress Among

Community Corrections Staff

Gayle Rhineberger-Dunn1

and Kristin Yagla Mack1

Abstract

Community corrections staff are responsible for supervising more than 4 million

offenders nationwide; yet, little research exists on understanding their experiences

with role-related stressors and job stress. The purpose of this study was to extend

the existing community corrections literature by examining the impact of job

characteristics, danger-related factors, and role preference on role-related stressors

(i.e., role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload) and job stress, with a focus

on determining whether the relationships varied across specific job positions (i.e.,

probation/parole vs. residential). Results indicated that each type of role-related

stressor was differentially affected by job characteristics, danger-related factors, and

role preference, and that these relationships also differed by position. Threat of harm

was a significant predictor of each type of role-related stressor for probation/parole

officers, but only had a significant effect on role overload for residential officers.

Furthermore, safety training had significant effects on role ambiguity and role overload

for residential officers, but was not a significant predictor of any role stressor for

probation/parole officers. Role preference was significant for both positions, but only

for the role overload variable. Most surprisingly, the only variable to predict job

stress was role overload.

Keywords

probation officer, job stress, community corrections, parole officer

1University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Gayle Rhineberger-Dunn, University of Northern Iowa, 1227 West 22nd Street, Cedar Falls, IA 50613-

3675, USA.

Email: gayle.rhineberger@uni.edu

787227CJPXXX10.1177/0887403418787227Criminal Justice Policy ReviewRhineberger-Dunn and Mack

research-article2018

Rhineberger-Dunn and Mack 1205

Community corrections staff (e.g., probation officers, parole officers, and residential

officers) are responsible for supervising more than 4.5 million offenders nationwide

(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018); yet, little research exists on understanding their

experiences with role-related stressors and general job stress. Role-related stressors

(e.g., role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload) have been found to be significant

predictors of job stress (Kahn, 1987), and job stress has been found to be a predictor

of job satisfaction (Simmons, Cochran, & Blount, 1997), burnout (Gayman & Bradley,

2013), and secondary traumatic stress (i.e., compassion fatigue, vicarious trauma;

Lewis, Lewis, & Garby, 2013). It may also negatively affect officers’ effectiveness in

doing their job (Salyers, Hood, Schwartz, Alexander, & Aalsma, 2015). In other words,

there are many negative consequences of job stress that warrant a closer look at the

factors predicting it among community corrections staff.

One potential area of stress for community corrections staff, that can also affect

role stressors, is the environment in which these officers work. Some offenders under

community corrections have been convicted of a violent offense; this includes nearly

30% of parolees and 20% of probationers (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018).

Although this is lower than institutional corrections settings, community corrections

officers, nonetheless, sometimes work one on one with violent offenders in their

office and/or in the community (e.g., home visits). It is important to note that close,

prolonged contact with offenders (nonviolent or violent) may not itself result in nega-

tive outcomes for staff members. However, the extant correctional officer literature

indicates that staff perceptions of the dangerousness of their work environment may

influence workplace outcomes such as job stress (Hartley, Davila, Marquart, &

Mullings, 2013; Paoline, Lambert, & Hogan, 2015). For community corrections staff,

role-related stressors and job stress may also be influenced by their role preference.

For example, the two main types of community corrections staff are probation and

parole officers. Although probation officers work with offenders who have been court

ordered to probation, and parole officers work with offenders who have been released

early from their prison sentence, they both work on rehabilitation goals and control

of offenders (by monitoring adherence to court-ordered rules) who are living and

working in local communities. In some states, such as Iowa, there is no distinction

between probation and parole staff members. Rather, the job title is probation/parole

officer (Iowa Department of Correctional Services, Fifth Judicial District, 2015a),

and staff may have both probationers and parolees on their caseload. In addition,

some states have a third type of community corrections staff—residential officers.

Residential staff members are assigned to maintain control and security of offenders

residing in a community corrections facility (e.g., half-way house), as well as to assist

in rehabilitation objectives.

What is implicit in the job positions of probation and parole officers, and to a lesser

extent residential staff members, is that they have dual job expectations. Regardless of

their specific function, community corrections staff are tasked with the simultaneous

responsibilities of supporting offender treatment and rehabilitation, while “policing”

offender behavior (Allard, Wortley, & Stewart, 2003; Morgan, 2016; White, Gasperin,

Nystrom, Ambrose, & Esarey, 2005). The difference is that probation and parole