correctional centers across the United States
The author hypothesized that the correctional centers across the United States are adversely affected by policy issues that contribute to staff dissatisfaction at the correctional centers. He identified job dissatisfiers such as pay and benefits, job-related challenges, and lack of proper communication as some of the route causes of dissatisfaction to correctional officers. Further, Patenaude (51) also hypothesized that duration of stay and experience in the job also contributes to the level of satisfaction shown by the correctional officers at their stations of work. He posited that Cos, who had served for at least three years, showed more significant signs of dissatisfaction as compared to recruits who were still fresh from training colleges.
The study was conducted with a sample population of 1,652 correctional officers in levels U and II from the Arkansas Department of Correction within Arkansas State. A total of 806 respondents completed the survey. The researcher performed a one-off study, and there was no follow-up afterward. The respondents were examined on a plethora of areas that covered remuneration and pay to work environments and conditions as well as the effects of inmates and social issues and personal beliefs. The findings from the study indicated that job satisfaction was one of the main concerns that affected the COs in their stations of work. The majority of the correctional officers suggested that the nature of their work was stressful and dissatisfying hence prompted high rates of turnover. The study further established that pay, benefits, and other allowances entitled to the correctional officers was another point of concern. In particular, the COs who responded to the survey highlighted that the package for their health insurance was inadequate in light of the present healthcare needs (Patenaude 56).
Patenaude, Allan L. Analysis of issues affecting correctional officer retention within the Arkansas Department of correction. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2001, 5(2), 49–67