This article was downloaded by: [University of North Carolina]On: 07 October 2014, At: 21:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Offender RehabilitationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjor20

Attitudinal and DemographicDifferences between Male and FemaleCorrections OfficersStephen Walters aa University of Wisconsin, PlattevillePublished online: 18 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Stephen Walters (1992) Attitudinal and Demographic Differences betweenMale and Female Corrections Officers, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 18:1-2, 173-190, DOI:10.1300/J076v18n01_08

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J076v18n01_08

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

J o u r ~ ~ a l of Oflender Rehabiliratio~~, Vol. 18 (1 12). 1992. Pp. 173-189. 01992 by The tlaworth Press, I t lc . All rights reserved.

0 PROFESSIONAL ROLES &RELATIONSHIPS

Attitudinal and Demographic Differences between Male and Female Corrections Officers A Study in Three Midwestern Prisons

Stephen Walters U~~iversiry o~1Visco1ui1r-Plalreville

ABSTRACT 111 an effort to explore the relationship betweeu gcnder differences and a variety of variables in Ihe correctional officer environ- ment, questionoaires were sent lo all COs employed in a direct custody role in three midweskrn prisons. These prisons included a maximum security prison, a reccplion and diagnostic center, and a minimum security prison. Completed questionnaires were relurned by 196 officers (157 male, 39 fcmale). Statislically significant gender differences were found ill several demographic, prison-related, and interpersonal variables. These differences are discussed and suggestions for further research are preseuted.

The last two decades have seen a consistent growth in the number of women employed as correctional officers (COs) in Anierican correctional institutions. By 1988 approximately 15% of the correc- tional officer force was comprised of female officers, with interstate variations ranging from 5.1% to 36% (Contact Center, 1988). While this movenient of women into a traditionally male occupational

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

174 J O U R N a O F OFFENDER REHABILITATION

environn~ent has not been without controversy, female COs are now a common sight in a majority of correctional institutions housing male offenders.

Several factors have encouraged this phenomenon. A number of legal changes, including amendments to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and several federal court decisions in the 19701s, gave women in- creased access to employment as correctional officers (Zimmer, 1986, pp. 4-8; Jacobs. 1981; Peterson, 1982; Parisi, 1984). Criminol- ogists and social scientists also proposed reasons why women should be employed in male prisons. Morris and Hawkins (1970, p. 133), Peterson (1982), and Wicks (1980, pp. 96-97) have suggested that women correctional officers have a "normalizing" effect on thc prison environment, making it more like the "real world" to male inmates. Others (Kissel and Katsampes, 1980; Zimmer, 1986, pp. 165-169) obscrve that female COs are more likely to utilize non- physical means to gain thecomplianceof inmates. Further, it has bcen hypothesized that women, perhaps because of their stereotyped "feminine" characteristics, might be more attuned to a human ser- vice approach to corrections (Jurik, 1985a, 1985b; Jurik and Halemba, 1984; Crouch, 1985).

Yet there has been resistance to utilizing women as correctional officers in prisons housing male offenders. Many have attributed this resistance to the attitudes and actions of male correctional officers (Peterson, 1982; Jurik, 1985a; Zimmer; 1986, pp. 156-159; Owen, 1985; Hornc, 1985). although research has shown that this male opposition has by no means been monolithic (Kissel and Katsampes. 1980; Walters, 1990). Common objections voiced by many male officers to the employment of female COs include concerns about physical and mental toughness (Jurik, 1985a; Parisi, 1984; Simpson and White, 1985; Zimmer, 1986, p. 54), violation of the privacy of male inmates (Alpert, 1984; Home, 1985; Jacobs, 1981), and the possibility of sexual victimization (Parisi, 1984; Crouch, 1985; Ja- cobs; 1981) or sexual misconduct (Jurik, 1985a; Peterson, 1982; Zimmer, 1986, p. 154; Owen, 1985).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

PRIOR RESEARCH ON GENDER DIFFERENCES

Considering the debate lhat has accompanied'the entry of women into the correctional officer force, the lack of research designed to examine differences between male and female COs is surprising. Zimmer (1986, p. 163) has observed that "No correctional depart- ment has, to my knowledge, undertaken a systematic assessment of women's performance." Philliber (1987, p. 13) adds, "Advocacy of fcmales as COs presently outpaces the actual data on performance."

Still, a small amount of excellent research does exist which sheds light on differences between male and female correctional officers. ~naddition, many research projects pertaining to correctional officers and a variety of occu~ational ~henomena have utilized sex as an independent;ariable, and tllus provide some tangential information concerning CO gender differences.

First, several demographic differences have been found. Jurik (1985a, 1985b) and Jurik and Halemba (1984) observed that women COs are more likely to have urban backgrounds and come from professional or managerial falnilies. They are also younger and better educated than their nialc counterparts. and less likely to have prior military or law enforcement experience. Further, fenlale correctional officers are more likely to be single, separated, or divorced.

Women correctional officers appear to view corrections differ- ently than males. They seem to be more "servicc oriented," while male officers are more likely to have taken their jobs for reasons such as pay, job security, and fringe benefits (Jurik, 1985a; 1985b; Jurik and Halemba, 1984). Women COs do appear, howcvcr, to experience more work related stress (Cullen et al., 1985).

This last observation may be due in part to the work relationship between women officers and their male counterparts. Chapman et al. (1983) report that women COs have slightly less seniority and receive slightly less training. Jurik (1985a) relates that hostility from "old- time" officers reduces a fcmale officer's chances to learn from informal contacts with more experienced correctional officers. This leads to a more limited choice of work assignments and lessened opportunities for professional advancement when compared to male officers. Kinsell and Shelden (1981) also note that female COs are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

176 JOURNAL. OF OFFENDER REIiAUILITATION

less likely to receive support from more expericnced officers. Women may therefore find themselves assigned to "safe" environments or minimum security areas at a rate much higher than their male col- leagues (Home, 1985; Crouch, 1985. Jurik, 1985a). Perhaps as a result of these factors womcn COs have more negative attitudes toward co-workers, and feel that their work problems are mostly caused by their co-workers (Jurik and Halemba, 1984). They are also less inclined than male correctional officers to report a long term commitment to working in corrections (Kinsell and Shelden, 1981). Not surprisingly, Simpson and White (1985) observe that women correctional officers are much more accepting of other women as COs than are male officers.

There also appear to be gender related differences in the ways in which correctional officers interact with inmates. Inmates report that female COs are more Oicndly than male officcrs, and that they would be less inclined to become physically aggressive toward women officers (Zinmer, 1986, p. 166; Kissel and Katsampes, 1980). Zim- rner (1986, p. 165) notes that female COs are better at talking to inmates and less likely to resort to force - a characteristic also rnentioncd by Kissel and Katsarnpes (1980). Both Peterson (1982) and Kissel and Katsampes (1980) observe that the behavior of in- mates improves in the company of female officers. Furthcr, Crouch and AIpert (1982) report that female COs become less aggressive and punitive toward inmates as their length of service increases, while just the opposite is true of males. Thus some (Morris and Hawkins, 1970, p. 133; Wicks, 1980, pp. 96-97) feel that women COs provide a "softening" or humanizing effect on the prison environment.

Female correctional officers themselves feel that they differ from their male counterparts (Kinsell and Shclden, 1981). Women COs feel that they get along bettcr with inmatcs than do male officers. They are less likcly to think that their presence endangers male officers. and disagree lhat they are in greater danger than males. Female COs also feel that inmates are more appreciative of thcir work than are other staff. However, i t is interesting to note that some rcsearch shows lhat female COs are no different than males in their attitudes toward inmates (Jurik and Halemba, 1984; Jurik, 1985b).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

In addition to the last aforementioned finding, research shows that male and female correctional officers. are similar in many respects. There seems to be no significant difference in either group's percep- tions of women's competence or competitiveness (Bowersox, 198 1). Both Cullen et al. (1985) and Jurik and Halemba (1984) report no significant gender differences in job satisfaction, while Walters (in press) found no significant variation between either group's level of alienation. Most inmates state that their amounts of verbal aggression are not affected by an officer's gender, that neither sex is easier lo intimidate, and their levels of respect for an officer are not affected by gender considerations (Kissel and Katsampes, 1980),

SCOPE O F THIS STUDY

This body of research shows that gender differences between correctional officers do exist, and that these phenomena need to be examined in a systematic manner. Three general questions that need to be addressed include: Do women correctional officers adapt to the prison structure differently than do males? Do women COs vicw interpersonal relationships with colleagues in a different manner than male officers? And finally, are there demographic variations between the groups that may affect their adaptation to, and interpersonal relationships within, the prison environment?

METHODOLOGY

Six hundred and sixteen questionnaires were sent lo all correc- tional officers employed in direct inmate custody duties at three state prisons in a midwestem state. These officers were selectcd from a list, provided by the State Office of Administration, of all correctional officers employed by the state prison system in a variety of duties. The three prisons were chosen for two reasons. First, they housed only (or in the case of one, primarily) male offenders. Prisons for women offenders have very different subcultural cnviromnents (see Giallombardo, 1966; Heffeman, 1972). This uniqueness may affect correctional officer attitudes and interrelationships, thus none were utilized in this study [Note 11. Second, these prisons represent three

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

178 JOURNAL OF O W F N D W RElfABILITAl7ON

diverse types of correctional environments, and can therefore provide interesting comparisons.

THE RECEPTION CENTER The newest prison in this study, this institution provides diagnostic services for all inmates entering the state prison system. Operating as a maximum security institution, it houses approximately 500 inmates prior to thcir classification and placement in other appropriate institutions. At the time of this study 133 correctional officers were assigned to inmate security at the Reception Center. The prison administration reports that on any given day the population of the institution is approximately 95% male.

THE MINIMUM SECURITY PRISON This facility was built in the 1930's as a low-level security institution. Over the years it has experimented with co-corrections, but at the time of this study had rcvcncd to an all-male environment housing approximately 320 inmales. Under the supervision of 61 correctional officers, the Min- imum Security Prison offers all inmates a wide range of work, educational, and vocational training opportunities.

THE MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON The largcst and oldest institution in the state systcm, the Maximunl Security Prison incarcerates about 2100 chronic offendcrs. While some facilities built in the early 1800's are still in use, a new 500 capacity special management facility was opened in the early 1980's to house long-term, highly disruptive inmates. Additionally, the prison hospital serves the entire state prison system. Direct inmate security was provided by a staff of 422 correctional officers.

The correctional officers in this study received the questionnaires at work through the prison mail system. Each intlividually addressed questionnaire was accompanied by a return mail envelope to be sent directly to this researcher to ensure anonymity. A follow-up letter and qucstionnairc were sent to those who failed to respond threc weeks latcr. This procedure produced a return of 196 usable questionnaires. The response rate varied by prison; 35% at the Reception Center, 41% at the Minimunl Security Prison, and 30% at the Maximum Security Prison. Thc responsc rates should be kept in mind when making generalizations from the rescarch findings.

The correctional officer respondents were 80.1 % male (n = 157) and 19.9% (n = 39) female. They had a mean age of 40.8 years (SD

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

= 10.36), and had completed a high school education or slightly more (mean = 12.5 years, SD = 1.6). Ulunarried officers represented 70.4% of the total, while 89.3% were white, and 92.3% were CO Is. The mean length of service as a correctional officer was 51.9 months (SD = 45.65). The Minimum Security Prison enlployed 12.8% (n = 25) of the respondents, the Reception Center 23.5% (n = 46), and the Maximum Security Prison 63.8% (n = 125).

The questionnaire itself was con~prised of three major sections. The first section elicited basic inforn~ation about the officers and their careers in corrections. Data concerning the respondent's age, length of experience, education, marital status, race, rank, security level, the prison in which they were enlployed, etc., were gathered.

The second section contained several scales which attempt to measure the respondents' attitudes toward their role as correctional officers. The scale which measures the level of acceptance of female correctional officers was developed by Sinipson and White (1985). Comprised of seven items, this scale yielded a Cronbach's Alpha of .84 in this study. Scores on this scale could range from a low of 7 to a high of 56. Higher scores indicate a greater degree of acceptance of women in the correctional officer role, while lower scores reflect less support for women as COs [Note 21.

The level of job satisfaction experienced by Ihe respondents was nleasurcd by a scale developed by Cullen ct al. (1985). This five iten1 scale utilizes a multiple-choice fomlat. Job satisfaction scores could range from a low of 5 to a high of 16, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of satisfaction. A Cronbach's Alpha of ,75 was achieved in this utilization of the scale.

The preference of the respondents for a custody approach to corrections was determined through the use of a scalc developed by Poole and Regoli (1980a). Constructed of four items, this Likert type scale yielded an Alpha of .55 in this usage. Scale scores could range from 4 to 32, with higher scores indicating a higher degree of preference for a custody approach to correctional work.

Poole and Regoli (1980b) also developed the scale which measures the respondents' perceptions of their relationships with their fcllow officers. Scores on this three item Likert scale could range from a low of 3 to a high of 24. A higher scale score rcflects a higher level

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

180 JOURNAL OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION

of positive work relationships with other COs. This scale produced an Alplla of -75.

The final scale involved a measurement of perceived work stress. Developed by Cullen et al. (1985). this six item Likert type scale produced a Cronbach's Alpha of .73. Scale scores could range from 6 to 48, with higher scores indicating higher levels of stress in the workplace.

When ncccssary scales were modified from their original forms to allow for eight possible responses. This was done in order to provide the respondents with a greater range of choice and to provide a degree of interscale consistency within the questionnaire.

The third major section of the questionnaire was con~prised of two open-ended questions. These questions attempt to differentiate be- tween officers' attitudes, which are measured in the previous scales, and their perceptions of actual behaviors, which may give rise to these attitudes. The questions included:

Please answer either Aor B below, whichever is appropriate in your case. A. If you are a female correctional officer, how would you characterize or describe your workirrg relafio~tship with male correctional officers? B. If you are a male correclional officer, how would you characterize or describe your working relalionship with female correctional officers? Do you feel that women correctio~ial officers bring any special or unique characteristics to the prison environment? Please describe.

The dependent variables utilized were categorized as either demo- graphic, prison related, or interpersonal. Demographic variables ex- amined include marital status, age, race, and educational level [Note 31. Prison related variables were defined as those which describe the respondent's position in, or reaction to, the prison environmcnt. These variables include security level, length of service, rank, cus- tody approach (i.e. a preference for custodial vs. rehabilitative cor- rectional philosophy), job satisfaction, and job stress [Note 41. The final category of dependent variable, interpersonal variables, are those whichconcern how an officer relates to coworkers in the prison. These included the acceptance of females as correctional officers, work relationships with all other COs, work relationships with oppo- site sex COs, and whether or not women correctional officers are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

perceived as bringing special or unique characteristics to the prison environment [Note 51.

Bivariate relationships between correctional officer gender and the dependent variables-were statistically analyzed utilizhg the chi- square test and ANOVA. Statistical significance was considered achieved at the .05 level.

DATA ANALYSIS

An analysis of the data reveals that of the fourteen dependent variables examined, six (43%) varied at a statistically significant lcvel when compared by the gender of the correctional officers. The ANOVA variable analysis is presented in Table 1, the chi-square variable analysis in Table 2.

Few significant differences were found in the demographic char- acteristics of male and female correctional officers. These data are summarized in Table 3.

Female correctional officers were far more likely to be umlarried (single, separated, or divorced) than were male officers, a statistically significant finding which duplicates those of Jurik and Halemba (1984) and Jurick (1985a). Contrary to their research, female officers in this study did not reflect significantly higher educational levels. The women COs in these three prisons were slightly younger than the male officers as were the women in previous research by Jurik (1985a), but the difference is not statistically significant. Nor wcre any statistically significant racial differences found between gender groups, although the percentage of non-white fcmales (15.4%) was greater than the percentage of non-white males (9.6%).

Women COs differed significantly from their male countcrparts on only two of the prison related variables. These data are summarized in Table 4.

In the three prisons under study, women correctional officers were more likely to be employed at the minimun~ security institulion than at either the reception center or the maximunl security prison. Only 8.9% of the male respondents were employed at the minimum secu- rity prison as opposed to 28.2% of the female respondents, a statisti- cally significant difference. This phenomenon was predicted by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

JOURNAL 01: OFFENDER RRHADILlTA'l'lON

TABtE 1

ANOVA FOR CORRBCTIONAL OFFICER GENDER DIFFERBNCBS

VARIABLE

Educarion

Length of service

Custody Orientation

JO b Satisfaction

~ o b stress

Work Relationship W / ~ l l Other COs

Accept Women as cOs

SEX

male Eemale

male female

male female

male female

male female

male female

male Eemale

male Eemale

MEAN

41.39 38.38

12.47 12.36

52.91 47.87

19.94 17.51

11.38 12.18

28.15 26.46

14.46 16.51

2 9 . 2 8 47.36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

TABLB a

CHI SQUARE FOR CORRBCTIONAL OFFICER QBNDER D I F F E M N C E S

VARIABLE

Marital Status

Race

Security Level

Rank

women COs Have Special Characteristics

Work Relationship wl Opposite Sex COs

CATEGORY MALE % (N)

married 77.1% (1211 unmarried 22.9% (36) df E 1. x2 1 5 . 2 d a , p = .0001

white 90.4% (1421 non-white 9.6% (15) dt s 1, x2 = . 5 8 * , p = , 4 4 4 6

minimum 8.9% (14) maximum 91.1% (143) df ; 1. x2 = 8 . 7 8 ' . p = .0030

co I 93.0% (146) sgt. & Lt. 7.0% (11) dt = 1. x2 = . 1 2 * , p = ,7287

positive 55.2% (74) ambivalent 21.6% 129) negative '23.1% (31) dP = 2 . x2 = 6 . 4 9 . p = ,0389

FEMALE % (NI

*continuity correction

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

JOURNAL O F OFFENDER lRE!IAIIILITATION

TABLE 3

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GENDER BY DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

VARIABLE STATISTIC VALUE PROBABILITY

Marital Status Chi Square 15.24 .0001*

Age ANOVA (F) 2.55 .I121

Race chi Square .58 .4446*

Education ANOVA (F) .13 .7197

d f z l , continuity correction

TABLE 4

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GENDER BY PRISON RELATED VARIABLES

VARIABLE STATISTIC VALUE PROBABILITY

Security Level Chi Square 8.78 .0030*

Custody Orientation ANOVA (F) 4.99 .0267

Job Satisfaction ANOVA (F) 1.95 .I641

~ o b stress ANOVA (F) 1.13 .2887

Length of Service ANOVA (F) .38 , 5 3 9 4

Rank Chi Square .12 .7287*

de=I , continuity correccian

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

TABLE 5

VARIABLE STATISTIC VALUE PROBABILITY

Accept women as COs ANOVA (F) 8 4 . 50 .OOOO

Work Relationship ANOVA (F) 4 . 6 1 .0330 W / A l l Other COs

Work Rela t ionship C h i Square 6.49 .0389** W / Opposite Sex COs

Women COs Have Special C h i Square . 1 .39 ,2387" Characteristics

" dEs2 dE.1, continuity correction

Home (1985) and Crouch (1985). Further, Jurik (1985a, 1985b), Jurik and Halemba (1984), and Crouch (1985) note that women officers are more receptive to a human service or rehabilitative approach to corrections, a concept that finds support in [his research. Fe~nale COs had significantly lower scores on the custody orientation scale than did the male officers, thus dcnoting less support for thc traditional custodial role.

Neither Jurik and Halemba (1984) nor Cullen et al. (1985) were able to find any gender differences in regard to jobsatisfactionanlong correctional officers, and no significant differences in job satisfac- tion scores were found here. Job slress scores did not vary signifi- cantly by sex, in contrast to the findings of Cullen et al. (1985), who found female COs more prone to stress. Wonlen officers did have slightly less seniority than male officers as did the women in Chapman's et al. (1983) research. However, the difference is not statistically significant. As lo rank, a slightly larger percentage of female COs held the supervisory positions of sergeant and lieutenant than did their male colleagues (10.3% vs. 7%). This is contrary lo lhe findings of Chapman et al. (1983), although these numbers are again not statistically significant.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

186 JOURNAL OF OFFENDER REI~AUILITATION

The greatest number of gender related differences were evident in the interpersonal variables. These data are summarized in Table 5.

As was previously observed by Simpson and White (1985), women COs are far more likely to accept other women as correctional officers than are their male counterparts. Female COs also appear to perceive their work relationships with all other correctional officers. and specifically their work relationships with opposite sex COs, in a far more positive light than do male officers. This finding is interest- ing, as Jurik and Halernba (1984) found that the female COs in their research held more negative attitudes toward co-workers than did male COs, and were also more likely to feel that most of their work problenis were caused by their co-workers. Finally, while Kissel and Katsampes (1980) observed that both male and female officers fclt that woken madc special contributions to the prison environment. the correctional officers under study here held differing opinions. Among the male officers, lcss than half (47.1%) felt women COs made any special or unique contribution, while 60.6% of the women thought that they did. However, this difference is not statistically significant.

SUMMARY

The correctional officers in the thrce prisons examined exhibited statistically significant gender differences in six areas. Women offi- ccrs wcre more likely to be umlarried, work in the minimum security institution, be less custody oriented, bc more likely to accept women as correctional officers, and report better work relationships with both COs in general and opposite sex COs in particular than do male officers. Whcn compared with previous research, some consistent gcnder differenccs do appear. Differences in marital status, securily level assignments, correctional philosophy, and acceptance of women as COs, have all bcen observed before. Contradictory find- ings with previous research should also be noted in the areas of job stress, relationships with co-workers, and educational levels.

As an important policy question for correctional administrators, gender differences need to be thoroughly examined. This area, how- cvcr, has not yet been adequately analyzed. This can be attributcd to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

the fact that much of the exploratory research has tended to be

- observational and descriptive in nature, with fittle in the way of real quantitative, comparative analysis being conducted. Additionally, there is a paucity of research concerned solely with gender differ- ences. More studies in more prisons could shed light on what phe- nomena are truly gender related and what are simply unique artifacts of particular correctional environments. Once these tasks are com- pleted, criminologists can concern themselvcs with the policy im- plications that may arise from any resulting consistent gender differ- ences.

NOTES

1. Preliminary data analysis which included a women's prison found that the inclusion of the women's prison did distort the findings, as some gender differences which were apparent in the three prisons prior to Ihc inclusion of the women's prison disappeared when the women's prison officers were included. It appears that the women's prison environment may reduce some gender differences. Uofortunately the sample N was loo small to allow for any conclusive data analysis.

2. Simpson and White coded this scale by dichotomizing the raw re- sponscs into two categories. In this usage the raw scores were used i n order to retain thc original dispersion. 3. Marital status was codcd as marricd/unmarried; age was codcd i n months; race was coded as whitc/nonwhite; educational lcvcl was coded in years. 4, Security level was coded as minimum/maximum; length of service was codcd in months: rank was coded as CO l/Supervisor (Scrgcants and Lieutenan Is). 5. Work relationship with opposite sex COs was codcd as positive/ ambivalc~~llnegative; the belief that women COs brought special or unique characteristics to the prison environment was codcd as ycslno.

REFERENCES

Alpcrt, G. (1984). The lleeds of the judiciary and misapplication of social research: The case of female guards in men's prisons. Cri~tlirrology, 22, 441-456.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

188 JOURNAL O F OFFENDER RRHAOILITA'I'ION

Bowersox, M. (1981). Women in corrections: Competence, competition. and the social responsibility norm. Critnirtal Juslice arld Behavior, 8, 491-499.

Chapman, J., Minor, E.. Rieker, P., Mills, T., & Bottum, M. (1983). Wontert erriployed in corwcriorls. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Contact Center, Inc. (1988). Survey. Cor~rec!iorrs Cornyenrlium, 8.9-23. Crouch, B. (1985). Pandora's box: Women guards in men's prisons. Jorrrt~al

of Criminal Jusrice, 13, 535-548. Crouch, B. & Alpert, G. (1982). Sex and occupational socialization among

prison guards: A longitudinal study. Crinlirral Justice arld Behavior, 9, 159- 176.

Cullcn, F., Link, B., Wolfe, N., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Jusrice Quarterly. 2, 505-533.

Giallomberdo, R. (1966). Society of wontert. New York: Wiley. Heffernan, E. (1972). Making ir in prisort. New York: Wiley. I-Iorne, P. (1985). Female corrections officers: A slalus report. Federal

Pr,obatiott. 49.46-54. Jacobs. J. (1981). The sexual integration of the prison's guard force: A few

comments on Dothard v. Rawlinson. In R. Ross (Ed.), Prisoil grrardlcor- rectional officer: The use and abuse of hrrmar~ resources of prisorls (pp. 193-222). Toronto: Butlerworlhs.

Jurik, N. (1985a). An officer and a lady: Organizational barriers to women working as correctional officers in men's prisons. Social Problems, 32, 375-388.

Jurik, N. (1895b). Individual and organizational dctcrminants of comc- tional officer altitudes toward inmates. Crimi~tology, 23, 356-73.

Jurik, N. & Halemba. G. (1984). Gender, working conditions, and the job satisfaction of womcn in a non-traditional occupation: Female correc- tional officers i n men's prisons. Sociological Quar.!erly, 25,551-566.

Kiasell, L. & Shclden, R. (1981). A survey of correclioaal officers at a medium security prison. Cor~recriorrs Today, 43,40-51.

Kissel, P. & Katasampes, P. (1980). The impact of women corrections officers on the functioning of institutions housing male imales. Jourrral of OSfetrder Counselirrg, Services, and Rehabililariorr, 4.213-23 1.

Morris, N. & Hawkins, G. (1970). The honest poliriciarr's guide to oime co~rrral. Chicago: The Universily of Chicago Press.

Owen. B. (1985). Race and gender relations among prison workers. Bime arrd Delirrqrtency, 31, 147-158.

Parisi, N. (1984). The female correctional officer: Her progress toward and prospects for equality. The Prisort Jour~~ral, 64,92-109.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Stephen Walters I89

Peterson, C. (1982). Doing time with the boys: An analysis of women correctional officers in all-male facilities. In B. Price & N. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice arid women: Women offei~ders, viclitns, workers (pp. 437-460). New York: Clark Boardman Company.

Philliber, S. (1987). Thy brother's keeper: A review of the literature on correctional officers. Juslice Qnaflerly. 4.9-37.

Poole, E. & Regoli, R. (1980a). Role stress, custody orientatio~~, and disciplinary actions: Astudy of prison guards. Crimi~lology, 18.215-226.

Poole. E. & Regoli, R. (1980b). Work relations and cynicism among prison guards. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 7. 303-314.

Simpson, S. &White. M. (1985). The female guard i n Ihe all-male prison. In I. Moyer (Ed.), The char~giiig roles of wonien in the critninal juslice sysfen~: Offenders, victims and professiorials, (pp. 276-300). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Walters. S. (1990, March). Factors effecting the acceptance of female prison guards by their male counterparts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of [he Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Denver.

Walters, S. (in press). Alienation and the correctional officer: A multivariate analysis. AmerJca11 Journal of Crin~inal Jrrstice.

Wicks, R. (1980). Guard! Society's professional yrisorio. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.

Zimmer, L. (1986). Womeri guarding men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

AUTHOR'S NOTE

Stephen Wallers received a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Montana in 1986. He iscurrently an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice a1 the University of Wisconsin - Platteville.

Address for corresponrlence: Dr. Stephen Walters, Department of Crim- inal Justice, University of Wisconsin - Platteville, 1 University Plaza, Platteville, WI 53818.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Car

olin

a] a

t 21:

25 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014