Workplace Burnout Among Australian and New Zealand Correctional Educators

Special Issue 2025 of Apprendre + Agir

Jayson Ware
Elsie McCulloch
Briney Flay

Abstract

This paper outlines evidence presented at the Montreal International Conference on Prison Education. At its core, it presents research that seeks to highlight the challenges education providers face when delivering education in prison. More ambitiously, it is a call to arms, arguing that much more needs to be done to support these education providers to effectively do the work that they do. The feedback after the presentation was unanimous. Much more does need to be done. Education providers in Australia and New Zealand prisons are called correctional educators. We argue that these individuals, given that they are both teachers and they work in prisons, are likely to be highly vulnerable to workplace burnout. This study examined workplace burnout, effort and rewards, resilience, and perceived organizational support in 58 correctional educators working in New Zealand and Australia prisons. Correctional educators reported moderate levels of burnout specifically emotional exhaustion. Key findings were that a mismatch between the (high) effort correctional educators put into their work and the (low) rewards they receive in return led to emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. This mismatch appears greater for correctional educators when compared to other studies of teachers or correctional staff. Surprisingly, correctional educator resilience and their perceived lack of support did not moderate or reduce emotional exhaustion. Our conclusions are that, given how important education is to rehabilitative efforts and the broader prison climate, a greater focus on correctional educator well-being is important.

Keywords: correctional educators, burnout, organisational, resilience

Introduction

The provision of education to incarcerated individuals is important. Ellison et al.’s (2017) large study, which combined findings from lots of earlier research, concluded that offenders who participate in prison education are significantly less likely to re-offend and significantly more likely to find employment after release than those offenders who did not participate. Offenders engaged in education are more likely to seek out pro-social relationships and have better mental health outcomes. They are also less likely to be involved in prisoner on prisoner or prisoner on officer violence (Kołodziejczyk, 2021). It is not yet clear, however, what might make the delivery of prison education effective. Bozick and colleagues (2018) cautioned that not enough is known about a range of important variables such as student-teacher ratios, curricula, teacher training or skills, and quality of textbooks and technology. Farley and Ware (2023) argued that the benefits of prison education stem less from the curriculum itself and more from the knowledge, experience, and skills of the professionals delivering the education (see also Wayne & Youngs, 2003). If this is true, then it becomes essential to ensure that these professionals are well supported to apply their expertise effectively. Within Australia and New Zealand, these professionals are termed correctional educators. They are typically employed by correctional agencies and may teach a range of educational activities from basic literacy and numeracy to vocational training. In some instances, they may work in partnership with a university to deliver tertiary courses.

Correctional educators will inevitably be faced with difficulties and challenges unique to working in prisons. Yet, there appears to have been few attempts to gather information on their experiences to understand how to better support their working with incarcerated students. In many ways, education in prison is unlike traditional education settings. Unlike in most formal education settings, where students generally attend voluntarily and in safer, more supportive environments, educators in prisons are required to provide education within constrained, difficult, and sometimes dangerous conditions, to a group of individuals (offenders) who may at times be uncooperative, unmotivated, or manipulative (Lambert et al., 2015). In addition, the educational needs of these individuals can be very high and diverse. Incarcerated individuals tend to be less educated and have disproportionately higher literacy, and numeracy needs when compared with the general population (Bowman 2014). Moreover, fitting education provision into existing prison structure and policies frequently results in disruption and frustration (Flores & Barahona‑López, 2021; Weaver et al., 2020).

Given these challenges, Farley and Ware (2023) argued that the unique work environment of correctional educators presents multiple challenges that not only sets correctional education apart from traditional education but also presents difficulties to the correctional educators themselves. They suggested that correctional educators are highly vulnerable to workplace stress and workplace burnout. Importantly, and perhaps surprisingly, there has been an absence of research examining these issues given that workplace burnout can drastically reduce effectiveness.

Workplace Burnout

Workplace burnout describes a process by which one might “wear out or become exhausted by [one’s work] making excessive demands on energy, strength, or resources” (Freudenberger, 1974: 159). Unlike stress, which acts as an immediate response to negative stimuli, burnout is cumulative and occurs after a prolonged period, resulting in emotional, psychological, and social withdrawal from the workplace (Maslach, 1993). Workplace burnout is often characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and diminished personal accomplishment (Maslach et al., 2001). Emotional exhaustion appears to be the symptom most reported by individuals who suffer from burnout and refers to a state of feeling emotionally drained, overwhelmed, and depleted of emotional resources. Depersonalization refers to an indifference toward others in the workplace. Diminished personal accomplishment refers to the individual feeling ineffective or incompetent due to these prolonged stresses.

Typically, the antecedents or causes of workplace burnout are organizational stressors. Maslach and Leiter’s (1997) model for understanding the ways in which organizations contribute to employee burnout suggests that workplace burnout is more likely when an individual feels overloaded at work, lacks the ability to make decisions or influence processes, does not receive recognition, or does not feel intrinsic satisfaction, believes that there is an absence of fairness, has conflicting values, or when they lose a positive connection with others in the workplace. To make sense of all these different reasons for workplace burnout, Siegrist et al. (2004) proposed that workplace burnout can result when there is a mismatch between the effort an employee puts into their work and the rewards they receive in return.

Importantly, workplace organizational factors appear to be better predictors of burnout than the personal characteristics of the affected individual, such as their age, gender, or educational level (Cieslak et al., 2008). Two individual factors that have been found to be important, however, particularly for teachers (Karimi & Adam, 2023; Polat & İskender, 2018) and correctional staff (Finney et al., 2013; Klinoff et al., 2018), are resilience and perceived organization support. Resilience refers to the “process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation despite challenging or threatening circumstances’ (Masten et al., 1990). Leiter et al., (2014) suggested that high levels of individual resilience may allow individuals to better cope with organizational stressors. Perceived organizational support refers to employees’ general belief that the organization respects their contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986).

Workplace Burnout in Prisons

High prevalence rates of workplace burnout are often reported for individuals who work in prisons, most particularly for prison officers (Griffin et al., 2012; Lambert et al., 2015). There is also evidence, however, that other staff working within prisons experience comparatively high rates of burnout. Senter et al. (2010), for example, reported that psychologists working in prisons experienced higher levels of burnout than psychologists who worked in other settings. Cieslak et al. (2008) found that prison officers and rehabilitative staff were equally emotionally exhausted. When examining the reasons why individuals working in prisons report high rates of workplace burnout, Dowden and Tellier (2004) found that lack of participation in decision making, job dissatisfaction, low work commitment, turnover intention, perceived dangerousness of work, and role stress were the strongest predictors of burnout (see also Griffin et al., 2012).

When examining what might protect against workplace burn out, studies have consistently shown that high levels of perceived organizational support from co-workers, management and supervisors are associated with lower levels of workplace burnout for correctional staff (Finney et al., 2013; Griffin et al., 2012; Lambert et al., 2012). Specific to Siegrist et al.’s (2004) effort and reward model, Hu et al. (2015) demonstrated the strongest predictor of emotional exhaustion among correctional officers was high effort and low reward. They found that correctional officers with an effort-reward imbalance reported emotion exhaustion at five times the rate of officers who reported the rewards of their role outweighed the effort. In addition, several studies have found that individuals working in prisons who are resilient report lower levels of workplace burnout (e.g., Hu et al., 2015).

Workplace Burnout Among Teachers

Workplace burnout also appears very prevalent within the larger teaching profession (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017). García-Carmona et al. (2019) reviewed many empirical studies including over 14,000 secondary school teachers, finding that 30 to 40 per cent of all teachers were likely to report burnout. Many of the factors associated with increased teacher burnout appear relevant to educators in correctional settings. Being exposed to students who are unruly, lack motivation, have poor attention, or who lack respect and appreciation for the teacher over longer periods of time may increase the risk of burnout (Mijakoski et al., 2022). Consistently, high workload, time pressures, perceived difficulties with school administration, role conflicts, role ambiguity, and poor working conditions all appear to contribute to the likelihood of secondary school teacher burnout (García-Carmona et al., 2019; Ghanizadeh & Jahedizadeh, 2015; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017). Unterbrink et al. (2007) demonstrated that a high percentage of secondary school teachers presented with significant burnout symptoms and an associated perceived imbalance between high effort and low reward in their workplace.

Like correctional staff, teachers appear to report less workplace burnout when they perceive their school to be providing them adequate support (Anomneze et al., 2016). In addition, Richards et al. (2016) found that secondary school teachers who display higher levels of resilience are significantly less likely to report being burnt out even when experiencing many organizational stressors. Likewise, Salmela-Aro et al. (2019) found that even when facing significant workplace challenges, resilience may help teachers to cope with their work without becoming cynical, feeling inadequate, or emotionally exhausted.

Correctional Educators and Workplace Burnout

To this point, we have argued that both prison staff and teachers are vulnerable to workplace burnout. Correctional educators, however, occupy a particularly challenging position because they are simultaneously teachers and prison staff. This dual role places them at the intersection of two demanding professions, each of which carries its own stressors, expectations, and risks. As a result, we believe that correctional educators may face an even greater likelihood of burnout, given that they must navigate the pressures of delivering meaningful education while also managing the complexities and constraints of working within a correctional environment. To date, this assertion is largely untested. Surprisingly, there appears to have been only two studies explicitly examining correctional educators and workplace burnout. This is surprising given that, as Patrie (2017) questioned, “whether or not it is possible [for educators] to work in a correctional environment without being affected by it” (p. 20). Over 40 years ago, Belcastro et al. (1982), reported that 17% of the 127 correctional educators within their study were suffering from workplace burnout. Those most at risk were older teachers who had been working in prisons longer. More recently, Lane et al. (2023) examined burnout rates of 338 staff working in institutions for young offenders. They found that correctional educators within their sample had the same burnout scores as prison officers. They did not find any age or gender-related differences. While there is little specific evidence of burnout among correctional educators, there is compelling anecdotal evidence. Nurse et al. (2003) reported that poor management style and lack of communication by correctional leadership was responsible for a decrease in correctional educator’s job satisfaction and increased stress. Similarly, Flores and Barahona‑López (2021) found that correctional educators frequently reported poor communication from prison staff as detrimental to their teaching and stress levels. Not surprisingly, when surveyed, most correctional educators report feeling inadequately supported (University and College Union & Prison Learning Alliance, 2021). As a useful summary of these challenges, Yantz (2008) reported that correctional educators frequently describe themselves as “overlooked” in both education and corrections.

Purpose of Study

While stressing the importance of education in prison, Farley and Ware (2023) also argued that it was important to uncover the true extent of workplace burnout among those tasked with providing this education. We believe that the factors associated with burnout for individuals working in prisons coupled with those associated with burnout among teachers suggest that correctional educators are at particularly high risk for burnout.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which correctional educators experience burnout and to identify factors that may influence this outcome. Specifically, we examined whether organizational stress—conceptualized as a mismatch between the effort employees invest in their work and the rewards they receive—predicts levels of burnout. In addition, we explored whether correctional educators’ resilience and their perceptions of support from their employing agency moderate the relationship between organizational stress and burnout.

The following hypotheses were formulated and tested: (1) correctional educators in Australia and New Zealand will report comparatively higher levels of burnout—specifically, they will report being emotional exhausted, (2) correctional educators will report an imbalance in the effort they put in and the rewards they receive in return at work, (3) organizational factors (effort-reward imbalance, level of effort and reward, overcommitment) and demographic factors (teaching experience, prison experience, face-to-face hours) may predict higher levels of burn out, and (4) higher levels of resilience and perceived organizational support will moderate the relationship between organizational factors and burnout.

Method

Participants

Fifty-eight correctional educators from Australia and New Zealand participated in this study. The participants consisted of 24 males and 34 females with an average age of 51 years (and a range of 23 to 69 years). Most participants identified as Australian or New Zealand European (81%), with 2% identifying as Māori, 3% identifying as Pacific Peoples, 2% identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, and the reminder unspecified. Participants were employed in minimum (17%), medium (50%), and maximum (33%) security prisons and provided education to youth (9%), adults (65%), or both youth and adults (26%). On average, participants had 18.4 years of teaching experience (SD = 11.64) and 7.6 years of experience working in prisons (SD = 6.33). Their reported weekly face-to-face teaching workload averaged 11.2 hours per week (SD = 7.74).

Procedure

The University of Canterbury Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) granted ethical approval for the study. An online questionnaire, designed to be completed in 45 minutes, was created using the Qualtrics platform. The study was advertised, after approval, through online newsletters distributed by the Australasian Correctional Educators Association (ACEA) and the Australian Council for Adult Literacy (ACAL). To participate, individuals had to be currently working as correctional educators in Australasia. Prior to the completion of the online questionnaire, all participants provided informed consent, and it was made clear that all responses would be confidential, and that the data was used for research purposes only and would not, for example, be made available to ACEA, ACAL, or any of the participants’ employers. As such, we did not conduct any analyses relating to ethnicity given the small number of Māori, Pacific, and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander correctional educators. Our view was that these participants would have been easily identifiable if we had done so (seeTe Pere & Stewart, 2021).

Online Questionnaire

A 149-item online questionnaire was constructed including an initial set of demographic questions and the following psychological measures: the Maslach Burnout Inventory for Educators Survey (MBI-ES), the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS), the Effort-Reward Imbalance [ERI] Scale, the International Personality Item Pool Big Five Marker Scale (IPIP-50), the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD RISC-10), and the DASS-21.

Maslach Burnout Inventory for Educators Survey (MBI-ES)

The 22-item MBI-ES (Maslach et al., 2022) was used to measure correctional educator burnout across three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment. Emotional exhaustion measures teachers’ feelings of being emotionally exhausted and overextended by their work (e.g. “I feel emotionally drained from my work”). Depersonalization relates to a teacher’s psychological withdrawal including the development of negative or insensitive attitudes toward students (e.g. “I feel I treat students as if they were impersonal objects”). Personal accomplishment relates to a teacher’s feelings of competence in their work (e.g. “I have accomplished many worthwhile things in this job”). Participants read each of the 22 statements and decide if they ever feel this way about theirjob by rating each statement with 0 (never), 1 (a few times a year or less), 2 (once a month or less), 3 (a few times a month), 4 (once a week), 5 (a few times a week), or 6 (every day). Higher scores for emotional exhaustion and depersonalization and lower scores for personal accomplishment suggest burning out. We found this scale to be consistently scored in this study (.90 for Emotional Exhaustion, .66 for Depersonalization, and .57 for Personal Accomplishment).

Effort-Reward Imbalance [ERI]

To assess any imbalance between how much effort correctional educators invested in their work and the rewards they receive in return, the abbreviated 16-item version of the Effort-Reward Imbalance [ERI] Scale (Siegrist et al., 2009) was used. With the ERI, participants indicate how much they agree or disagree, on a four-point Likert scale, with three questions focusing on effort (e.g. “I have constant time pressure due to a heavy workload”), seven questions assessing rewards (e.g. “Considering all my efforts and achievements, I receive the respect and prestige I deserve at work”), and six questions gauging perceived overcommitment (e.g. “I get easily overwhelmed by time pressure at work”). The higher the score of effort and overcommitment, the higher the correctional educators perceived work demands. The lower the score of the reward, the lower the teacher’s perceived rewards at work. An ERI ratio of greater than one reflects a perception of imbalance between efforts and rewards (Montano et al., 2016). This scale was found to be reliable and consistent in this study.

Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS)

The 36-item SPOS (Eisenberger et al., 1986) was designed to gauge an employee’s perception of how much their organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being. Participants indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with each statement on a 7-point Likert scale (e.g. “The organization really cares about my well-being”). Higher total scores denote greater perceived organizational support. The SPOS has been used across both correctional (Aubé et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2013) and educational (du Toit et al., 2022; Pauli et al., 2018) contexts. The SPOS has been found to be distinctly different to other similar constructs such as overall job satisfaction (Eisenberger et al., 1997), perceived supervisory support, organizational dependability (Hutchison, 1997), and perceived organizational politics (Lee & Peccei, 2011). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .94, indicating high internal consistency of items.

Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD RISC-10)

The CD-RISC-10 (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007) was used to measure correctional educators’ resilience. Resilience is defined as the ability to thrive despite adversity. Participants responded to 10 items examining one’s ability to tolerate experiences such as painful feelings, pressure, illness, or failure. Participants rate 10 statements on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not true at all) to 4 (true nearly all the time), according to the extent to which each of the statements applies to them in general. High scores reflect an ability to bounce back from stress and adversity. The CD-RISC-10 has satisfactory internal reliability and validity including with teachers (e.g. Flores-Buils et al., 2022) and was shown to be a reliable measure in this study (Cronbach’s alpha of .88).

Statistical Analysis

We used a summary of the data to answer our first two hypotheses. To answer the third hypothesis, we looked at how different aspects of burnout—such as emotional exhaustion, feeling detached from others (depersonalization), and a sense of achievement—were related to personal characteristics (like age and teaching experience) and workplace factors (such as workload, recognition, and overcommitment). By comparing these factors side by side, we aimed to see which ones were most likely connected. We then applied a statistical method that examines how different personal and workplace factors, when considered together, are connected to emotional exhaustion, which we identified as the most important aspect of burnout. For the fourth hypothesis, we looked at whether having support from the organization or personal resilience helped protect against burnout by weakening the impact of workplace pressures.

Results

Hypotheses 1 and 2: Burnout and Effort-Reward Imbalance

Mean (average) scores were calculated for emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment, effort, reward, overcommitment, effort-reward imbalance, perceived organizational support, and Resilience. Correctional educators within this sample reported moderate levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. However, they also reported moderate levels of personal accomplishment.

This suggests they were experiencing stress and emotional fatigue, but not at severe burnout levels. They might have felt detached from their work or colleagues, but not to a severe level, and they still maintained a sense of personal effectiveness (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). The mean effort-reward imbalance ratio indicated a general perception of an imbalance between the effort put in and the reward received at work. When reviewing the data, 60.3% of participants reported an unfavorable relationship between the level of effort required and the corresponding rewards from their work.

Hypothesis 3: Predicting Burnout

To examine hypotheses three, a correlation matrix was created to assess the relationship between burnout dimensions and the relevant demographic and organizational factors. As expected, emotional exhaustion had a strong, positive correlation with effort, overcommitment, and effort-reward imbalance, and a strong, negative correlation with reward and perceived organizational support. Correctional educators reporting moderate levels of emotional exhaustion were also reporting high levels of effort, overcommitment and effort-reward imbalance at work. They also reported lower levels of reward and support from their employer. Depersonalization was only weakly associated with effort. Personal accomplishment was not related to any organizational variables. Perceived organizational support had a strong, negative relationship with emotional exhaustion but had no relationship with depersonalization or personal accomplishment. Where the correctional educators worked (security classification) and who they worked with (adults or youth) were not associated with any of the burnout dimensions.

Based on the correlational results, a multiple regression was conducted to see if reward, effort-reward imbalance, and perceived organizational support could predict emotional exhaustion among correctional educators. The overall model was statistically significant, (F (3,44) = 18.34, p < .001), meaning that the three variables together helped predict emotional exhaustion. Each variable’s effect was then looked at separately to see how much it contributed on its own. Effort-reward imbalance was the only variable that had a significant effect on emotional exhaustion—higher imbalance was linked to more exhaustion (β = 3.37, p < .001). Reward and perceived organizational support did not show a significant effect. Overall, the model explained 56% of the variation in emotional exhaustion.

Hence, correctional educators were more likely to feel emotionally exhausted (burnt out) when the effort they put into their work was not matched by the rewards they received. Although teaching experience was also linked to emotional exhaustion, a separate analysis showed it did not significantly predict burnout (F (2,55) = 1.92, p = .156).

Hypothesis 4: Perceived Organizational Support or Resilience as Moderators

We analyzed whether support from the organization or personal resilience influenced how strongly the imbalance between effort and reward was linked to emotional exhaustion. Both the interaction between effort-reward imbalance and perceived organizational support (β = 1.88, p = .432) and effort-reward imbalance and resilience (β = –.05, p = .43) were found to have no impact on emotional exhaustion. The strength of the association between effort-reward imbalance and emotional exhaustion did not vary as a function of perceived organizational support or resilience.

Discussion

This study aimed to establish the extent to which correctional educators report feeling burnt out. We aimed to examine whether the presence of organizational stresses, measured as a mismatch between the effort an employee put into their work and the rewards they receive in return, would predict burnout. Finally, we aimed to establish whether higher levels of correctional educator resilience and their perceptions of being supported by their employer (correctional agency) would moderate the relationship between organizational factors and burnout.

As hypothesized, correctional educators within this sample reported feeling moderate levels of burnout, specifically emotional exhaustion and depersonalization within their workplace. This suggests that many of these individuals may feel mentally and emotionally overextended due to their workplace stresses. Due to these prolonged stresses, they may feel (at times) cynical toward, or distant to, colleagues, the incarcerated individuals they provide education to, or to teaching more generally (Maslach et al., 2022). Importantly, however, they still reported some value and success in their work (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). These results appear consistent with Belcastro et al. (1982) and Lane et al. (2023), who reported high burnout rates in correctional educators. Unlike Belcastro et al. (1982), we did not find that teaching experience predicted emotional exhaustion. In our sample, emotional exhaustion seemed to rise with teaching experience, but teaching experience did not actually predict levels of exhaustion. Not surprisingly, emotional exhaustion was negatively correlated with rewards received from work and perceived organizational support. Correctional educators who reported work to be more rewarding or to perceive their organization as supportive appeared less likely to be emotionally exhausted. When comparing these results with other studies, correctional educators in this sample reported similar levels of burnout to other educators in comparable studies (Aluja et al., 2005; Goddard et al., 2013; Grayson & Alvarez, 2008), but lower levels of burnout in comparison to prison officers (da Silva Venâncio et al., 2020; Gould et al., 2013; Tohochynskyi et al., 2020).

Almost two thirds of the correctional educators within this sample reported an imbalance between the effort they put into their work and the reward they received from this work. This seems significantly different from other research examining both secondary school teachers and correctional staff and burnout. Within Unterbrink et al.’s (2007) study of over nine hundred German teachers, only 21% of teachers reported an effort–reward imbalance, despite reporting high rates of emotional exhaustion. Likewise, within Hu et al.’s (2015) study of over 1,700 prisons officers, only 26% reported high effort and less reward. This appears significant and reflects other findings, in which correctional educators often report that they are not receiving fair compensation for the level of effort they expend while teaching within prisons. Patrie (2017) articulated this well when she stated that correctional educators “are often expected to be more than educators; they must be teachers, counsellors, and security agents” (p. 18). Farley and Ware (2023) made a series of recommendations specific to the wellbeing of correctional educators but, perhaps of most relevance to the significant effort-reward imbalance found within this study, they argued that:

the important work of correctional educators needs to be recognized, [and] most importantly, this needs to be articulated to those educators and to their peers. This could take the form of reward programs, but most fundamentally, acknowledgement and appreciation need to come from managers. (Farley and Ware, 2023: 15)

The most significant predictor of emotional exhaustion in our sample of correctional educators was an imbalance between the level of effort required and the corresponding rewards from their work. This is unsurprising given the significant number of correctional educators reporting that the effort they expended while working was not sufficiently rewarded. What was surprising was that, despite clear correlations, neither resilience nor perceived organizational support altered the relationship between effort-reward imbalance and emotional exhaustion. Again, this finding seems significantly different from other research outcomes. Xu and Yang (2021), for example, found that high levels of perceived organizational support altered the relationship between job stress and emotional exhaustion in secondary school teachers. Similarly, Lawrence et al.(2018) found the teachers reporting high levels of organizational support had significantly lower rates of emotional exhaustion.

Consequences of Findings

Freudenberger (1974) aptly suggested that the consequence of burnout is that individuals “anesthetized their feelings” and completed their work-related tasks in a mechanical manner with less regard to their effectiveness. Farley and Ware (2023) argued that the potential consequences of correctional educator burnout are likely to be significant and impactful. Teacher burnout has been repeatedly associated with changes in mood, well-being, mental (Capone et al., 2019) and physical health problems (Belcastro et al., 1982). If correctional educators are experiencing such difficulties because of their emotional exhaustion, it is likely to significantly impact the correctional organization’s rehabilitative efforts. There have been several studies highlighting the problematic effects of workplace burnout within prisons. Correctional officer burnout has been shown to contribute to unsafe practices within the corrections facility (Trounson et al., 2019), higher staff turnover, higher job absenteeism, and poor job performance (Finney et al., 2013). Importantly, Lambert et al. (2015) demonstrated that life satisfaction and support for rehabilitative efforts were also negatively impacted by the presence of workplace burnout. Specific to teaching, Capone et al. (2019) suggested that high levels of workplace burnout may disrupt or change teachers’ classroom preparation and performance. Madigan and Kim (2021) also described how that burnout may change teachers’ opinions of and interactions with students, potentially leading to the development of adversarial relationships and negative attitudes towards their students. This will clearly lead to problematic situations within a prison context (see alsoShannon & Page, 2014).

Practical Implications

Johnson et al. (2016) argued that despite its prevalence, “little attention has been directed towards reducing or preventing burnout” (p. 65) in individuals working within prisons. Given our results, we argue that correctional educators require increased levels of support (see Farley & Ware, 2023). In fact, we suggest that correctional educators themselves may be aware of the importance of such support and appear to actively seek further knowledge and skills. Others have done so, too. Jurich et al. (2001), for example, conducted a needs assessment with over 370 correctional educators, and they ranked avoiding burnout as one of the top three workshops they would be interested in attending.

We note, at this point, that correctional educators are not alone. There appear to be few methodologically sound studies examining interventions to reduce burnout in teachers (see von der Embse et al., 2019). Iancu et al.’s (2018) large study, for example, found only 23 well-controlled studies from which to draw conclusions as to efforts to reduce burnout among teachers. Farley and Ware (2023) argued that if correctional educator burnout is to be taken seriously, the challenge will be how to enforce organizational changes. These would include reducing correctional educator exposure to stressors (e.g., reduced workload), improving role clarity (see Patrie, 2017), and increasing educators’ sense of control over their professional role and expected outcomes. This would necessitate including correctional educators in decision-making that may affect their role (Weaver et al., 2020). In addition, both Flores and Barahona‑López (2021) and Jurich et al. (2001) argued that correctional educator specific training must include, at the very least, information about the inner workings of their respective prison. An excellent additional starting point would be to ensure that adequately-spaced classrooms, sufficient educational aids or materials, and access to adequately resourced libraries are available, as well as up-to-date, accessible technology (Michals & Kessler, 2015; Osberg & Fraley, 1993; Tewksbury & Van Nostrand, 1996).

Limitations

There were several limitations to this study. On the one hand, there was only a small sample of correctional educators, and this limits the study’s statistical power and generalizability, and any investigation of workplace burnout may inadvertently introduce a selection bias. Correctional educators who were experiencing workplace burnout may not have chosen to complete the online questionnaire or may have completed only part of it. There were 80 separate correctional educators who commenced the questionnaire, but only 58 completed it. Maybe 149 items in our online questionnaire were too many items. This incomplete data could have potentially skewed the overall results by excluding those most affected by burnout.

On the other hand, we note that our sample included only correctional educators from Australia and New Zealand who belonged to either the Australasian Correctional Educators Association (ACEA) or Australian Council for Adult Literacy (ACAL). What’s more, there were only a small number of correctional educators identifying as being Māori, Pacific People, or Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. These individuals often report excessive workloads or responsibility particularly when asked to prioritize their workload towards Indigenous offenders (e.g., see Te Pere and Stewart, 2021). We also note that this study was completed at one point in time and therefore only reflects a snapshot of organizational factors and burnout dimensions.

Conclusions

Our conclusions, like those of Farley and Ware (2023) are clear. Our findings, notwithstanding the limitations, indicate that more should be done to support the well-being of correctional educators to prevent and reduce workplace burnout, and consequently, to maintain or increase the educators’ effectiveness (Vandala, 2019). These individuals, when faced with working conditions in which the efforts required to teach within prisons exceed the rewards they receive from this work, appear vulnerable to emotional exhaustion.

We also encourage researchers to conduct further research to 1) discover, across jurisdictions, the true extent of burnout among correctional educators, to 2) specify what factors contribute to that state, and to 3) evaluate interventions aimed at supporting these valuable (and vulnerable) individuals.

References

Anomneze, E. A., Ugwu, D. I., Enwereuzor, I. K., and Ugwu, L. I. (2016). Teachers’ emotional labour and burnout: Does perceived organizational support matter. Asian Social Science, 12(2), 9-22.
Aubé, C., Rousseau, V., & Morin, E. M. (2007). Perceived organizational support and organizational commitment: The moderating effect of locus of control and work autonomy. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(5), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710757209/FULL/XML
Belcastro, P., Gold, R., & Grant, J. (1982). Stress and burnout: Physiologic effects on correctional teachers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9, 387-395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854882009004001
Bozick, R., Steele, J., Davis, L., & Turner, S. (2018). Does providing inmates with education improve post-release outcomes? A meta-analysis of correctional education programs in the United States. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(3), 389-428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9334-6
Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor–Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 1019-1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20271
Capone, V., M., Joshanloo, & Park, M. (2019). Burnout, depression, efficacy beliefs, and work-related variables among schoolteachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 95, 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.02.001.
Cieslak, R., Korczynska, J., Strelau, J., & Kaczmarek, M. (2008). Burnout predictors among prison officers: The moderating effect of temperamental endurance. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 666-672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.012
du Toit, A., Redelinghuys, K., & van der Vaart, L. (2022). Organisational support and teachers’ performance: The moderating role of job crafting. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 48. https://doi.org/10.4102/SAJIP.V48I0.2004
Eisenberger. R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived Organizational Support, Discretionary Treatment, and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812-820.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
Ellison, M., Szifris, K., Horan, R., & Fox, C. (2017). A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the effectiveness of prison education in reducing recidivism and increasing employment. Probation Journal, 64(2), 108-128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550517699290
Farley, H., & Ware, J. (2023). Supporting Frontline Educators in the Carceral Space. In F. F. Padró, J. H. Green, & D. Bull (Eds.), Widening Participation in Higher Education (pp. 1-23). Springer Singapore. https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-981-19-9553-8_23-1
Finney, C., Stergiopoulos, E., Hensel, J., Bonato, S., & Dewa, C. S. (2013). Organizational stressors associated with job stress and burnout in correctional officers: a systematic review. BMC public health, 13, 1-13.
Flores, J., & Barahona-López, K. (2021). Correctional education and the impact on educators’ lack of training. Curriculum Perspectives, 41(2), 237-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-021-00147-3
Flores-Buils, R., Caballer-Miedes, A., & Mateu-Pérez, R. (2022). Resilience in teachers: Validation of the Spanish version of the CD-RISC10© Scale in early childhood, primary and special education teachers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 11020.
Freudenberger, H. (1974). Staff burnout. Journal of Social Issues, 30, 159-165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974.tb00706.x
García-Carmona, M., Marín, M. D., & Aguayo, R. (2019). Burnout syndrome in secondary school teachers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 22(1), 189-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9471-9
Ghanizadeh, A., & Jahedizadeh, S. (2015). Teacher burnout: A review of sources and ramifications. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 6(1), 24-39.
Griffin, M. L., Hogan, N. L., & Lambert, E. G. (2012). Doing “People Work” in the Prison Setting: An Examination of the Job Characteristics Model and Correctional Staff Burnout. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9), 1131-1147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812442358
Hu, S., Wang, J. N., Liu, L., Wu, H., Yang, X., Wang, Y., & Wang, L. (2015). The association between work-related characteristic and job burnout among Chinese correctional officers: A cross-sectional survey. Public health, 129(9), 1172-1178.
Hutchison, S. (1997). Perceived Organizational Support: Further evidence of construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 1025-1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164497057006011
Iancu, A. E., Rusu, A., Măroiu, C., Păcurar, R., & Maricuțoiu, L. P. (2018). The effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing teacher burnout: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 373-396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9420-8
Jurich, S., Casper, M., & Hull, K.A. (2001). Training correctional educators: A needs assessment study. Journal of Correctional Education, 52(1).
Johnson, H., Worthington, R., Gredecki, N. and Wilks-Riley, F.R. (2016), The relationship between trust in work colleagues, impact of boundary violations and burnout among staff within a forensic psychiatric service, The Journal of Forensic Practice, 18(1), 64-75. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-03-2015-0024
Karimi, M. N., & Adam, S. B. (2023). A structural equation modeling analysis of the relationships between perceived occupational stress, burnout, and teacher resilience. Second Language Teacher Education, 2(1), 95-115.
Klinoff, V. A., Van Hasselt, V. B., Black, R. A., Masias, E. V., & Couwels, J. (2018). The assessment of resilience and burnout in correctional officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(8), 1213-1233.
Kołodziejczyk, W. (2021). Management in Action in the Educational Model of Reflective Practice to Support Dynamic Security in Penitentiary Units: a Case Study. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, 11(1), 123-130. https://doi.org/10.47459/jssi.2021.11.8
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L, Griffin, M. L., & Kelley, T. (2015). The correctional staff burnout literature, Criminal Justice Studies, 28 (4), 397-443, https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601x.2015.1065830
Lane, R., Labno, A., D’Souza, S., Ullman, R., Singleton, R., Bevington, D., Law, D., Rogers, A., Jacob, J., & Edbrooke-Childs, J. (2023). Staff burnout in the Children and Young People Secure Estate (CYPSE) in England, Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 38(2), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2023.2181177
Lee, J., & Peccei, R. (2011). Discriminant validity and interaction between perceived organizational support and perceptions of organizational politics: A temporal analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(4), 686-702. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910X511197
Leiter, M., Bakker, A., & Maslach, C. (2014). The contemporary context of job burnout. In M. Leiter, A. Bakker, & C. Maslach (Eds.), Burnout at work: A psychological perspective (pp. 1-9). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131589416-5
Liu, L., Hu, S., Wang, L., Sui, G., & Ma, L. (2013). Positive resources for combating depressive symptoms among Chinese male correctional officers: Perceived organizational support and psychological capital. BMC Psychiatry, 13(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-13-89/TABLES/4
Madigan, D. J., & Kim, L. E. (2021). Does teacher burnout affect students? A systematic review of its association with academic achievement and student-reported outcomes, International Journal of Educational Research, 105, 101714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101714
Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In W. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 19-32). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315227979-3
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Schwab, R. (2022). MBI: educators survey. Mind Garden Inc.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The Truth About Burnout: How Organizations Cause Personal Stress and What to do About it. Jossey-Bass.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry 15, 103-111. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wps.20311
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and psychopathology, 2(4), 425-444.
Michals, I., & Kessler, S. (2015). Prison teachers and their students: A circle of satisfaction and gain. Journal of Correctional Education, 66(3), 47-62.
Mijakoski, D., Cheptea, D., Marca, S. C., Shoman, Y., Caglayan, C., Bugge, M. D., Gnesi, M., Godderis, L., Kiran, S., McElvenny, D. M., Mediouni, Z., Mesot, O., Minov, J., Nena, E., Otelea, M., Pranjic, N., Mehlum, I. S., van der Molen, H. F., & Canu, I. G. (2022). Determinants of Burnout among Teachers: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(9), 5776. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095776
Montano, D., Li, J., & Siegrist, J. (2016) The measurement of effort-reward imbalance (ERI) at work. In Siegrist J, Wahrendorf M (Eds.) Work stress and health in a globalized economy: the model of effort reward imbalance (pp. 21-42). Springer International Publishing.
Nurse, J., Woodcock, P., & Ormsby, J. (2003). Influence of environmental factors on mental health within prisons: Focus group study. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 327(7413), 480-483. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7413.480
Osberg, T. M., & Fraley, S. E. (1993). Teaching in a prison college program: Motivations, barriers, suggestions for improvement, and perceived equivalence to traditional college programs. Journal of Correctional Education, 44(1), 20-26.
Patrie, N. (2017). Learning to be an Educator, Journal of Prison Education and Reentry, 4(1), 17-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.15845/jper.v4i1.1050
Pauli, J., Chambel, M. J., Capellari, M. R., & Rissi, V. (2018). Motivation, organisational support and satisfaction with life for private sector teachers in Brazilian Higher Education. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(2), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1111/HEQU.12152
Polat, D. D., & İskender, M. (2018). Exploring teachers’ resilience in relation to job satisfaction, burnout, organizational commitment and perception of organizational climate. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 5(3), 1-13.
Richards, K. A. R., Levesque-Bristol, C., Templin, T. J., & Graber, K. C. (2016). The impact of resilience on role stressors and burnout in elementary and secondary teachers. Social Psychology of Education, 19, 511-536.
Salmela-Aro, K., Hietajärvi, L., & Lonka, K. (2019). Work burnout and engagement profiles among teachers. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 2254.
Senter, A., Morgan, R. D., Serna-McDonald, C., & Bewley, M. (2010). Correctional psychologist burnout, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction. Psychological Services, 7(3), 190-201. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020433
Shannon, S. K. S., & Page, J. (2014). Bureaucrats on the cell block: Prison officers’ perceptions of work environment and attitudes toward prisoners. Social Service Review, 88(4), 630-657. https://doi.org/10.1086/678448
Siegrist, J., Starke, D., Chandola, T., Godin, I., Marmot, M., Niedhammer, I., & Peter, R. (2004). The measurement of effort–reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Social science & medicine, 58(8), 1483-1499.
Siegrist, J., Wege, N., Pühlhofer, F., & Wahrendorf, M. (2009). A short generic measure of work stress in the era of globalization: Effort-reward imbalance. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 82(8), 1005-1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00420-008-0384-3
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2017). Still motivated to teach? A study of school context variables, stress and job satisfaction among teachers in senior high school. Social Psychology of Education, 20(1), 15-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9363-9
Te Pere, M., & Stewart, G. (2021). Challenges facing a Māori prison education leader. ACCESS: Contemporary Issues in Education, 41(2), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.46786/ac21.4929
Tewksbury, R., & Van Nostrand, L. (1996). Environmental and interactional barriers to job satisfaction for postsecondary correctional educators. Prison Journal, 76(3), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032855596076003003
Trounson J. S., Pfeifer J. E., Skues J. (2019). Perceived workplace adversity and correctional officer psychological well-being: An international examination of the impact of officer response styles. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 30, 17-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2018.1441427
University and College Union, & Prison Learning Alliance (2021). Hidden voices: The experience of teachers working in prisons. https://prisonerlearningalliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Hidden_voices_Aug2021.pdf
Unterbrink, T., Hack, A., Pfeifer, R., Buhl-Grießhaber, V., Müller, U., Wesche, H., Frommhold, M., Scheuch, K., Seibt, R., Wirsching, M., & Bauer, J. (2007). Burnout and effort–reward-imbalance in a sample of 949 German teachers. International archives of occupational and environmental health, 80, 433-441.
Vandala, N. G. (2019). The transformative effect of correctional education: A global perspective, Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1677122
von der Embse, N., Ryan, S.V., Gibbs, T., Mankin, A. (2019). Teacher stress interventions: A systematic review. Psychology in the Schools, 56, 1328-1343. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22279
Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement Gains: A Review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543073001089.
Weaver, A., Rousseau, D., & Napior, A. J. G. (2020). Learning From Teachers. Journal of Correctional Education, 71(1), 18-56.
Xu, Z., & Yang, F. (2021). The impact of perceived organizational support on the relationship between job stress and burnout: a mediating or moderating role? Current Psychology, 40, 402-413.
Yantz, S. (2008). Borderlands negotiation: Re-presentation of identity as a prison educator. In R. Wright (Ed.), In the borderlands: Learning to teach in prison and alternative settings (pp. 147-158). California State University.

Authors

Jayson Ware
Director of Criminal Justice
Senior Lecturer Above the Bar | Pūkenga Matua
Faculty of Law | Te Kaupeka Ture
University of Canterbury | Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha
jayson.ware@canterbury.ac.nz

Elsie McCulloch
Briney Flay

Cite this article

Ware, J., McCulloch, E. and Flay, B. (2025). Workplace Burnout Among Australian and New Zealand Correctional Educators. Apprendre + Agir, special issue 2025, Learning and Transforming: International Practices and Perspectives on Prison Education. https://icea-apprendreagir.ca/workplace-burnout-among-australian-and-new-zealand-correctional-educators/