Parallel Perceptions: Gender, Job Enrichment and Job Satisfaction Among Correctional Officers in Women's Jails

Parallel Perceptions: Gender, Job Enrichment and Job Satisfaction Among
Correctional Officers in Women’s Jails
Mary K. Stohr
Department of Criminal Justice Administration
Boise State University
Boise, Idaho
G. Larry Mays
Department of Criminal Justice
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Nicholas P. Lovrich
Division of Governmental Studies and Services
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington
Amanda M. Gallegos
Department of Criminal Justice Administration
Boise State University
Boise, Idaho
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Las Vegas Nevada in
March 1996.
Acknowledgement and Exculpations:
The findings reported here are drawn from field research supported by the Jails Division of the National Institute of
Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice and New Mexico State University. This document was prepared under grant number
92JOlGHP5 from the National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document
are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The authors
bear sole responsibility for the views expressed here, and full blame for any errors of commission or omission which might adhere to
the analyses presented. The authors would like to thank the MC, New Mexico State University and the participating jail managers and
their staffs and inmates for their assistance in this research. We are also indebted to Carol Clark and Shannon Henry for their
contributions to this research (while at New Mexico State University) and to Craig Hemmens (Boise State University) for reviewing an
earlier draft of this manuscript.

---

INTRODUCTION
The correctional work world presents comparable challenges for women and men. It requires the
same job skills, intelligence, perseverance, patience, professionalism and degree of humor from both
gender groups. Not surprisingly, the extant social science literature indicates that when the
perceptions of men and women regarding of their jobs in corrections are compared, many more
similarities than differences are apparent. These parallel perceptions of the correctional work world
appear to hold for all but the most “gendered” of issues -- such as support for affirmative action and
sexual harassment victimization.
In this paper we explore perceptions of the degree of job enrichment in corrections work and the
level of job satisfaction with such work obtaining among female and male correctional employees
working in exclusively women’s jails. Our intent is to discover to what degree males and females have
similar perceptions of their work; this analysis is intended to add to the growing literature in the area
of gender studies in criminal justice, and to deepen our understanding of jails as places of
professional work.
Focus
Women’s jails are rather uncommon institutions located among a major type of correctional
facility -- municipal and county jails. The literature on jails contains little work on these facilities;
that literature tends to be preoccupied with a focus on male inmates, and on penal organization run,
for the most part, by male staff. Although the top level managers of the women’s jails we studied
were most often European-American (white) males, they were staffed in large part by females and
their core function was to control and serve an exclusively female inmate population. Given these
unusual corrections environmental circumstances, the conclusions drawn from staff and inmate
1

---

research done in predominately male facilities require fresh examination. Of particular interest here
are the perceptions of job enrichment and job satisfaction across gender groups.
We are primarily
interested in contributing to the growing literature that explores the work environment and
circumstances of female justice system workers.
Traditionally excluded from most correctional work except in the restricted role of matron
supervising women and children, women in corrections have only recently (for the last 10 to 15 years
in the main) been allowed to work in virtually all positions in jail facilities.’ Aside from some limited
evidence of a gender gap in their perceptions of work, the available research comparing men and
women in correctional occupations suggests that they tend to be more similar than dissimilar in their
job behaviors, and more alike than different in their perceptions of the workplace.
Gender: History, Work, Perceptions
Historically, women have constituted a rather small minority of jail inhabitants, both in terms of
mates and correctional staff. It has only been since the enactment of equal employment opportunity
statutes (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and the subsequent development of affirmative
action plans and programs for public agencies (1972 amendments to Title VII) over the last 20 years
that women have been accorded a general correctional staff role in local jail facilities. According to
the 1993 Census of Local Jails (the closest year to the study period) women occupied nearly one-fourth
of the correctional officer jobs in the nation’s jails, and they constituted nearly one-third of all jail
payroll employees in the early 1990s (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1995).
In the not too distant past women were relegated almost entirely to support services (e.g., clerical,
1 Notably, some jails still restrict women to supervising living units housing “women
or children only.”
2

---

nursing, culinary etc.) in most correctional institutions (Chapman, Minor, Rieker, Mills and Bottum
1983). Even when women performed correctional work as matrons with female inmates, their
functions were seen as ancillary to the main responsibility of the jail, that being to house and
maintain in a secure state male inmates. Not surprisingly, recompense in the form of either salary or
interpersonal collegial respect for support services or matron work tended to be far below rewards
accorded to male counterparts (Zupan 1992).
Despite the recent gains made by women in securing employment in custodial positions in jails,
they still tend to be deployed disproportionately in support-like roles as compared to men. For
instance, it is common practice for non-commissioned women to work side-by-side with male and
female correctional officers in booking and control rooms, doing essentially the same work but
without being accorded the occupational status or pay of a commissioned officer (Stohr 1990).
As women move increasingly into traditionally male-dominated realms of public service work, the
degree to which they differ from men in perceptions, experiences and job performance has been of
interest to many scholars (e.g., Bartol, Bergen, Volckens, and Knoras 1992; Branch, Duerst-Lahti,
Duke, Guy, Hale, Johnson, Kelly and Stambaugh 1992; Johnson 1991; Jurik 1988; Lovrich and
Stohr 1993; Walters 1992; Zupan 1986). Issues such as workplace sexism, sexual harassment, and
comparable worth (equal pay for equal work) have been examined in corrections and other public
service work (e.g., Beck and Stohr 1991; Jurik and Halemba 1984; Jurik and Winn 1987; Kane 1992;
Martin 1980; Petersen 1982; Wright and Saylor 1991; Zupan 1986).
The limited research that currently is available on gender differences in the corrections field
suggests the existence of a few noteworthy similarities and some differences between males and
females. For instance, in their analyses of workplace perceptions of men and women correctional
officers in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, Wright and Saylor (1991: 519-521) found among other things
3

---

that women’s levels of job satisfaction are commensurate to that of men, but their stress levels tend to
be higher. These findings were in part replicated in the jail setting by Lovrich and Stohr (1993), who
found that there were slight differences in reported stress levels between the genders (women
reporting more), but basic congruence between the sexes in their perceptions of job satisfaction, the
job environment, and the level of commitment to their workplace.
Such findings coincide with discoveries made by other researchers with respect to job satisfaction
(Cullen, Link, Wolfe and Frank 1985; Jurik and Halemba 1984; Walters 1992) and job stress (Bartol
et al. 1992; Cullen et al. 1985; Johnson 1991; Stinchcomb 1986). Women tend to report similar levels
of job satisfaction as men in most areas of work, and higher levels of stress than their male
counterparts in many areas of human services work performed by both genders. In some studies (e.g.
Gross, Larson, Urban and Zupan 1994; Morash and Haar 1995) the levels of stress reported for both
genders are similar, but the origins for men and women may differ. For instance, women may be
“stressed” by the same factors that affect men in the workplace AND by additional circumstances that
are generally particular to their status as females (e.g., sexual and gender harassment). For
example, Morash and Haar (1995: 132) found in their study of the police work environment that “[a]n
additional 5 percent of the variance in women’s stress can be explained by workplace problems due to
subgroup status, notably bias and language harassment.”
As with women police officers and correctional workers in prisons, women correctional officers in
jails have reported being the frequent targets of sexual and gender harassment as they have moved
into a traditionally male-dominated area (Beck and Stohr 1991). They are also likely to have
experienced the increased respect and status, not to mention pay, that attaches to their new
correctional roles. This financial gain for women may represent ameliorated circumstances which
compensate, to some extent, for the stress of working in environments where one is often not readily
4

---

accepted.
Other related findings indicate that women may value their work for its “service” orientation
more often than their male counterparts; colleagues who tend to place greater emphasis on the pay
and security benefits aspects of the job (Jurik 1985; Jurik and Halemba 1984; Walters 1992). Such
findings are bolstered by Feingold’s (1994) recent meta-analysis indicating that females tend to score
higher than males on scales of “tendermindedness.” However, Stohr, Lovrich and Wood (1996)
found no such support for this notion in their study of male and female perceptions of value placed on
training topics designated as either “service” or “security” oriented in predominately male
podular/direct supervision jails.’ In their study they found that female officers were no more likely
than their male counterparts to value service types of training. Similarly, Stohr, Lovrich and Mays
(1997) were unable to document a difference in service or security orientation, as reflected in the
rating of training topics, utilizing this exclusively women’s jail data set. In this research we will
explore similar work-related issues as were investigated in these previous studies, but we will examine
in particular detail gender-based perceptions of job enrichment and level of job satisfaction in
particular. The working hypotheses investigated here are these:
1. Given the extant research in this general area, we would predict that men and women
correctional officers will not differ in their perceptions of either the inherent challenge of their
work or their level of job satisfaction.
2. Relatedly, we also expect that -- to the extent it can be measured in this data set -- women
correctional officers will not express more “service related” preferences or “tendermindedness”
inclinations than their male counterparts.
2 For our purposes, a social service work orientation is one focused on meeting inmate
needs, whereas a security work orientation is focused on inmate custody and control.
5

---

STUDY AND METHODS
Based on personal correspondence with Ken Kerle, editor of AMERICAN JAILS and review of
the American Jail Association’s (1991) publication WHO'S WHO IN JAIL MANAGEMENT, we were able to
identify 18 exclusively women’s jails.3 In order to facilitate site visits, the research team imposed
three criteria on the set of specific jails chosen for in-depth study: (1) the facility had to be confirmed
as an exclusively women’s jail; (2) the jail had to house more than 100 inmates on average daily
headcount; and, (3) to the extent possible, each jail had to provide some degree of geographical
representativeness.
Telephone calls to the jail managers confirmed for us that 17 of the original 18 jails identified
were exclusively women’s facilities. One small jail was not, and it was eliminated from subsequent
consideration.
Twelve of the jails met our size criterion; however, when it came time to finalize
plans, two of the largest jails in the nation declined to participate, citing budgetary constraints and a
variety of logistical problems. We do know, through informed sources, that one of these large jails
was “frightened off” by the sexual harassment questions in the staff survey because the department
was party to a suit at the time of the study and did not wish to risk the chances of our findings used
against it in the courtroom setting. Three medium-size jails also declined the invitation to be involved
in the research, citing staff shortages, budgetary constraints, and/or concerns with inmate privacy.
As a consequence, five jails were chosen from the remaining seven for site visits, and the remaining
two jails were surveyed through the mail.
Three caveats should be issued concerning the jails included in this study, and regarding those
that refused. First, one of the jails included in the final sample is a combined jail and women’s state
3 Personnel at the Bureau of Justice Statistics have since validated this estimate of 18
exclusively women’s jails in this country during the 1991-1993 time period.
6

---

prison. While this facility represents an exceptional case on some of the factors we examined, we
included it because it is a modern facility that does house a substantial short-term detention (jail)
population. Second, while every effort was made to insure geographical representation, most
exclusively women’s jails are located in major urban centers along the east or west coasts of the
country. In fact, eight of the jails initially identified were located in one state. Third, the managers
of the five jails chosen for site visits in all likelihood agreed to participate because they thought of
their facilities in positive terms, organizationally and operationally. It is likely that the five jails that
decided not to participate may have been faced with greater than normal crowding, budgetary
problems, or other operational burdens.
Even with these substantial limitations in mind, we feel that the data gathered in this research
are important to report upon for a variety of reasons. The best available evidence indicates that to
date no one has undertaken a systematic, nationwide study of exclusively women’s jails. Additionally,
given the fairly wide geographical dispersal of the seven facilities (located in five states), their
similarities on a number of facility and inmate population dimensions, and the common features of
virtually all county jails, there is a reasonable likelihood that the data collected from these jail staff
provide a cross-sectional snapshot of working in exclusively women’s jails from mid-summer 1992
through Fall/Winter 1992-93.
METHODS
The five jail site visits were completed in July and August, 1992. Mailings to the two additional
jails took place in the Fall and Winter of 1992-93. At least two research team members participated in
each of the site visits. In addition to the staff survey, additional data were collected from the jail facilities
via inmate surveys, institutional profile forms, structured interviews, observation sheets, etc. These data
7

---

will be examined in subsequent research.
Staff questionnaires in all instances were mailed to the participating jails and in six jails they were
distributed by the jail administrator or his designee. We experienced a rather low return rate in the
initial distribution of questionnaires in County 4, so we physically redistributed the staff surveys and
collected them upon completion of our visit.
In the other four site visits, most questionnaires were
collected personally by the researchers, and they were mailed back to the research university for those
two jails participating via the mail survey. Also, some employees chose to return their surveys via the
mail rather than return them at the time of our visit.
The questionnaires were quite extensive (12 pages in length), and included in them were correctional
demographic questions regarding gender, age, race/ethnicity, position type, length of service, etc. Also
included were standardized instruments measuring employee perception of job enrichment and sense of
job satisfaction, and measuring the quality of the living environment for inmates. Of particular relevance
for this research were the questions related to job enrichment and job satisfaction for staff.
The standardized instrument used to measure job enrichment was the Job Diagnostic Survey originally
developed by Hackman and Oldham (1974). Use of this measure requires that respondents estimate on
a seven-point scale the degree to which certain attributes presently apply to their own job. Included in
the Hackman and Oldham instrument are questions geared toward deciphering the degree of tusk
identification, autonomy, skill variety, task significance, and feedback thought to exist in one’s work; these
characteristics represent the principal attributes of an “enriched” job.4 According to Hackman and
Oldham (1974), these five “core job dimensions” translate into three “critical psychological states” which
4 The complete version of the Job Diagnostic Survey includes eight sections that
measure the enriching characteristics of the job, along with measures of affective reactions to
the job and the presence of three critical psychological states. Because of time and space
limitations in this research, only one of these sections was used.
8

---

result in the personal and work outcomes of high internal work motivation, high quality of work
performance, high satisfaction with the work, and low absenteeism and turnover. Skill variety, task
identity and task significance constitute the critical psychological state of “experienced meaningfulness
of the work,” autonomy measures the critical state of “experienced responsibility of outcomes of the
work,” and feedback measures the “knowledge of the actual results of the work activities” a critical
psychological state. Each of the job characteristic scores is weighted to reflect the relative importance
of each dimension and combined to create a single “motivating potential” score. The motivating potential
scores range from 0 to 360, with 0 reflecting a total absence of motivating potential and 360 indicating
a total fulfillment of potential.5
The Job Descriptive Index devised by Smith, Kendall and Hulin (1969) is a widely used measure of
job satisfaction. Satisfaction is measured as it relates to five areas of work life: character of work, level
of pay, opportunity for promotion, quality of supervision, and regard for other people on the job. For
instance, employees are asked to indicate whether adjectives such as “fascinating” or “tiresome” did or
did not describe work on their present job (undecided was also an option). There are 8 to 18 items in
each of the five subscales, and the range for the subscale scores varied by weight assigned to each item
and scale. Low index scores indicate a low level of job satisfaction, and high scores indicate a high level
of job satisfaction.
Across the seven counties a total of 443 questionnaires were distributed and 182 were returned (156
of those respondents were correctional officers), producing an overall return rate of 41%, with a range
5 The motivating potential score is created by adding the three task related subscales and
dividing them by three to create a task-related mean variable. This newly created variable is
then multiplied by the autonomy subscale and then by the feedback subscale, the product of
which represents the motivating potential score.
9

---