Executive Summary

A Pilot Survey of Turnover Intention and Its Determinants among Adult Probation Line Officers in Texas

By Won-Jae Lee, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice Angelo State University January 1, 2008

2 Introduction Principally based upon studies of the private sector, there is a vast amount of theoretical and empirical literature dedicated to answering the question of why employees quit. Similarly, voluntary turnover, not including termination or retirement, has been a main subject of attention and importance among American correctional agencies. Correctional executives are faced with high levels of employee absenteeism, stress, poor health, and turnover rates, coupled with low morale, all of which contribute to poor jobrelated productivity. Particularly in a probation setting, turnover can result in increasing caseloads assigned to the remaining officers. This in turn may give rise to a poor quality of supervision and its negative consequences such as unnoticed violations and increased recidivism. A review of the correctional literature suggests that failure to resolve high levels of employee turnover rates. For example, among probation officers, a turnover rate of approximately 30 percent was reported in Florida in 1995 and an approximately 20 percent turnover rate among Texas juvenile probation line officers was reported by Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. Additionally, although there have been no extensive reports on national rates of community correctional officer turnover, the 1993 National Institute of Corrections conference reached a consensus as to the difficulty in retaining qualified officers. Reducing staff turnover in an era of tightening budgets and expanding expectations should be a top priority for probation administrators. Unfortunately, there is no extant scholarly and professional literature on this topic. In response, this pilot study

3 explores turnover rates of line adult probation department personnel in Texas and examines determinant factors that shape their turnover intention.

Data and Methods This pilot study utilized a purposive sampling frame since a complete list of probation line officers in Texas was not available, thus making a state sample prohibitive. Four agencies were selected based on Dan R. Betos (Former Executive Director of the Correctional Management of Institute of Texas, and Editor of Executive Exchange, the quarterly publication of the National Association of Probation Executives) familiarity with the following four departments: Brazos, Fort Bend, Tarrant and Tom Green County Community Supervision and Corrections Departments. Before collecting data, the researcher obtained prior permission from the administrators in each of the sampled agencies to conduct the survey. The purpose was fully understood by the administrators, and their complete support and cooperation were guaranteed. Two different sets of surveys were conducted. The first survey was to look at voluntary turnover rate in the past three fiscal years, whereas the second survey (a mail survey) was to empirically test this pilot surveys research frame to examine the effects of determinant factors on turnover intention. The second survey was administered to probation line officers in the sampled departments to rate their perceptions of three different types of stressors (external, internal, and job/task), participation in decisionmaking, supervisory support, peer support, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention. Also, their socio-demographic and working experience information was elicited.

4 Data collection was conducted separately at each agency and data collected between July and September 2007. A cover letter emphasized anonymity of responses from each collection site. Each respondent was provided a pre-addressed, stamped envelope to return the survey directly to the researcher at Angelo State University. Participation was entirely voluntary, identity would remain anonymous and a completed and returned questionnaire would indicate the respondents informed consent to participate This survey was limited to only line officers since existing literature indicates that they are more likely than probation supervisors to feel stressed, have less opportunity to participate in decision-making, have lower levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment, leading to high turnover intention. Out of the 325 surveys, 199 were returned for analysis, giving a response rate of 61 percent. Social science agrees that a 50 percent return rate is required for validity or generalizability. Therefore, the 61 percent response rate in the sample of Texas probation line officers is considered as a midpoint between a good and very good rating.

5 Findings Turnover Rates The researcher asked all four chiefs to collect and provide their official records on the voluntary turnover rates over the past three years (each fiscal year of 2003-2004; 2004-2005; and 2005-2006). It should be noted that voluntary turnover rate was expressed as the total number of line officers voluntarily quit (excluding termination and retirement) divided by the total number of line officers at each fiscal year. Based on responses of all chiefs from the sampled probation departments, line officers average turnover rates in the past three years were estimated to be between 17 percent and 24 percent (17% for 2003-2004 Fiscal Year; 20% for 2004-2005 Fiscal Year; 24% for 20052006 Fiscal Year). Also, one department experienced an unacceptable high turnover rate (nearly 40% in Fiscal Year 2005-2006). Overall, voluntary turnover rates have steadily increased over the past three years. Socio-demographic and Working Experience information Demographic findings listed in Table 1 reveal that probation officers are employed by the department an average of 6.54 years, ranging from a minimum of 0.1 to a maximum of 25 years, and 46.7% report their current position is supervising special caseload. Males account for 34.7% of the population, and 63.8% are Caucasian. The average age is 38.44 years (Min: 21 Max: 66), with 59.9% currently married. All had at least Bachelors degree with 36% having a Masters degree or more. Only 8.5% of the respondents had prior employment in law enforcement while 33.7% had prior employment in corrections. It should be noted that following findings in this pilot study may not be generalized and should be interpreted with caution since a sample frame of all

6 probation line officers in Texas was not available to determine the sample representativeness.

Table 1: Demographic Variable Descriptions and Statistics (N=199).

Variable Age Gender 0 = female 1 = male Ethnicity 0 = non-Caucasian 1 = Caucasian Marital status 0 = currently single 1 = currently married Education level 0 = Bachelor's degree 1 = Master's degree or more Employment in current agency Prior employment in law enforcement 0 = no 1 = yes Prior employment in corrections 0 = no 1 = yes Supervise special caseload 0 = no 1 = yes 105 (53.3) 92 (46.7) 132 (66.3) 67 (33.7) 197 182 (91.5) 17 (8.5) 199 in years 163 (81.9) 36 (18.1) 6.54 yrs 197 199 79 (40.1) 118 (59.9) 199 71 (36.2) 125 (63.8) 197 130 (65.3) 69 (34.7) 196 in years Description N (%) Mean 38.44 yrs Total N 193 199

Organizational Variables Internal, Job/Task, and External Stressors Fifty-four survey questions originated by Whisler (1994) probe into three stressors which contribute to a source of overall stress: internal, job/task, and external. All items consist of a 1-5 Likert scale with a rating of 1

7 indicating not stressful and a rating of 5 indicating very stressful. In brief, twenty-six internal stressor items present stressful conditions internal to the organization while fourteen external stressor items indicate stressful conditions external to the organization. Thirteen Job/Task stressor items represent stress-induced job characteristics. These three subscales reflect multi-dimensional stressful conditions. Moreover, the Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficients for all three subscale items examined were at least 0.837, well above the minimal level of acceptability. Simply put, the items used here are reliable. As shown in Table 2, the total average of internal stressors (2.81), which represents stressful conditions internal to the organization, is somewhat higher than that of external (2.72) and job/task stressors (2.47). Overall, the respondents average mean scores, approximately midpoint between rarely stressful and sometimes stressful which is considered relatively low internal, job/task, and external stressful conditions. However, utilizing the cut-off score of 3.5 (midpoint between sometimes stressful and fairly stressful), three internal stressors, to a large extent, contribute to stressful conditions internal to the organization: inadequate salary (Average = 4.25); lack of promotional opportunities (Average = 3.76); and lack of recognition for good work (Average = 3.74) see Appendix A. Especially, the vast majority of the respondents (78.9%) indicate their inadequate salary was a fairly or very stressful condition. Moreover, two job/task stressors substantially contribute to stress-induced job characteristics: expected to do too much in too little time (Average = 3.89) and excessive paperwork (Average = 3.80). Nearly 63% of the respondents reported they were demanded to do too much in too little time while 64.2% indicate they were stressful about

8 excessive paper work. Regarding external stressors, there was no stressor over the cut-off point.

Table 2: Organizational Variable Description and Statistics (N = 199).

Variable Stressors Internal stressor Job/Task Stressor External stressor Participation in decision-making Social support Supervisory Support Peer Support Overall job satisfaction Affective organizational commitment Turnover Intention
A A

DescriptionB

Mean

Std. Dev.

26-item additive scale 13-item additive scale 14-item additive scale 15-item additive scale

188 186 194 192

2.81 2.47 2.72 3.12

0.755 0.648 0.835 0.496

6-item additive scale 5-item additive scale 5-item additive scale 6-item additive scale 8-item additve scale

196 195 198 196 198

3.08 3.14 3.49 2.88 3.00

0.730 0.748 0.876 1.096 1.096

Item #5 (killing someone in the line of duty) was deleted since some sampled departments don't allow for officer's possession of gun
B

All itmes consist of a 1-5 Likert scale with a rating of 1 indicating "not stressful/strongly disagree" and a rating of 5 indicating "very stressul/strongly agree

Participation in Decision-making Developed by Slate & Vogel (1997), fifteen items with a five-point subscale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) were utilized to measure participation in decision-making in the work place. In this study, all of the scales examined were well above the minimal level of acceptability evidenced by high Cronbachs Alpha scores (0.845). As presented in Table 2, the respondents displayed an average of 3.12 for the level of participation in decision-making, neither agree nor

9 disagree, which is considered mixed and therefore does not support any one particular view. According to Slate & Vogel (1997), participation in decision-making is divided into two sub-groups (see Appendix B): atmosphere for participation (item #1 through 7) and attitudes about participation (item #8 through 15). Despite no indication of one particular view in overall participation in decision-making, separate sub-group analysis reveals that the majority of the respondents reported high levels of attitudes about participation whereas they showed low levels of atmosphere for participation in the work place. Regarding their high attitudes about participation, for example, more respondents agree that participation in decision-making tends to make individuals feel more a part of the team (91.9%); make one feel better about ones self (86.4%); and make individuals feel they have a stake in running the organization (83.8%). On the other hand, there is evidence that officers opinions are not sought and respected. For example, 69.6% of the respondents did not feel involved in the writing of policies, and more than half (56.5%) felt that they had no opportunity to have a say in the running of their agency on matters that concern them. This evidence indicates the low levels of atmosphere for participation in their work place. Social Support As a provision of influential and emotional assistance, social support is successful as a coping factor dependent upon the quality of interpersonal support from supervisors and fellow officers. Such support from supervisors and fellow workers functions as preventing stress and job dissatisfaction, and enhancing high levels of organizational commitment, leading to low levels of turnover intention. Developed by

10 Cullen, Link, Wolfe, & Frank (1985), six items with a five-point subscale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) were employed to measure interpersonal support from supervisors while 5 items were utilized to measure social support furnished by peers. Both supervisory and peer support scales examined in this study were slightly above the minimal acceptable level of reliability (Cronbachs Alpha scores: 0.821 and 0.811, respectively). As shown in Table 2, the respondents reported an average of 3.08 for the level of supervisory support and 3.14 for the level of peer support. Peer support is slightly higher than supervisory support. However, both averages indicate neither agree nor disagree, which is considered mixed and therefore does not support good quality of interpersonal supporting networks furnished by both their supervisors and fellow officers in the work place (see the detailed itemized analysis for both scales reported in Appendix C). Overall Job Satisfaction Developed by Brayfield & Roth (1951), five items with a 1-5 Likert scale (1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree) were used to construct the global job satisfaction. A global measure was selected since it is concerned with the broader domain of an individuals satisfaction with his or her overall job, rather than with specific facets. The additive scale produced of these five items had a Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient of 0.95, well above the minimal level of acceptability. As shown in Table 2, five items represent the respondents level of job satisfaction. Overall, a moderately high level of job satisfaction is reported with an average mean of 3.49 (approximately midpoint between agree and strongly agree). More than a half agreed (see Appendix D): I am seldom bored with my job (67.3%, Average = 3.64); I find real enjoyment in my job (64.9%, Average = 3.54); I like my job

11 better than the average worker does (62.3%, Average = 3.55); I feel fairly well satisfied with my job (58.8%, Average = 3.36); and most days I am enthusiastic about my job (55.5%, Average = 3.37). Affective Organizational Commitment Nineteen survey questions originated by Meyer and Allen (1997) probe into three different dimensional organizational commitments: affective, continuance, and normative. All items consist of a 1-5 Likert scale with a rating of 1 indicating strongly disagree and a rating of 5 indicating strongly agree. Briefly, six affective commitment items present employees emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization, representing that employees WANT to work for the organization. Seven continuance commitment items indicate employees awareness of the costs associated with leaving the organization-remain with the organization because they NEED to. The final six normative commitment items represent employees feeling obligated to continue employment, reflecting that employees remain because they SHOULD stay. These three types of commitment are useful in predicting what may cause an employee to stay committed to the organization, and also, in predicting what will cause the employee to leave the organization. This study, however, used only six affective commitment items since existing literature has empirically supported the contention that affective commitment is the best determinant of actual turnover and is more important in such a determination than employee continuance and normative commitments, and job satisfaction. In explaining relationships between affective commitment and turnover, if an employee begins to exhibit a low level of affective commitment, then the employee may no longer want to work for the organization, voluntarily leaving his/her organization.

12 The Cronbachs alpha reliability coefficient for the affective commitment items examined was 0.805, slightly above the minimal level of acceptability. Table 2 presents the average of affective commitment (2.88), indicating the low levels of the respondents emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in their organization. As regards their low affective commitment, for example, almost equal number of the respondents (see Appendix E) either agreed or disagreed to feel like part of the family at their organization (41.2% vs. 40.7%) and to feel emotionally attached to their organization (43.7% vs. 40.2%). There is more evidence of the low levels of the respondents affective commitment: 40.7% of the respondents (vs. 39.7%) did not want to spend the rest of their career in their current organization and 61% (vs. 19.6%) did not feel as if their organizations problems are their own. Unfortunately, this evidence appears to indicate that the respondents are weakly committed to their organization. Turnover Intention As the main dependent variable in this study, the questionnaire included eight items measuring respondents inclination to quit their job. Four of these items were adopted from Shore and Martin (1989) and the other four were adopted from Simmon, Cochran, & Blount (1997). The total eight items were presented to the respondents as a series of statements to which they were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree/disagree along a five-point Likert response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Turnover intention, as a dependent variable, was measured on a 1-5 Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree) by the level of agreement with the total eight item statements (see Appendix F). Understandably, there might be a reasonable suspicion that even if an officer shows an inclination to quit employment, the intention does not

13 necessarily manifest the officers actual turnover. However, Hom & Griffeth (1995) conducted a meta-analysis of studies to examine the relationship between voluntary turnover and 35 different variables and found that among these variables, intentions to quit had the strongest relationship to actual voluntary turnover. The additive scale produced of these eight items had a high alpha reliability coefficient (0.92). The respondents report of this inclination (Table 2) is mixed with an overall mean of 3.00 on a 1-5 Likert scale. However, 30.2-50% of the respondents indicated strong inclination to quit their job at their organization on all questions. The negative response reveals substantial evidence to support a top priority for probation administrators to reduce staff turnover in an era of tightening budgets and expanding expectations. Multivariate Analysis1 A stepwise Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) model was employed to assess the effects of affective commitment, overall job satisfaction, social support (supervisory and peer support), participation in decision-making, and stressors (internal, job/task, and external) on line probation officers inclinations to quit their jobs, while controlling for the influence of a variety socio-demographic and work experience variables. These control variables include respondents age (in years), gender (1 = male), ethnicity (1 = Caucasian), marital status (1 = currently married), education level (1 = Masters degree or more), employment in current agency (in years), primary employment in law

Relying on descriptive statistical procedures would prevent proper examination of any data. The most appropriate method of analyzing any data is multivariate statistical techniques to examine the relationships and potential interactions between all variables simultaneously.

14 enforcement (1 = yes), primary employment in corrections (1 = yes), supervision of special caseload (1 = yes). In terms of possible multicollinearity, the simplest way to diagnose multicollinearity is to check a correlation coefficient larger than 0.7. A preliminary Pearsons zero-order correlation analysis indicates no evidence of possible high levels of multicollinearity since there is no correlation coefficient higher than 0.7. Also, all variance inflation factors with this model are below 4.0, also indicating no problematic multicollinearity. Table 3 presents five significant factors. Two significant demographic factors include age and marital status while three significant organizational factors entail supervisory support, overall job satisfaction, and affective commitment.2 The five significant independent variables accounted for 61.9% of the variance in the dependent variable, officers turnover intention.3 As for age and marital status, the findings indicate that officers with more age (Beta4 = -0.183, p < .01) and female officers (Beta = -0.130, p < .05) are less likely to be inclined to quit: younger aged male officers tend to feel inclined to quit. However, compared to the three significant organizational factors, age and marital status had the statistically significant but weak negative effect on officers turnover intention, suggesting the organizational factors play a larger role in predicting an officers turnover intention than the individual factors. The effects of supervisory support, overall job satisfaction, and affective commitment can translate into less adverse consequences of turnover intention. Especially, affective commitment (Beta
2

The other variables were excluded from the model since they failed to make a statistically significant contribution to the model. 3 To test whether this variance explained is statistically significant, a one-way ANOVA and the F ratio were used. The calculated F ratio for the final regression model is 49.101 (df = 5, p < .001) which indicates a statistically significant amount of variance explained by the model. 4 Regression coefficient, used to measure the importance of all variables regardless of predictors' different underlying scale of units

15 = -0.461, p < .001) had the strongest statistically significant effect on officers turnover intention, followed by overall job satisfaction (Beta = -0.257, p < .001) and supervisory support (Beta = -0.164, p < .01).

Table 3: Stepwise Ordinary Least Square Regression Model for Turnover Intention.
Independent Variables Included Variables Personal Factors Age (in years) Marital status (currently married = 1) Organizational Factors Supervisory support Overall job satisfaction Affective commitment Excluded Variables Gender (male = 1) Ethinicity (Caucasian = 1) Educational level (Master's degree or more = 1) Employment in current agency (in years) Prior employment in law enforcement (yes = 1) Prior employment in corrections (yes = 1) Supervise special caseload (yes = 1) Internal stressor Job/Task stressor External stressor Participation in decision-making Peer support R -square F (df) Significance * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
A B

BA

Std. Error.

BetaB

-0.107 -1.781

0.031 0.715

-0.183 -0.130

-3.407** -2.492*

-0.251 -0.396 -0.602

0.084 0.099 0.087

-0.164 -0.257 -0.461

-3.010** -3.982*** -6.940***

0.619 49.101 (5) 0.000

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

16 The main finding from the stepwise OLS regression model for turnover intention indicates that affective commitment mainly and substantially contributes to turnover intention: when an employee shows a low level of affective commitment, reflecting no want to work for the organization, the employee is more likely to voluntarily leave his/her organization. From a managerial perspective, therefore, it should be imperative to examine determinant factors that shape affective commitment, preventing and reducing high staff turnover. As presented in Table 4, officers affective commitment was regressed on both the individual and organizational factors. The model produced no significant demographic factor but four organizational factors which include internal stressor, external stressor, participation in decision-making and overall job satisfaction. The four significant organizational factors accounted for 61.9% of the variance in the dependent variable, officers affective commitment.5 Similar to the findings from the previous model for turnover intention, the organizational factors play a better role in predicting officers affective commitment than the individual factors. The effects of internal and external stressors can translate into more adverse consequences of affective commitment. On the other hand, the effects of participation in decision-making and overall job satisfaction can be interpreted into less adverse consequences of affective commitment. Particularly, internal stressor (Beta = -0.449, p < .001) had the strongest statistically significant effect on officers affective commitment, followed by overall job satisfaction

To test whether this variance explained is statistically significant, a one-way ANOVA and the F ratio were used. The calculated F ratio for the final regression model is 44.204 (df = 4, p < .001) which indicates a statistically significant amount of variance explained by the model for affective commitment.

17 (Beta = 0.409, p < .001), external stressor (Beta = -0.157, p < .01), and participation in decision-making (Beta = 0.152, p < .01). This finding suggests that internal stressor largely contributes to predicting affective commitment.

Table 4: Stepwise OLS Regression Model for Affective Commitment.

Independent Variables Included Variables Organizational Factors Internal stressor External stressor Participation in decision-making Overall job satisfaction Excluded Variables Age (in years) Gender (male = 1) Ethinicity (Caucasian = 1) Marital status (currently married = 1) Educational level (Master's degree or more = 1) Employment in current agency (in years) Prior employment in law enforcement (yes = 1) Prior employment in corrections (yes = 1) Supervise special caseload (yes = 1) Internal stressor Job/Task stressor External stressor Supervisory support Peer support R -square F (df) Significance * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
A B

BA

Std. Error.

BetaB

-0.117 0.069 0.107 0.480

0.021 0.031 0.053 0.075

-0.449 -0.157 0.152 0.409

-5.477*** -2.220* 2.040* 6.422***

0.524 44.204 (4) 0.000

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

18 General Policy Implications Reducing high staff turnover in an era of tightening budgets and expanding expectations should be a top priority for probation administrators. Unfortunately, there is little extant scholarly and professional literature on this topic. In response, this pilot study explored turnover rates of line adult probation department personnel in Texas and examined determinant factors that shape their turnover intention. Overall, the findings indicate to a large degree that organizational factors are more important in explaining Texas probation line officers turnover intention than individual factors. Mainly affective commitment was found to be a pivotal factor in predicting turnover intention. On the other hand, internal stressor and overall job satisfaction were found to be the key variables in predicting affective commitment. Therefore, it is concluded that when an employee feels stressful conditions internal to the organization and job dissatisfaction, the employees level of affective commitment will decrease, which in turn will intensify his/her turnover intention. By implication, general recommendations to policy-makers are provided. First, managers should be acutely aware of not only the transition from individual to organizational factors, especially the significance of affective commitment, as a possible underlying cause leading to an employees inclination to quit . Stressful conditions internal to the organization - such as inadequate salary, lack of promotional opportunities, and lack of recognition for good work - are identified as significant problems with affective commitment. Managers confront these in their work structure and should be aware of possible effects of these situations on staff retention.

19 Given the increasing turnover rates found in this study, it is highly recommended that managers should realize chronic problems with extrinsic rewards, such as inadequate salary and lack of promotional opportunities, and should find a way to expand more external rewards in order to avoid getting trapped in the vicious cycle of the internal stressor and its negative consequence of turnover intention. At the same time, managers should immediately develop internal rewards, such as opportunities for professional growth and development. This might serve to compensate for the temporary lack of extrinsic rewards. Intrinsic rewards need to be implemented whereby probation officers are encouraged to become involved in decision-making, thus contributing to their autonomy and sense of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In sum, managers need to assess how their organizations influence individual and aggregate officer performance. Strategies which increase employees emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization, which are conceptualized and defined as affective commitment, should be embodied as integral processes in the strategic plans of evolving organizations. Finally, the present study has one substantial limitation which should be addressed in future studies. Because a sample frame of all probation line officers in Texas was not available, this study used a purposive sample, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings and conclusions. Future research should secure Texas State funds to conduct a state-wide survey to enhance the generalizability of results.

20 References Brayfield, A., & Roth, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311. Cullen, F., Link, B., Wolfe, N., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2(4), 505-533. Hom, P., & Griffeth, R. (1995). Employee Turnover. Cincinnati, OH: South Western. Meyer, J. & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Shore, L. & Martin, H. (1989). Performance and turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in relations to work. Human Relations, 42: 325-638. Simmons, C., Cochran, J., & Blount, W. (1997). The effects of job-related stress and job satisfaction on probation officers inclinations to quit. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21(2), 213-229. Slate, R., & Vogel, R. (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(5), 397-408. Whisler, P. (1994). A study of stress perception by selected state probation officers. Unpublished masters thesis, University of South Florida, Tampa.

21 Appendix A Table 1: Itemized Internal Stressor Scores in Descending Order.

N inadequate salary. lack of promotional opportunities. lack of recognition for good work. inadequate support from the agency. rigid agency policies. political pressure within the agency. job conflict (by the book vs. by the situation). competetion for advancement. know the basis on which I am evaluated. duties and responsibilities not clearly defined. disagreeable agency regulations. inadequate support from supervisor. not treated like a professional at work. assignment of disagreeable duties. co-workers know their job and do it well. more than one person tells me what to do. assignment of new or unfamiliar duties. inadequate or poor quality equipment. inadquate or poor supervision. lack of adequate training. racial conflicts/pressures within the agency. inappropriate or excessive discipline. performing non-probation tasks. difficulty getting along with supervisors. lack of job security. difficulty getting along with co-workers. Total Average 199 198 199 198 198 198 199 199 199 197 199 199 199 198 199 198 199 197 198 198 199 199 199 199 198 199 188 Mean* 4.25 3.76 3.74 3.29 3.20 3.12 3.12 3.05 3.02 2.96 2.86 2.81 2.80 2.79 2.77 2.69 2.67 2.64 2.50 2.40 2.36 2.29 2.24 2.22 2.05 1.89 2.81 Std. Dev. 1.162 1.295 1.319 1.379 1.257 1.304 1.208 1.292 1.297 1.142 1.221 1.405 1.491 1.169 1.285 1.341 1.164 1.114 1.237 1.204 1.222 1.245 1.105 1.180 1.210 0.950 0.755

* Responses to each item are made on a 5-point scale with anchors labeled (1) not stressful and (5) very stressful

22 Table 1_1: Itemized Top Three Internal Stressors.

N (%) inadequate salary 1=Not stressful 2=Rarely 3=Sometimes 4=Fairly 5=Very stressful lack of promotional opportunities 1=Not stressful 2=Rarely 3=Sometimes 4=Fairly 5=Very stressful lack of recognition for good work 1=Not stressful 2=Rarely 3=Sometimes 4=Fairly 5=Very stressful Total Average 199 11 (5.5) 9 (4.5) 22 (11.1) 34 (17.1) 123 (61.8) 198 14 (7.1) 27 (13.6) 30 (15.2) 49 (24.7) 78 (39.4) 199 19 (9.5) 19 (9.5) 34 (17.1) 50 (25.1) 77 (38.7) 198 3.91 1.048 3.74 1.319 3.76 1.295 Mean 4.25 Std. Dev. 1.162

23 Table 2: Itemized Job/Task Stressor Scores in Descending Order.

N expected to do too much in too little time. excessive paperwork. due dates for reports. difficulty in supervising offenders. visiting probationer's home. making critical on the spot decisions. fear for my safety and co-workers safety. probaitoner office visits. work schedule. periods of inactivitiy or boredom. must take work home with me. situations requiring use of force. making arrests. Total Average 198 198 199 197 198 198 199 199 199 199 196 196 193 186 Mean* 3.89 3.80 2.88 2.68 2.61 2.47 2.34 2.26 2.25 1.85 1.80 1.70 1.60 2.47 Std. Dev. 1.168 1.208 1.303 1.038 1.281 1.182 1.152 1.069 1.241 0.929 1.060 0.833 0.914 0.648

* Responses to each item are made on a 5-point scale with anchors labeled (1) not stressful and (5) very stressful

24 Table 2_1: Itemized Top Two Job/Task Stressors.

N (%) expected to do too much in too little time 1=Not stressful 2=Rarely 3=Sometimes 4=Fairly 5=Very stressful excessive paper work 1=Not stressful 2=Rarely 3=Sometimes 4=Fairly 5=Very stressful Total Average 198 7 (3.5) 19 (9.6) 47 (23.7) 40 (20.2) 85 (42.9) 198 12 (6.1) 18 (9.1) 41 (20.7) 53 (26.8) 74 (37.4) 197 3.84 1.083 3.80 1.208 Mean 3.89 Std. Dev. 1.168

25 Table 3: Itemized External Stressor Scores in Descending Order.

N frustration with the criminal justice system. courts are too lenient with offenders. adequate community resources lacking. ineffectivenss of the correctional system. ineffectiveness of the judicial system. lack of interagency cooperation. politics outside the agency. negative/distorted press accounts of probation. negative attitudes toward probation officers. scheduling of court appearances. not treated like a professional by the public. public criticism of probation. demands for high moral standards. racial conflicts/pressures outside the agency. Total Average 198 198 199 199 199 196 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 194 Mean* 3.32 3.30 3.17 3.09 3.06 2.96 2.78 2.71 2.62 2.46 2.45 2.34 2.03 2.00 2.72 Std. Dev. 1.160 1.178 1.172 1.209 1.183 1.283 1.294 1.261 1.183 1.167 1.274 1.138 1.199 1.054 0.835

* Responses to each item are made on a 5-point scale with anchors labeled (1) not stressful and (5) very stressful

26 Appendix B

T a b le 1 : I t e m iz e d P a r t ic ip a t io n in D e c is io n - M a k in g S c o r e s .
N M e aS nt d* . D e v . t 1 M y s u p e r i o r s a s k m e f o r i n p u t o n d e c i 1s 9i o 73n .s 0 41h . a2 t 4 a1 f f e c t m e a t w o r k .
2 I a m e n c o u r a g e d t o o f f e r m y o p i n i o n a 1 t 9 w 83 o . 1r k61 . . 2 4 0 3 T h e r e i s o p p o r t u n i t y f o r m e t o h a v e a 1s a9 y82 .i 4n 21t h. 0e 8 r 6u n n i n g o f t h i s a g e n c

n 4 M a n a g e m e n t r e s p o n d s i n a s a t i s f a c t o r 1y 9 m82 a. 5n 11 e. 0r 7t o9 w h a t I h a v e t o s a y . e 5 F r o m p a s t e x p e r i e n c e a t t h i s a g e n c y , I 1 f 9e 83 l . 2i t11 i .s 1 a7 2w a s t e o f t i m e .
6 I f e e l c o m f o r t a b l e a b o u t o f f e r i n g m y o 1p 9i n83 i .o 3 n 51 t . o1 2s 9u p e r v i s o r s a t w o r k .

7 T h o s e w h o a c t u a l l y d o t h e w o r k a r e i n 1 v 9o 72l v . e1 d10 .i 9n 7 t 8h e w r i t i n g o f p o l i c i e s 9 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g t e n d s 1 t9 o 84 m. 1 a 00k .e 7 o7 n1 e f e e l b e t t e r a b o u t o 1 P0 a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g t e n d s 1 t9 o 84 m. 0 a 90k .e 8 i4 n 8 d i v i d u a l s f e e l t h e y h 1 P1 a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g t e n d s 1 t9 o 84 m. 2 a 60k .e 7 i3 n 5 d i v i d u a l s f e e l m o r e 1 E2 v e r y o n e s h o u l d b e a l l o w e d t o p a r t i c i p1 a9 t74e . i1 n 40 d. 8e c7 i5s i o n - m a k i n g i n t h e w 1 I3 m a k e m y o w n d e c i s i o n s i n r e g a r d t o 1w 9 h 72a .t 9 i 80s . t9o 9 b2 e d o n e i n m y w o r k .

8 T h e q u a l i t y o f d e c i s i o n s i n c r e a s e a s w 1o 9r k73 e . r 5 p20 a. 9r t 9i c3 i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n - m

e 1 M y o w n d e c i s i o n s a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o r e1 v 9 i 81 w. 8 . 70 . 8 8 6 4 k 1 I5 a m m y o w n b o s s i n v i r t u a l l y e v e r y w 1 o 9 r 71 -. r8 e 40l a. 8t e 0 d 9 s i t u a t i o n . T o t a l 1 A9 v23 e . r1 a 20g . e4 9 6 in d ic a te s a r e v e r s e -k e y e d ite m (s c o r in g is r e v e r s e d ) * R e s p o n s e s to e a c h ite m a r e m a d e o n a 5 -p o in t s c a le w ith a n c h o r s la

27 Appendix C Table 1: Itemized Supervisory Support Scores.

N 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 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, which are possibly not the fault of those blamed. When my supervisors have a dispute with somebody on the force, they usually try to handle it in a friendly manner. Total Average 198 199 199 198 198 198 196 Mean* 3.10 2.94 3.00 3.01 3.19 3.25 3.08 Std. Dev. 1.102 1.067 1.068 1.047 1.092 0.927 0.730

indicates a reverse-keyed item (scoring is reversed) * Responses to each item are made on a 5-point scale with anchors labeled (1) strongly disagree and (5) strongly agree

28 Table 2: Itemized Peer Support Scores.

N My fellow officers often compliment someone who has done his/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 would really be proud of. My fellow officers often encourage each other to think of better ways of getting the work done with if they do their job well. My fellow officers spend hardly any time helping me work myself up to a better job by showing me how to improve my performance. Total Average 199 199 197 197 199 195 Mean* 3.27 3.00 3.07 3.16 3.23 3.14 Std. Dev. 1.076 1.082 1.031 1.037 1.048 0.748

indicates a reverse-keyed item (scoring is reversed) * Responses to each item are made on a 5-point scale with anchors labeled (1) strongly disagree and (5) strongly agree

29 Appendix D Table 1: Itemized Overall Job Satisfaction Analysis.

N (%) I am seldom borded with my job 1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree I like my job better than the average worker does 1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree I find real enjoyment in my job 1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree Most days I am enthusiastic about my job 1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree I feel fairly well satisfied with my job 1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree Total Average 199 10 (5.0) 34 (17.1) 21 (10.6) 87 (43.7) 47 (23.6) 199 6 (3.0) 33 (16.6) 36 (18.1) 93 (46.7) 31 (15.6) 199 11 (5.5) 28 (14.1) 31 (15.6) 101 (50.8) 28 (14.1) 198 13 (6.6) 33 (16.7) 42 (21.2) 87 (43.9) 23 (11.6) 199 13 (6.5) 40 (20.1) 29 (14.6) 97 (48.7) 20 (10.1) 198 Mean 3.64 Std. Dev. 1.163

3.55

1.038

3.54

1.072

3.37

1.095

3.36

1.109

3.49

0.876

30 Appendix E Table 1: Itemized Affective Commitment Analysis.

N I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization.
1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree

Mean* 2.95

Std. Dev. 1.259

197
28 (14.2) 53 (26.9) 39 (19.8) 54 (27.4) 23 (11.7)

I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own. 1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree I do not feel like "part of the family" at my organization. 1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree I do not feel "emotionally attached" to this organization. 1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. 1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. 1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree Total Average

198 56 (28.3) 67 (33.8) 36 (18.2) 37 (18.7) 2 (1.0) 198 29 (14.6) 52 (26.3) 35 (17.7) 65 (32.8) 17 (8.6) 199 28 (14.1) 52 (26.1) 32 (16.1) 75 (37.7) 12 (6.0) 199 19 (9.5) 45 (22.6) 49 (24.6) 73 (36.7) 13 (6.5) 199 29 (14.6) 44 (22.1) 42 (21.1) 67 (33.7) 17 (8.5) 196

2.30

1.103

2.94

1.235

2.95

1.203

3.08

1.112

2.99

1.221

2.88

1.096

indicates a reverse-keyed item (scoring is reversed) * Responses to each item are made on a 5-point scale with anchors labeled (1) strongly disagree and (5) strongly agree

31 Appendix F Table 1: Itemized Turnover Intention Analysis.

N (%) As soon as I can find a better job, I will quit at this organization.
1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree

Mean 3.20

Std. Dev. 1.314

199
24 (12.1) 44 (22.1) 38 (19.1) 54 (27.1) 39 (19.6)

I often think about quitting my job.

1=Strongly disagree 2=Disagree 3=Neither 4=Agree 5=Strongly Agree

198
27 (13.6) 52 (26.3) 20 (10.1) 66 (33.3) 33 (16.7)

3.13

1.342

Which of the following most clearly reflects your feelings about your future with this organization in the next year?
1=I definitely will not leave. 2=I probably will not leave. 3=I am uncertain. 4=I probabley will leave. 5=I definitely will leave.

199
34 (17.1) 50 (25.1) 55 (27.6) 31 (15.6) 29 (14.6)

2.85

1.289

How do you feel about leaving this organization?

1=It is very unlikely that I would ever consider leaving this organization. 2=As far as I can see ahead, I intend to stay with this organization. 3=I have no feeling about this way or the other. 4=I am seriously considering leaving in the near future. 5=I am presently looking and planning to leave.

198
19 (9.6) 64 (32.3) 27 (13.6) 63 (31.8) 25 (12.6)

3.06

1.239

If you were completely free to choose, would you prefer or to not prefer to continue working with this organization?
1=I prefer very much to continue working for this organization. 2=I prefer to work here. 3=I don't care either way. 4=I prefer not to work here. 5=I prefer very much not to continue working for this organization.

199
30 (15.1) 76 (38.2) 28 (14.1) 47 (23.6) 18 (9.0)

2.73

1.233

How important is it to you personally that you spend your career in this organization rather than some other organization?
1=It is very important for me to spend my career in this organization. 2=It is fairly important. 3=It is of some importance. 4=I have mixed feelings about its importance. 5=It is of no importance at all.

199
34 (17.1) 42 (21.1) 33 (16.6) 59 (29.6) 31 (15.6)

3.06

1.349

Total Average

198

3.00

1.096