Content uploaded by Gail Kinman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gail Kinman on Nov 27, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Work-related wellbeing
in UK prison officers:
a benchmarking approach
Gail Kinman, Andrew James Clements and Jacqui Hart
Department of Psychology, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine the well-being of UK prison officers by utilising a
benchmarking approach.
Design/methodology/approach –The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Stress Indicator Tool is
widely used in the UK to assess key psychosocial hazards in the workplace encompassing demands,
control, support from managers and co-workers, relationship quality, role and change management.
This study utilises this approach to examine the extent to which a sample of UK prison officers meets
the HSE recommended minimum standards for the management of work-related well-being. Levels of
mental health and job satisfaction in the sector are also assessed using measures with extensive
occupational norms. The psychosocial hazards that make the strongest contribution to mental health
and job satisfaction are also considered.
Findings –Respondents reported lower levels of well-being for all of the hazard categories than
recommended. Moreover, mental health and job satisfaction were considerably poorer among prison
officers than other occupational groups within the emergency and security services in the UK. Considerable
variation was found in the psychosocial hazards that predicted mental health and job satisfaction.
Practical implications –The high levels of stressors and strains experienced by UK prison officers
gives serious cause for concern. Priority areas for interventions to enhance well-being in the sector are
considered and areas for future research discussed.
Originality/value –This study highlights the wide-ranging benefits of a benchmarking approach to
investigate work-related stressors and strains at the sector level.
Keywords Stress, UK, Workplace health, Job satisfaction, Measurement, Prison officers, HSE
Paper type Research paper
There is evidence that people working within the emergency and security professions,
such as the police, firefighters, paramedics members of the armed forces and security
guards, are at increased risk of work-related stress (Iversen et al., 2008; Langan-Fox and
Cooper, 2011; Leino et al., 2011). Research findings indicate that prison officers experience
particularly high levels of job-related stressors, which can impair their well-being and job
performance. A review of the literature highlights a range of working conditions that are
considered particularly stressful in this sector which include organisational hazards such
as high demands; heavy workload; time pressures; lack of input into decision making,
lack of resources and rewards; poor feedback; lack of variety; poor quality training;
challenging organisational structure and climate; poor physical working environment,
as well as features of work that are more specific to the working environment such as
high emotional demands and aggression and threats from prisoners (Bourbonnais et al.,
2007; Crawley, 2004; Deguchi et al., 2013; Finney et al., 2013; Hartley et al., 2013; Holmes
and MacInnes, 2003; Kunst, 2011; Lambert et al., 2009; Liebling et al., 2010a; Mahfood et al.,
2013; Rutter and Fielding, 1988; Schaufeli and Peeters, 2000; Senol-Durak et al., 2006).
Studies have also highlighted interpersonal difficulties, such as bureaucratic and
unsupportive management practices, lack of support from managers, and poor quality
International Journal of Workplace
Health Management
Vol. 9 No. 3, 2016
pp. 290-307
© Emerald Group PublishingLimited
1753-8351
DOI 10.1108/IJWHM-09-2015-0054
Received 15 September 2015
Revised 18 March 2016
8 May 2016
Accepted 20 June 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8351.htm
290
IJWHM
9,3
working relationships, as particularly salient sources of stress for prison officers
(Lancefield et al., 1997; Schaufeli and Peeters, 2000). There is also evidence that people
who work in correctional settings are at higher than average risk of bullying from
co-workers and supervisors which has been linked with a number of negative outcomes
such as psychological distress, burnout and sickness absence (Bourbonnais et al., 2007;
Kunst, 2011; Vartia and Hyyti, 2002). Conversely, positive perceptions of social support
and relationship quality at work exert powerful main effects on well-being and also
have potential to attenuate the negative impact of job demands on well-being
(Viswesvaran et al., 1999). The key role played by support from supervisors and
management in protecting the well-being of prison officers has been highlighted in
studies (Brough and Williams, 2007; Harvey, 2014; Lambert et al., 2012a, b).
Exposure to stressful working conditions can have a negative impact on employees
that is wide-ranging. Prison officers appear to be at considerable risk of physical health
problems, psychological distress and post-traumatic stress disorder (Borritz et al., 2006;
Denhof and Spinaris, 2013; Dollard and Winefield, 1995; Finney et al., 2013; Harvey, 2014).
As human service employees as well as workers within the emergency and security
services, it could be argued that prison officers may be at particular risk of burnout.
This has been confirmed in studies of officers in several countries. Moreover, the negative
impact of correctional working environments on work-life balance and the quality of
personal relationships has been highlighted (Kinman et al., in press; Moon and Maxwell,
2004). There is also evidence that the stress experienced by officers can reduce their job
satisfaction, morale and commitment (Armstrong et al., 2015; Griffin et al., 2009; Rutter and
Fielding, 1988) which, in turn, predicts turnover intentions (Lambert and Hogan, 2009).
Nonetheless, a study of nearly 2,000 front-line staff working in prisons across the USA
conducted by Leip and Stinchcomb (2013) found high levels of job satisfaction and low
turnover intentions suggesting that officers might gain a considerable degree of
satisfaction from their work as well as stressors and strains.
Some insight has been provided into the characteristics that underpin job
satisfaction in prison environments with job control, supervisor support, procedural
justice, feelings of safety, role balance and clarity, and compensation/benefits being
particularly salient (Armstrong et al., 2015; Griffin et al., 2009; Rutter and Fielding,
1988). Relationships with co-workers, in particular, have emerged as important sources
of satisfaction in correctional settings (Paoline et al., 2006). A review of the literature
conducted by Schaufeli and Peeters (2000) concluded that improving the social work
environment was a particularly promising way to reduce stress and increase job
satisfaction in correctional settings.
The brief review of the literature provided here indicates that prison officers experience
job-related stress from a wide range of sources and may also be at risk of mental health
problems. The findings of studies that have examined well-being in correctional
environments are mixed, but some insight has been gained into the aspects of the job that
are considered to be particularly hazardous. Organisational change has been identified as a
major source of stress for employees (Biron et al., 2012). The prison estate in the UK has
been extensively reorganised, with fundamental changes made to terms and conditions of
work at a national level. The prison population has also been steadily increasing and
staffing levels reducing, which has resulted in overcrowding in many prisons (Bureau of
Justice, 2014; Howard League for Penal Reform, 2014; Pitts et al., 2014). Moreover, major
incidents, such as rioting and hostage taking, and serious attacks on staff have increased
dramatically (Hardwick, 2014; Tartaro and Lester, 2009). The incidence of self-harm among
the prison population has also risen steeply over the last few years (Hawton et al., 2014;
291
Work-related
well-being in
UK prison
officers
Inquest, 2016). These factors are likely to have compounded the stressors already inherent
in the prison officer’s role, thus highlighting the need to assess well-being in the sector on a
regular basis using a well-validated and highly structured approach that can track the
impact of change over time. It is also important to examine the stressors that are the most
powerful sources of strain in the sector in order to guide the development of precisely
targeted interventions.
A benchmarking approach
The present study adopts a benchmarking approach to assess the stressors, mental
health and job satisfaction experienced by officers working in UK prisons. Specifically,
it utilises a widely used and well-validated framework to consider the extent to which
officers are at risk of experiencing the working conditions that can lead to negative
stress-related outcomes. Comparisons will be made between levels of key stressors
(or psychosocial hazards) reported by prison officers and national UK standards for the
management of work-related well-being. This study also utilises measures of mental
health and job satisfaction that are commensurate with a benchmarking approach to
gain a baseline assessment and to allow comparisons with members of other
emergency and security services.
A benchmarking approach facilitates the estimation of psychosocial risk in working
populations and is widely considered to be one of the most effective ways of managing
work-related well-being (Bevan et al., 2010; Donaldson-Feilder et al., 2011; Biron et al.,
2012). The approach taken in this study, therefore, has strong potential to raise
awareness of working conditions and levels of mental health and job satisfaction in the
sector and identify the factors that underpin work-related well-being. A benchmarking
approach can also form the basis for a longitudinal assessment of working conditions
and employees’reactions to them. The findings of such research can also highlight
priorities for intervention and inform more precisely targeted initiatives to improve
well-being and satisfaction in correctional settings.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) approach
The HSE (the UK body responsible for policy and operational matters related to
occupational health and safety) has developed a comprehensive system to help
employers manage the well-being of employees. The HSE framework is novel in that it
advocates a risk-assessment approach where stress is considered a serious health and
safety issue, and psychosocial stressors are diagnosed, measured and managed like
any other physical workplace hazard. The process is based on a set of standards of
good management practice (known as benchmarks) that measure the extent to which
employers prevent work-related stress from occurring at source (Mackay et al., 2004).
This approach reflects the findings of a body of research demonstrating that
primary (or organisational-led) interventions are substantially more effective than
initiatives that expect employees to accommodate to stressful working conditions
(Donaldson-Feilder et al., 2011; Biron et al., 2012).
The management standards cover several aspects of work design (known as
psychosocial hazards) that are considered relevant to most job roles and have a strong
evidence base as the most important predictors of strain (Mackay et al., 2004).
The hazards included in the HSE framework are those relating to demands, control,
social support (from managers and peers), interpersonal relationships, role clarity, and
organisational change. The relevance of these factors to the well-being of prison
292
IJWHM
9,3
officers was highlighted in the literature reviewed earlier in this paper. Each of the
hazard categories encompasses several elements that provide in-depth information on
perceptions of working conditions. Demand comprises workload, pace of work and
working hours; control assesses levels of autonomy over working methods and pacing
and timing; managerial support encompasses supportive behaviours from line
managers and the organisation itself, such as the availability of feedback and
recognition of good work; peer support considers the extent to which colleagues
provide help and assistance; relationships assesses interpersonal conflict at work,
including bullying and harassment; role examines role clarity and the extent to which
employees believe that their work meets the goals of their organisation; change reflects
how effectively organisational changes are managed and communicated. Of particular
relevance to the aims of the current study, previous studies that have utilised the HSE
framework have found significant relationships between hazard categories (most
notably job demands) and several stress-related work outcomes, such as anxiety and
depression and job dissatisfaction (Kerr et al., 2009).
Benchmark data are available from a substantial number of organisations within
the public and private sectors in the UK to allow comparisons with the scores obtained
for each of the hazards and recommended national levels (Health and Safety Executive,
2015). Since its inception, the HSE risk-assessment framework has been widely utilised
to monitor the working conditions that lead to stress (Edwards et al., 2008; Mellor et al.,
2011). The framework has been used to provide reference values for exposure
to job-related stress in different occupational groups to allow comparisons with
recommended standards and highlight the job characteristics that require urgent
attention (Houdmont et al., 2012; Kinman and Wray, 2013). This approach can also
inform evidence-based interventions to protect employee well-being by identifying the
hazards that fail to meet the required standards, as well as those that are most strongly
related to specified strain outcomes. It can also provide a baseline measure of
well-being that can be monitored over time in response to changes experienced at the
organisational and sector level and in response to stress management interventions.
As far as can be established, only one previous study has used the HSE framework
method in the prison sector. Based on research conducted in several London
prisons in 2009, Bevan et al. (2010) found well-being in relation to change, role
and support to be considerably lower than recommended standards. Employees who
viewed their working environment negatively were three times more likely
to report poor psychological well-being than those who were more positive about
their working conditions. It should be emphasised, however, that the data were
not drawn exclusively from officer grades and there was an unrepresentatively
high proportion of women respondents. The findings were therefore not
comparable with the profile of respondents in the present study who were exclusively
prison officers.
Summary
This study has several aims: first, to assess the extent to which UK prison officers are
at risk of experiencing the working conditions that can lead to negative stress-related
outcomes and to compare the hazards experienced by officers with HSE benchmarks.
Second, to identify levels of mental health and job satisfaction in the sector and
compare with those reported in studies of other emergency and security personnel.
Finally, to identify the hazards that are the key predictors of mental health and job
satisfaction in correctional settings.
293
Work-related
well-being in
UK prison
officers
Method
Sample
An online questionnaire was completed by 1,682 prison officers working in UK prisons
(85 per cent male). Officers were invited to participate via a link on the website of the
Prison Officer Association which represents the majority of prison officers (and
associated employees such as prison escorts and healthcare staff) employed in the UK.
The age of respondents ranged from 20 to 67 years (mean ¼47; SD ¼8.25). Length of
employment in the prison service ranged from 1 to 41 years (mean ¼18 years; SD ¼7.9)
and the majority (94 per cent) was employed on a full-time basis. It is not possible to
calculate a true response rate using online questionnaires where the number of
potential participants who were exposed to the survey is unknown. Nonetheless,
comparisons with the age, gender and occupational tenure of the respondents indicated
that they were broadly representative of the wider population of prison officers in the
UK at the time the research was conducted (Ministry of Justice, 2015). The one
exception is that women were under-represented in the study sample. Participants
provided a code to facilitate follow-up research.
Measures
Details of the measures utilised in the study and are provided below.
Psychosocial hazards. The 35-item HSE Indicator Tool (Mackay et al., 2004) was used
to assess the extent to which respondents experienced each of the psychosocial hazards
described above: i.e. in relation to demands, control, support from managers and
co-workers, role, relationships and change management. Studies of various occupational
groups have found the measure to be psychometrically sound (Edwards et al., 2008;
Kinman and Wray, 2013). A five-point response scale was utilised from 1 ¼never to
5¼always. Mean scores were calculated across each of the hazard categories with higher
scores representing more well-being and lower scores denoting more distress.
In line with HSE guidelines, comparisons were made between the mean scores
obtained in the present study for each hazard with benchmarks obtained from a wide
range of organisations within the UK that are provided for this purpose (Webster and
Buckley, 2008). Mean scores are categorised as “red”: urgent action required (within the
20th percentile in relation to benchmark data), “yellow”: definite need for improvement
(below average, but not below the 50th percentile); “blue”: good, but some improvement
necessary (better than average, between the 50th and 80th percentile) and “green”:
performing well (above, or close to the 80th percentile). Cronbach’sα: demands ¼0.85;
control ¼0.81; manager support ¼0.86; peer support ¼81; relationships ¼0.71;
role ¼0.84; change ¼0.73.
Mental health. This was assessed by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12:
Goldberg, 1978). Although designed as a context-free measure of mental health, it is
commonly used to assess psychological distress in employees (Goodwin et al., 2013;
Jackson, 2007). The GHQ-12 assesses three key dimensions of mental health: anxiety/
insomnia (e.g. feeling under strain and losing sleep over worry), social dysfunction
(e.g. feeling incapable of making decisions and being unable to enjoy everyday life) and
depression (e.g. being unable to enjoy everyday activities and feeling that life is hopeless).
The GHQ-12 is frequently used to identify “caseness”levels of mental ill-health in
populations (i.e. where some degree of intervention is recommended). Data are available
from large samples of employees in different occupational groups which allows
comparisons between the extent of mental health problems reported by respondents in
294
IJWHM
9,3
the present study and in research conducted with other “safety critical”occupational
groups. Caseness rates are available from large samples of emergency and security
service employees, such as the police, doctors, ambulance personnel, the fire and rescue
service and the armed forces, (Goodwin et al., 2013; Stride et al., 2007). As yet, very few
published studies have used the GHQ to measure the mental health of prison officers.
Two studies conducted in Australian correctional settings in the 1980s/early 1990s found
caseness rates of between 26 and 29 per cent (see Dollard et al., 2001). More recently,
research conducted by Walker et al. (2015) found a caseness level of 95 per cent in a
sample of 57 officers working in a therapeutic community prison in the UK. Although the
sample size was small and unrepresentative of the wider population of officers, this is
considerably higher than any other published study that has used the measure
(see Goodwin et al., 2013).
Each question in the GHQ-12 is assessed on a four-point scale whereby 0 ¼better/
healthier than usual, and 3 ¼much worse than usual. Two types of scoring were used
in this study (Goldberg, 1978). First, the “Likert”method where mean scores are taken
across items with higher scores representing more mental health problems. Cronbach’s
α¼0.92. Second, the caseness rate was calculated using a binary method of scoring
where the two least symptomatic answers (i.e. better than usual, or the same as usual)
are coded as 0 and the two most symptomatic answers (i.e. worse than usual, or much
worse than usual) are coded as 1. Any score exceeding the threshold value of 4 is
classified as a “case”(Goldberg, 1978). The overall caseness rate is represented by a
percentage of the sample.
Job satisfaction. The study measures job satisfaction using a widely used tool
developed by Warr et al. (1979). This instrument captures the global level of job
satisfaction (i.e. all of the items combined) and the extent to which employees are
satisfied by intrinsic features (e.g. variety, recognition and opportunity for skill use)
and extrinsic aspects of work (e.g. pay, hours of work and promotion opportunities). As
with the GHQ measure described above, extensive norms are available to compare the
extent of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction found among prison officers with other
occupational groups within the emergency and security services (see Stride et al., 2007).
The only study that can be located that has previously utilised Warr et al.’s scale in
correctional settings is a study of Australian prison officers that assessed global
satisfaction only (Dollard et al., 2003).
This study assessed intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction only. Responses to each of
the questions are obtained on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 ¼extremely
dissatisfied to 7 ¼extremely satisfied. Mean scores were obtained across both of the
sub-scales, with higher scores representing a higher level of satisfaction. Cronbach’sα:
intrinsic satisfaction ¼0.87; extrinsic satisfaction ¼0.77.
Analytical approach
The scores for each of the psychosocial hazard categories were compared with
benchmark data from several published sources using the “traffic light”system
described above. The caseness rate of psychological distress and the mean scores for
intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction found in the present study was compared with
those obtained from large-scale studies of emergency and security personnel.
Correlations between each of the psychosocial hazards and the outcome variables
(i.e. GHQ and intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction) examined the strength of
association. A series of hierarchical regression equations was conducted to examine the
295
Work-related
well-being in
UK prison
officers
proportion of variance explained by the psychosocial hazards and those that made the
strongest contribution to the variance in each of the outcomes. At the first step of these
equations, gender, age and occupational tenure were included in order to assess and
control for their potential effects. Levels of mental health problems and job satisfaction
are compared with norms published in a benchmarking manual that draws on studies
of a wide range of occupational groups with a range of sample sizes (Stride et al., 2007)
and a systematic review of studies that have utilised the GHQ-12 in workplace settings
(Goodwin et al., 2013).
Results
Psychosocial hazards
The mean scores for each of the HSE psychosocial hazards are shown in Table I.
The findings of the current study are compared with the HSE benchmarks (as described
above), with the shortfall shown in brackets. The need for action (i.e. whether scores for
each of the hazards are categorised as red, yellow, blue or green) is also identified.
As can be seen above, respondents had lower scores for all of the hazard categories
than the HSE recommended levels (indicating poorer well-being). A particularly large
shortfall was found between mean scores for job demands, control, manager support,
relationships and change and minimum standards. Perceptions of support from peers
and levels of role clarity were typically more favourable, but were nonetheless lower
than recommended levels. Six out of the seven hazard categories were identified as
“red”, emphasising the need for urgent action. Peer support was categorised as “yellow”
suggesting a clear need for improvement.
Mental health
In total, 72 per cent of the sample scored at the GHQ-12 threshold point of 4 or above;
48 per cent scored above 10, 27 per cent above 15 and 11 per cent (more than one
respondent in 10) above 20. The caseness rate found in this survey was high
compared to those found in studies of other occupational groups within the emergency
and security services in the UK: for example, police officers (47 per cent); ambulance
personnel (32 per cent); accident and emergency consultants (44 per cent); armed
forces personnel (32 per cent) (see Stride et al., 2007; Goodwin et al., 2013). It was
considerably lower, however, than a study of officers in a therapeutic prison in the UK
(i.e. 95 per cent) (Walker et al., 2015).
Current study mean HSE mean (shortfall) Need for action
Demands 1.88 3.44 (−1.56) Red
Control 2.39 3.32 (−0.93) Red
Manager support 2.57 3.77 (−1.20) Red
Peer support 3.46 4.03 (−0.57) Yellow
Relationships 2.75 4.13 (−1.38) Red
Role 3.58 4.61 (−1.03) Red
Change 2.21 3.54 (−1.33) Red
Notes: SDs: demands ¼0.56; control ¼0.73; manager support ¼0.85; peer support ¼0.71;
relationships ¼0.76; role ¼0.74; change ¼0.75. NB, high scores for demands, control, support, role,
relationships and change represent higher well-being
Table I.
Mean scores for the
HSE hazard
categories (with
HSE means and
need for action)
296
IJWHM
9,3
Job satisfaction
The levels of intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction found in this study were low
compared with those reported in studies of other emergency and security personnel
(see Stride et al., 2007). The mean score for intrinsic job satisfaction was 3.05 (SD ¼0.97)
compared with studies of police (3.88), ambulance personnel (4.47) and healthcare
workers (4.55). The mean score for extrinsic job satisfaction was 3.28 (SD ¼1.11),
compared with police (4.00), ambulance personnel (4.68) and healthcare workers (4.62).
Correlations between the psychosocial hazards, mental health and intrinsic and
extrinsic job satisfaction can be seen in Table II. As can be seen, strong relationships
were found between each of the hazards and all three outcomes. Table III provides
details of the hierarchical multiple regressions that examined the pattern of predictors
of mental health problems and job satisfaction and the proportion of variance explained
at each step. The model accounted for 36 per cent of the variance in GHQ scores.
Age, entered in step 1, was significant (in a negative direction) and, although all but two
of the psychosocial hazards contributed to the observed variance, the most powerful
predictors were relationships, role and demands. Support from managers and peers did
12345678910
1. Demands 1.0
2. Control 0.32 1.0
3. Manager support 0.28 0.49 1.0
4. Peer support 0.18 0.18 0.35 1.0
5. Role 0.32 0.41 0.46 0.34 1.0
6. Relationships 0.45 0.34 0.40 0.32 0.38 1.0
7. Change 0.25 0.52 0.58 0.26 0.49 0.33 1.0
8. Psychological distress −0.40 −0.35 −0.35 −0.25 −0.42 −0.51 −0.36 1.0
9. Intrinsic job satisfaction 0.40 0.58 0.60 0.28 0.51 0.47 0.56 −0.52 1.0
10. Extrinsic job satisfaction 0.43 0.50 0.61 0.34 0.53 0.51 0.54 −0.55 0.81 1.0
Notes: NB, high scores for demands, control, support, role, relationships and change represent higher
well-being. All correlations significant at po0.001
Table II.
Correlations between
study variables
Predictors GHQ scores Intrinsic satisfaction Extrinsic satisfaction
Gender 0.02 0.08** 0.07**
Age −0.13** 0.16*** 0.13***
Occupational tenure 0.01 −0.03 −0.06
Step 1 R
2
0.02*** 0.02*** 0.02***
Demands −0.16*** 0.10*** 0.15***
Control −0.07** 0.24*** 0.12***
Manager support −0.01 0.25*** 0.25***
Peer support −0.02 0.00 0.05**
Role −0.17*** 0.13*** 0.16***
Relationships −0.31*** 0.14*** 0.18***
Change −0.08** 0.16*** 0.16***
Step 1 R
2
0.34*** 0.54*** 0.53***
Total R
2
0.36*** 0.56*** 0.55***
Notes: **po0.01; ***po0.001
Table III.
Hierarchical
regressions showing
the psychosocial
hazards as
predictors of mental
health problems
(GHQ scores) and
job satisfaction
297
Work-related
well-being in
UK prison
officers
not make a significant contribution to the variance in mental health. For intrinsic job
satisfaction, gender (female) and age (in a positive direction), entered in step 1, made a
positive contribution to the 56 per cent of the variance that was accounted for. With the
exception of peer support, all of the psychosocial hazards made significant
contributions to intrinsic satisfaction, but control, manager support, and change had
the strongest effects. In terms of extrinsic job satisfaction, the model explained
55 per cent of the variance. Gender (female) and age in a positive direction made a
significant contribution in step 1. All of the psychosocial hazards contributed
significantly to the variance, but manager support, relationships and change were the
most powerful predictive factors.
Discussion
This study has extended knowledge of the psychosocial working conditions, mental
health and job satisfaction of prison officers. The utility of a benchmarking approach in
identifying the level of stressors and strains experienced by prison officers and
comparing them with benchmarks obtained from other occupational groups has been
supported. Also identified are the hazards that make the strongest contribution to poor
mental health and low job satisfaction. The findings have clear potential to highlight
key areas for change at the sector and institutional level in order to enhance the
well-being of employees.
The management standards framework developed by the HSE was used to examine
the extent to which UK prison officers experience the working conditions associated
with negative stress-related outcomes. Six out of seven of the psychosocial hazards
measured were categorised as requiring urgent attention, with serious implications for
the well-being of officers and the functioning of prisons. Previous research has
highlighted some of these issues, such as work overload, role ambiguity and lack of
management support, as sources of stress in correctional settings (e.g. Bevan et al.,
2010; Finney et al., 2013; Lambert et al., 2005; Senol-Durak et al., 2006). The present
study, however, identified additional hazards such as low autonomy, ineffective
management of change and lack of support from colleagues.
The level of demand relating to workload, the pacing of work and working hours
was particularly high; indeed, there was a considerable discrepancy between the mean
score for demands found in this study and the minimum standards recommended by
the HSE. Moreover, demands made a strong contribution to mental health symptoms
and low satisfaction with intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of work. These findings build
on previous studies of work-related stress in the prison sector that have identified work
overload and long working hours as powerful sources of burnout (e.g. Kunst, 2011;
Morgan et al., 2002; Schaufeli and Peeters, 2000). The importance of workload
management to the well-being of employees and organisations more generally was
highlighted in a recent meta-analysis, whereby strong associations were observed with
several indices of psychological and physical health, lack of commitment, absenteeism
and intention to quit (Bowling et al., 2015). It should also be noted that the level of job
demand found in the present study was considerably higher than that obtained from
research conducted in several London prisons that also used the HSE framework
(Bevan et al., 2010). This may indicate that working conditions in London prisons are
more favourable than in the rest of the UK, or that the reductions in staffing levels
and increased overcrowding more recently experienced in the sector has increased
workload, which raises serious concerns for the long-term well-being of officers and
underlines the need to monitor this over time.
298
IJWHM
9,3
A review of 43 studies that had examined the stressors and strains experienced by
prison officers in the 1980s and 1990s highlighted role ambiguity as one of the most
common sources of stress (Schaufeli and Peeters, 2000). The high level of role
ambiguity found in the present study suggests that it remains a cause for concern.
Role also made significant contributions to the variance in all strain outcomes, with
particularly powerful effects observed for extrinsic job satisfaction and mental health.
Clarity about duties and responsibilities, having the information necessary to do
the job, and awareness of organisational goals and objectives are essential, not only for
the well-being of staff but also for the safe running of prisons.
The importance of organisational support and trust to the well-being of prison
officers has previously been recognised (Brough and Williams, 2007; Finney et al.,
2013). The present study builds on this knowledge by differentiating between support
provided by managers and colleagues. The level of support from management, in terms
of the provision of feedback and their ability to help officers manage the emotional
demands of the job, was perceived to be low. Officers’dissatisfaction with emotional
support may arise from a lack of availability on the part of line managers, or managers
may not necessarily see the provision of such support as part of their role. Moreover,
officers may be reluctant to disclose emotional reactions to their work to line managers
due to a general culture of mistrust. There is evidence that trust in management is a
crucial resource for protecting prison officers against burnout (Lambert et al., 2012a, b).
The need for more research into support from managers in correctional settings is
discussed further below. This study found that satisfaction with help and support
received from co-workers was considerably higher than from managers. Perceptions of
colleague support were typically more positive, but the mean score failed to reach the
HSE minimum standards. The importance of management support for the well-being of
prison officers was confirmed as it made the strongest contribution to the variance in
both aspects of job satisfaction. Nonetheless, although satisfaction with support from
managers and co-workers was negatively associated with GHQ scores, neither source
of support made a significant contribution to mental health problems in the regression
analysis. The findings suggest that lack of support is a less potent source of depression,
anxiety and social dysfunction than poor quality working relationships.
The hazard category “relationships at work”considers the extent of friction and
anger between colleagues and the incidence of bullying and harassment. Positive
working relationships have previously been identified as a strong source of satisfaction
for prison officers that can protect them against adverse reactions to stress (Lancefield
et al., 1997). Nonetheless, there is evidence that correctional settings are high-risk
environments for workplace bullying (Bourbonnais et al., 2007). A study of Finnish
prison officers conducted by Vartia and Hyyti (2002), reported that 20 per cent of
participants perceived themselves as victims of bullying which had a serious impact on
their health. In the present study, 27 per cent of the sample indicated that they were
subjected to bullying at least sometimes, with more than one in ten frequently
experiencing such behaviour. The fact that poor quality working relationships made
the strongest contribution to mental health problems and were key predictors of low
job satisfaction indicates that priority should be given to interventions that aim to
enhance the quality of the social environment at work and to identify and manage the
structural and cultural factors that allow bullying to flourish.
As yet, little focus has been placed on job control in correctional settings, but there
was some evidence that a lack of input into decision making can impact on health and
retention in prison officers (Slate and Vogel, 1997). The present study has highlighted
299
Work-related
well-being in
UK prison
officers
the importance of additional aspects of control, such as skill discretion, schedule
flexibility and the ability to take a break when required, in underpinning work-related
stress in correctional settings. The importance of adequate breaks for employee
well-being and job satisfaction has been emphasised (Hunter and Wu, 2016). Sufficient
time for respite and recovery during the working day is likely to be crucial for
people who work in safety critical jobs who need to maintain a high level of vigilance.
There was a substantial shortfall between the overall level of control found in the
present study and the HSE minimum standard, and it made significant contributions to
the variance in mental health and job satisfaction. Job control seems particularly
important for satisfaction with intrinsic aspects of work, as it made a stronger
contribution to the variance in this outcome than any other psychosocial hazard
measured in this study.
The prison sector in the UK has experienced intense and wide-ranging change
involving privatisation, major structural and operational reforms and reductions in
staffing, alongside a substantial increase in the prison population. Perhaps
unsurprisingly, deteriorating safety and performance across the prison estate in the
UK has been documented (House of Commons Justice Committee, 2015). Perceptions of
the management of change found in the present study were generally poor.
More specifically, officers indicated that they were rarely consulted about changes at
work and it was seldom clear about how these changes would affect them. Poor change
management also made a strong contribution to the variance in mental health problems
and were strong predictors of intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction with the job role.
Effective change management strategies and clear channels of communication are clearly
vital under conditions of such profound and on-going transformation of the sector.
The level of mental health problems among prison officers who participated in this
study was considerably higher than published norms for other emergency and security
professionals. An unusually high proportion of the sample (72 per cent) achieved a score on
a widely used measure of psychological distress that indicates some intervention is
required (Goldberg, 1978). This far exceeds the rates found in studies of other emergency
and security professions such as the police, paramedics and the fire and rescue service; it is
also more than double the rate found in a study of Australian prison officers (Dollard et al.,
2001). This indicates that urgent action is taken to improve mental health in the prison
sector in the UK. The findings of this study indicate that attention to improving working
relationships, role clarity and reducing demands would be effective starting points.
This study explored the extent to which prison officers were satisfied with intrinsic
and extrinsic aspects of their work. In contrast to previous research suggesting that
people working in correctional settings experience a high level of job satisfaction (Leip
and Stinchcomb, 2013), the mean scores were considerably lower than those reported in
studies of similar occupational groups. The psychosocial hazards predicted a similar
proportion of variance in both sources of job satisfaction. Support from managers had
the strongest effects on both aspects of job satisfaction whereas good quality working
relationships, role clarity, job control, demands and the effective management of
change made lesser, but nonetheless significant, contributions. Nonetheless, job control
appears to be particularly important for intrinsic satisfaction, whereas job demands
had stronger effects on satisfaction with extrinsic aspects of work. Moreover, peer
support made a significant contribution to extrinsic but not intrinsic satisfaction.
This suggests that support from co-workers is more relevant to satisfaction with
external features of work, such as working hours and physical working conditions,
than with aspects that are more integral to the job.
300
IJWHM
9,3
The findings of this study raise safety concerns, not only for the well-being of prison
officers but also for the safe running of prisons. Lack of support and autonomy, role
ambiguity, poor quality working relationships, and ineffective management of change
represent serious hazards. The extent of mental health problems and the low level of
job satisfaction identified are also problematic. As yet, very few studies have evaluated
the impact of stress management interventions in correction settings. There is some
evidence that secondary strategies, such as emotion self-regulation techniques, may be
effective (McCraty et al., 2009). Nonetheless, the findings of this study strongly indicate
that primary interventions are urgently required to improve the well-being of prison
officers effectively and sustainably.
As discussed above, the high workload demands and lack of control and manager
support found in this study are obvious starting points for interventions. There is
evidence that strategies that aim to enhance job control and support can attenuate the
negative impact of demands on well-being (Van der Doef and Maes, 1999). Studies of
Australian prison officers conducted by Dollard and Winefield (1998) and Brough and
Williams (2007) found some support for the job demand-control-support model
(Karasek and Theorell, 1992; Johnson and Hall, 1988) and this should be tested in the
UK under current working conditions. Nonetheless, other frameworks of job-related
stress may have greater potential in informing interventions to enhance the well-being
of prison officers. The job demands-resources ( JDR) model (Demerouti et al., 2001)
allows the inclusion of a wider range of work features with the potential to moderate
the relationship between workplace psychosocial hazards and strain. As the present
study found that role, relationships and change were as (of not more) important for the
well-being of prison officers as demands, control and support, the JDR model has clear
potential to inform a broader range of initiatives.
It has been argued that the introduction of participatory management initiatives
has strong potential to alleviate stress in criminal justice organisations (Lancefield
et al., 1997; Slate and Vogel, 1997). As discussed above, interventions are also
required to enhance emotional support from managers as well as increase the
availability of help with operational concerns. To inform such initiatives, more
insight is needed into the competencies required by managers to help them protect
the well-being of employees in what is undoubtedly an emotionally demanding
occupation. Donaldson-Feilder et al. (2011) have developed a framework to help
managers, and those that recruit them, consider the extent to which they possess the
behaviours that are effective for preventing and reducing stress at work. The aim is
to help managers reflect on their management style and behaviour and identify areas
for future growth. To guide the development of such a framework, more information
is needed into the specific manager competencies required to attenuate stressors and
enhance well-being in prison officers who work in different correctional settings. It is
also crucial to bear in mind that managers are themselves likely to be experiencing
work-related stress and require support to protect their own well-being. These issues
should be examined in future research.
Although this study did not aim to examine demographic factors, some differences
were observed when controlling for gender and age in the regression analyses.
Women officers reported higher levels of intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction than
men. The small number of female participants in the present study means that an
examination of gender differences in levels of stressors and strains would be of
questionable validity, but future studies should utilise purposive sampling to explore
this issue more systematically. Older workers of both sexes were typically more
301
Work-related
well-being in
UK prison
officers
satisfied and less likely to report mental health problems than their younger
counterparts. Such findings may indicate that younger officers working in UK
prisons are experiencing particularly poor mental health and low job satisfaction and
should therefore be prioritised for intervention. Nonetheless, they may be attributable
to the “healthy worker effect”, where employees who experience serious health
problems, or who are particularly dissatisfied and demotivated, are more likely to
have gained alternative employment or retired (Li and Sung, 1999). These issues
should be further examined in order to help target interventions to groups who are
most vulnerable.
This study has some limitations. First, like all cross-sectional studies, the direction
of causation cannot be established. It is likely, however, that the study will form the
first wave of longitudinal research in the UK prison sector to allow levels of
job-related stressors and well-being to be tracked over time. Daily diary methodology
that draws on the JDR model outlined above has particularly strong potential to
provide insight into the type of situations that prison officers find stressful and how
specific resources, such as control, support from managers and colleagues and role
clarity, might moderate the negative impact of these demands on their well-being.
Moreover, the study utilised a general measure of work-related stressors so the
contribution of more job-specific hazards, such as exposure to violence and
harassment to the stress process could not be examined. A body of evidence,
including with prison officers, indicates that organisational stressors such as work
overload and poor resources and communication are more powerful sources of strain
that more intrinsic aspects of work (see Biron et al., 2012; Finney et al., 2013).
Nonetheless, future research with prison officers should supplement the HSE
framework with psychosocial hazards that are of particular relevance to the working
context. A further limitation of this study relates to the sampling strategy utilised.
Although the sample size was substantial and generally representative of the wider
population of prison officers in the UK in terms of age and tenure, it is not possible to
establish the extent to which the study captured the views and experiences of all
officers working in the UK or in different types of correctional facility within the UK.
There is evidence, however, that working in particular types of correctional
institutions, such as within therapeutic prisons, may be more hazardous and stressful
than others (Walker et al., 2015). Moreover, the sample was employed within the
public sector, so the views of officers working in privately funded prisons were not
represented. As respondents were members of a trade union, it is possible that they
were motivated to exaggerate the demands of their work and their reactions to them
in an attempt to improve terms and conditions of employment. Nonetheless, there is
evidence that members of trade unions constitute a valid sample for studies of this
kind and they are at least satisfied with their working conditions than those who are
not unionised (Georgellis and Lange, 2009).
Conclusions
The findings of this study indicate that working conditions in the prison sector in the
UK are far from satisfactory. None of the benchmarks for the management of key
psychosocial hazards were met and levels of mental health problems and job
satisfaction were considerably poorer than those reported by other emergency and
security services. The information obtained has strong potential to inform
interventions to improve the well-being of prison officers and provide the basis for
further investigation.
302
IJWHM
9,3
References
Armstrong, G.S., Atkin-Plunk, C.A. and Wells, J. (2015), “The relationship between work-family
conflict, correctional officer job stress, and job satisfaction”,Criminal Justice and Behavior,
Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 1066-1082.
Bevan, A., Houdmont, J. and Menear, N. (2010), “The management standards indicator tool and
the estimation of risk”,Occupational Medicine, Vol. 60 No. 7, pp. 525-531.
Biron, C., Karanika-Murray, M. and Cooper, C. (Eds) (2012), Improving Organizational
Interventions for Stress and Well-being: Addressing Process and Context, Routledge,
East Sussex.
Borritz, M., Rugulies, R., Bjorner, J.B., Villadsen, E., Mikkelsen, O.A. and Kristensen, T.S. (2006),
“Burnout among employees in human service work: design and baseline findings of the
PUMA study”,Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Bourbonnais, R., Jauvin, N., Dussault, J. and Vézina, M. (2007), “Psychosocial work environment,
interpersonal violence at work and mental health among correctional officers”,
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 355-368.
Bowling, N.A., Khazon, S., Meyer, R.D. and Burrus, C.J. (2015), “Situational strength as a
moderator of the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-
analytic examination”,Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 89-104.
Brough, P. and Williams, J. (2007), “Managing occupational stress in a high-risk industry:
measuring the job demands of correctional officers”,Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 555-567.
Bureau of Justice (2014), “Correctional populations in the United States”, available at: www.bjs.
gov/index.cfm?ty¼pbdetail&iid¼5519
Crawley, E.M. (2004), “Emotion and performance: prison officers and the presentation of self in
prisons”,Punishment & Society, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 1462-4745.
Deguchi, Y., Inoue, K., Muramatsu, T., Iwasaki, S., Yamauchi, T., Nakao, T. and Kiriike, N. (2013),
“Relationships between occupational stress and depressive symptoms among prison
officers in Japan”,Osaka City Medical Journal, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 91-98.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands-
resources model of burnout”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 499-512.
Denhof, M.D. and Spinaris, C.G. (2013), “Depression, PTSD, and comorbidity in United States
corrections professionals: prevalence and impact on health functioning”, Desert Waters
Correctional Outreach, Florence, Co., available at: http://desertwaters.com/wp-content/
uploads/2013/08/Corrections-Fatigue-Model-Attachment-Document.pdf
Dollard, M., Winefield, H.R. and Winefield, A.H. (Eds) (2003), Occupational Stress in the Service
Professions, Taylor and Francis, London.
Dollard, M.F. and Winefield, A.H. (1995), “Trait anxiety, work demand, social support and
psychological distress in correctional officers”,Anxiety, Stress and Coping, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 25-35.
Dollard, M.F. and Winefield, A.H. (1998), “A test of the demand-control/support model of work
stress in correctional officers”,Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 243-264.
Dollard, M.F., Winefield, H.R. and Winefield, A.H. (2001), Occupational Strain and Efficacy in Human
Service Workers: When the Rescuer Becomes the Victim, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht.
Donaldson-Feilder, E., Lewis, R. and Yarker, J. (2011), Preventing Stress in Organizations: How to
Develop Positive Managers, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
303
Work-related
well-being in
UK prison
officers
Edwards, J.A., Webster, S., Van Laar, D. and Easton, S. (2008), “Psychometric analysis of the UK
Health and Safety Executive’s Management Standards work-related stress indicator tool”,
British Academy of Management Annual Conference, Harrogate, 10-12 September,
available at: http://oro.open.ac.uk/25007/2/ (accessed 15 September 2015).
Finney, C., Stergiopoulos, E., Hensel, J., Bonato, S. and Dewa, C.S. (2013), “Organizational
stressors associated with job stress and burnout in correctional officers: a systematic
review”,BioMed Central Public Health, Vol. 3 No. 1, doi 10.1186/1471-2458-13-82, available
at: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/694/art%253A10.1186%252F1471-2458-13-82.
pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fbmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com%2Farticle%
2F10.1186%2F1471-2458-13-82&token2=exp=1470667841~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%
2F694%2Fart%25253A10.1186%25252F1471-2458-13-82.pdf*~hmac=16d3be805343;
cc6e6e55cb6a95db00997600f3034c9145f8a44621d68c6ee238
Georgellis, Y. and Lange, T. (2009), “Are union members happy workers after all? Evidence from
Eastern and Western European labor markets”, working paper, Brunel University, London,
available at: http://qwww.brunel.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/82114/0924.pdf
Goldberg, D.P. (1978), Manual of the General Health Questionnaire, NFER, Windsor.
Goodwin, L., Ben-Zion, I., Fear, N.T., Hotopf, M., Stansfeld, S.A. and Wessely, S. (2013), “Are
reports of psychological stress higher in occupational studies? A systematic review across
occupational and population based studies”,PLoS ONE, Vol. 8 No. 11, pp. 1-22.
Griffin, M.L., Hogan, N.L., Lambert, E.G., Tucker-Gail, K.A. and Baker, D.N. (2009), “Job
involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and the burnout
of correctional staff”,Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 239-255.
Hardwick, N. (2014), “HM chief inspector of prisons for England and Wales annual report
2013-14”, available at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspections
(accessed 8 September 2015).
Hartley, D.J., Davila, M.A., Marquart, J.W. and Mullings, J.L. (2013), “Fear is a disease: the impact
of fear and exposure to infectious disease on correctional officer job stress and
satisfaction”,American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 323-340.
Harvey, J. (2014), “Perceived physical health, psychological distress and social support among
prison officers”,The Prison Journal, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 242-259.
Hawton, K., Linsell, L., Adeniji, T. and Fazel, S. (2014), “Self-harm in prisons in England and
Wales: an epidemiological study of prevalence, risk factors, clustering, and subsequent
suicide”,The Lancet, Vol. 383 No. 9923, pp. 1147-1154.
Health and Safety Executive (2015), “HSE management standards analysis tool”, available at:
www.the-stress-site.net/uploads/2/7/0/6/2706840/analysis_tool_manual.pdf (accessed
14 September 2015).
Holmes, S. and Maclnnes, D. (2003), “Contributors to stress among prison service staff”,
The British Journal of Forensic Practice, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 16-24.
Houdmont, K., Kerr, R. and Randall, R. (2012), “Organisational psychosocial hazard exposures in
UK policing; management standards indicator tool reference values”,Policing. An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 182-197.
House of Commons Justice Committee (2015), Prisons: Planning and Policies, The Stationery
Office Limited, London, available at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/
cmselect/cmjust/309/309.pdf (accessed 15 September 2015).
Howard League for Penal Reform (2014), “Breaking point: understaffing and overcrowding in
prisons”, Howard League for Penal Reform, available at: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.
cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/Breaking_point_1.pdf
(accessed 15 September 2015).
304
IJWHM
9,3
Hunter, E.M. and Wu, C. (2016), “Give me a better break: choosing workday break activities to
maximize resource recovery”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 302-311.
Inquest (2016), “Deaths in prison”, available at: www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/deaths-in-prison
(accessed 12 March 2016).
Iversen, A.C., Fear, N.T., Ehlers, A., Hacker-Hughes, J., Hull, L., Earnshaw, M., Greenberg, N.,
Rona, R., Wessely, S. and Hotopf, M. (2008), “Risk factors for post-traumatic stress
disorder among UK armed forces personnel”,Psychological Medicine, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 511-522.
Jackson, C. (2007), “The general health questionnaire”,Occupational Medicine, Vol. 57 No. 1, p. 79.
Johnson, J.V. and Hall, E.M. (1988), “Job strain, workplace social support, and cardiovascular
disease: a cross-sectional study of a random sample of the Swedish working population”,
American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 78 No. 10, pp. 1336-1342.
Karasek, R. and Theorell, T. (1992), Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of
Working Life, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Kerr, R., McHugh, M. and McCrory, M. (2009), “HSE management standards and stress-related
work outcomes”,Occupational Medicine, Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 574-579.
Kinman, G. and Wray, S. (2013), Higher Stress: A Survey of Stress and Wellbeing Among Staff in
Higher Education, UCU Publications, London.
Kinman, G., Clements, A.J. and Hart, J. (in press), “Working conditions, work-life conflict and
wellbeing in UK prison officers: the role of affective rumination and detachment”,Criminal
Justice and Behaviour.
Kunst, M.J.J. (2011), “Working in prisons: a critical review of stress in the occupation of
correctional officers”, in Langan-Fox, J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Handbook of Stress in the
Occupations, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp. 241-283.
Lambert, E. and Hogan, N. (2009), “The importance of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment in shaping turnover intent: a test of a causal model”,Criminal Justice Review,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 96-118.
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Barton-Bellessa, S.M. and Jiang, S. (2012a), “Examining the
relationship between supervisor and management trust and job burnout among
correctional staff”,Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 938-957.
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Dial, K.C., Jiang, S. and Khondaker, M.I. (2012b), “Is the job burning
me out? An exploratory test of the job characteristics model on the emotional burnout of
prison staff”,The Prison Journal, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Moore, B., Tucker, K., Jenkins, M., Stevenson, M. and Jiang, S. (2009),
“The impact of the work environment on prison staff: the issue of consideration, structure,
job variety, and training”,American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 34 Nos 3-4, pp. 166-180.
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Paoline, E.A. III and Clarke, A. (2005), “The impact of role stressors on
job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among private prison staff”,
Security Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 33-50.
Lancefield, K., Lennings, C.J. and Thomson, D. (1997), “Management style and its effect on
prison officers’stress”,International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 205-219.
Langan-Fox, J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), (2011), Handbook of Stress in the Occupations, Edward
Elgar Publishing, Northampton.
Leino, T.M., Selin, R., Summala, H. and Virtanen, M. (2011), “Violence and psychological
distress among police officers and security guards”,Occupational Medicine,Vol.61No.6,
pp. 400-406.
305
Work-related
well-being in
UK prison
officers
Leip, L.A. and Stinchcomb, J.B. (2013), “Should I stay or should I go? Job satisfaction and turnover
intent of jail staff throughout the United States”,Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 226-241.
Li, C.Y. and Sung, F.C. (1999), “A review of the healthy worker effect in occupational
epidemiology”,Occupational Medicine, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 225-229.
Liebling, A., Price, D. and Shefer, G. (2010a), The Prison Officer, Routledge, London.
McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., Lipsenthal, L. and Arguelles, L. (2009), “New hope for correctional
officers: an innovative program for reducing stress and health risks”,Applied
Psychophysiology & Biofeedback, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 251-272.
Mackay, C.J., Cousins, R., Kelly, P.J., Lee, S. and McCaig, R.H. (2004), “Management standards’and
work-related stress in the UK: policy background and science”,Work & Stress, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 91-112.
Mahfood, V.W., Pollock, W. and Longmire, D. (2013), “Leave it at the gate: job stress and
satisfaction in correctional staff”,Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 308-325.
Mellor, N., Mackay, C., Packham, C., Jones, R., Palferman, D., Webster, S. and Kelly, P. (2011),
“Management standards’and work-related stress in Great Britain: progress on their
implementation”,Occupational Health and Safety Management, Issues and Challenges,
Safety Science, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 1040-1046.
Ministry of Justice (2015), “National Offender Management Service workforce statistics bulletin,
England and Wales”, Ministry of Justice, London, September, available at: www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/399234/offender-management-
statistics-bulletin-july-sept-2014.pdf
Moon, B. and Maxwell, S.R. (2004), “The sources and consequences of corrections officers’stress:
a South Korean example”,Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 359-370.
Morgan, R., Van Haveren, R. and Pearson, C. (2002), “Correctional officer burnout: further
analyses”,Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 144-160.
Paoline, E.A., Lambert, E.G. and 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, Vol. 86 No. 2,
pp. 182-205.
Pitts, J.M.A., Griffin, O.H. and Johnson, W.W. (2014), “Contemporary prison overcrowding:
short-term fixes to a perpetual problem”,Contemporary Justice Review, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 124-139.
Rutter, D.R. and Fielding, P.J. (1988), “Sources of occupational stress: an examination of British
prison officers”,Work & Stress, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 291-299.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Peeters, M.C.W. (2000), “Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: a
literature review”,International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 19-48.
Senol-Durak, E., Durak, M. and Gençöz, T. (2006), “Development of work stress scale for
correctional officers”,Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 157-168.
Slate, R.N. and 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,
Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 397-408.
Stride, C., Wall, T.D. and Catley, N. (2007), Measures of Job Satisfaction, Organizational
Commitment, Mental Health and Job-Related Wellbeing: A Benchmarking Manual, 2nd ed.,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Tartaro, C. and Lester, D. (2009), Suicide and Self-Harm in Prisons and Jails, Lanham, Lexington, KY.
306
IJWHM
9,3
Van der Doef, M. and Maes, S. (1999), “The job demand-control (-support) model and
psychological well-being: a review of 20 years of empirical research”,Work & Stress,
Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 87-114.
Vartia, M. and Hyyti, J. (2002), “Gender differences in workplace bullying among prison officers”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 113-126.
Viswesvaran, C., Sanchez, J.I. and Fisher, J. (1999), “The role of social support in the process of
work stress: a meta-analysis”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 314-334.
Walker, E.J., Jackson, C.A., Egan, H.H. and Tonkin, M. (2015), “Workability and mental wellbeing
among therapeutic prison officers”,Occupational Medicine, Vol. 65 No. 7 pp. 549-551.
Warr, P., Cook, J. and Wall, T. (1979), “Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects
of psychological well-being”,Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 129-148.
Webster, S. and Buckley, P. (2008), “Psychosocial working conditions in Britain in 2008”,
Health and Safety Executive, available at: www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/pwc2008.pdf
(accessed 8 September 2015).
Further reading
Liebling, A., Price, D. and Shefer, G. (2010b), The Prison Officer, 2nd ed., Willan Publishing,
Cullompton.
Slate, R.N., Vogel, R.E. and Johnson, W.W. (2001), “To quit or not to quit: perceptions of
participation in correctional decision making and the impact of organizational stress”,
Corrections Management Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 68-78.
Corresponding author
Gail Kinman can be contacted at: Gail.Kinman@beds.ac.uk
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
307
Work-related
well-being in
UK prison
officers
