The missing link between job satisfaction and correctional staff behavior: The issue of organizational commitment

Over the past twenty years, several empirical studies have examined the consequences of job satisfaction among correctional staff. When looking at worker behavior in other disciplines, though, it is commonplace to include both job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, very few studies about correctional staff behavior include both concepts. This paper discusses job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and addresses the link between these concepts as it relates to correctional staff attitudes and behaviors. Further, a discussion of measurement issues and recommendations for future research is presented. This is a revision of papers presented at the 1998 American Society of Criminology annual meeting in Washington, D.C. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.     

Correlates of correctional officer job stress: The impact of organizational structure

Corrections can be a very stressful occupation, producing many negative outcomes for employees. These outcomes, both mental and physical, not only affect the employee, but the entire organization. A large body of literature has focused on identifying correlates of correctional staff job stress; yet, not all of the possible correlates have been studied. One area that has received little, if any, attention is the impact of the organizational structure on correctional job stress. Organizational structure includes issues of centralization, instrumental communication, integration, and organizational justice. The results of multivariate analysis indicate that instrumental communication and procedural justice have a direct effect on correctional staff job stress.     

The economic impact of engineering research centers: preliminary results of a pilot study

This article describes the results of a pilot study that tested the feasibility of estimating quantitatively the regional and economic impacts of NSF-supported Engineering Research centers. For regional impacts, we combined estimates of the direct plus indirect and induced economic impacts of ERC expenditures generated from a regional input–output model with estimates of the additional impact on the state due to center-based start-up companies, licensing income from intellectual property produced by the center, the cost savings enjoyed by local firms that had hired center graduates, and advice and consulting to local firms by center faculty. For national economic impact, a suitably modified version of the regional approach was employed, supplemented by use of a consumer surplus model to estimate the net public benefits of newly commercialized technologies based in center research. As the project proceeded, it became clear that efforts to focus solely on economic impacts that could be quantified relatively easily would greatly underestimate the actual national economic impact of ERCs. The types of impacts included and the kinds of data collected from centers and their collaborating companies were therefore expanded in the later case studies. Results of the first three cases are described here; findings from the remaining two studies did not change our overall results or conclusions. The profile of regional and, especially, national economic impact estimates varied widely across the centers studied. Only some of these variations could be attributed to ERC characteristics; most were the result of variations in the amount and type of data that could be obtained from the centers involved and the companies they worked with. We concluded that even the most conscientious and costly data collection efforts would be unlikely to yield comparable data across centers because the accessibility of key data, especially proprietary data, will differ unpredictably from center to center. Further, focusing on narrowly-conceived, quantifiable economic data alone should be avoided in these kinds of impact studies. Doing so distorts the amount and characteristics of actual impacts, many of which—perhaps most of which—cannot feasibly be converted to monetary terms. Such a narrow focus will greatly underestimate the impact of ERC-like centers, masking the much broader and, based on our findings, larger and more significant impacts on society.