Mean K10, STSS, and SWLS Scores by Gender, Court Level, and Region

expand
Descriptive Statistics by Gender
Group n K10 Mean K10 SD STSS Mean STSS SD SWLS Mean SWLS SD
Male 302 15.82 5.93 30.59 11.73 24.72 5.84
Female 291 17.83 6.33 34.95 12.07 24.03 5.95
NA 9 18.29 6.10 37.12 12.33 24.00 5.92
Descriptive Statistics by Court Level
Group n K10 Mean K10 SD STSS Mean STSS SD SWLS Mean SWLS SD
Supreme 122 15.26 5.97 29.90 10.86 25.75 5.40
District 157 16.57 6.59 32.44 12.43 24.79 5.86
Local 268 17.63 6.04 34.04 12.18 23.57 6.11
NA 55 17.06 5.71 34.00 12.53 24.02 5.43
Descriptive Statistics by Location
Group n K10 Mean K10 SD STSS Mean STSS SD SWLS Mean SWLS SD
Metro 512 16.67 6.27 32.48 12.02 24.42 5.98
Regional 67 18.11 5.87 35.11 12.67 24.17 5.13
NA 23 16.33 5.15 32.57 11.79 24.05 6.32

JAWS Scores by Gender, Court Level, and Region

expand
Mean JAWS Stress Scores by Gender
Group n JAWS Stress (Item 1) JAWS Stress (Item 2)
Female 291 3.30 2.66
Male 302 2.77 2.30
NA 9 3.22 2.78
Mean JAWS Stress Scores by Court Level
Group n JAWS Stress (Item 1) JAWS Stress (Item 2)
District 157 2.85 2.27
Local 268 3.35 2.78
Supreme 122 2.46 2.17
NA 55 3.32 2.38
Mean JAWS Stress Scores by Region
Group n JAWS Stress (Item 1) JAWS Stress (Item 2)
Metro 512 2.94 2.44
Regional 67 3.63 2.76
NA 23 3.48 2.86

Gender Differences across Wellbeing Measures

expand
Gender Differences in Wellbeing Measures
Scale Men average (n=302) Women average (n=291) t df p
K10Total_All 15.82 17.83 -3.96 576.60 0.00
STSS_All_Total 30.59 34.95 -4.41 575.90 0.00
SWLS_All 24.72 24.03 1.41 583.87 0.16
Gender Differences in JAWS Stress Scores
Scale Men average (n=302) Women average (n=291) t df p
JAWS Stress (Item 1) 2.77 3.30 -5.56 563.64 0
JAWS Stress (Item 2) 2.30 2.66 -4.13 559.85 0

Note. Box plots display the median (centre line), interquartile range (IQR; box), and 1.5 times the IQR (whiskers). Dots represent outliers falling beyond the whiskers.

Summary. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to examine gender differences across wellbeing and stress measures. Women reported significantly higher psychological distress than men on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10; t(576.60) = −3.96, p < .001) and higher secondary traumatic stress on the STSS (t(575.90) = −4.41, p < .001). No significant difference was found between men and women on life satisfaction (SWLS; t(583.87) = 1.41, p = .16). Additionally, women also reported significantly higher scores on both JAWS stress items compared to men (Item 1: t(563.64) = −5.56, p < .001; Item 2: t(559.85) = −4.13, p < .001). The use of Welch-corrected degrees of freedom (non-integer df values) indicates that the assumption of equal variances was not met, and the more robust Welch’s t-test was applied. Overall, these findings suggest that women in this sample tended to experience greater psychological distress, secondary traumatic stress, and work-related stress than men, while reporting similar levels of life satisfaction.

Court Level Differences across Wellbeing Measures

expand
Mean Wellbeing Scores by Court Level with ANOVA Results
Outcome Supreme (n=122) District (n=157) Local (n=268) F p Eta2
Psychological Distress 15.256 16.573 17.627 12.401 0.000 0.022
Secondary Trauma 29.901 32.440 34.038 9.865 0.002 0.018
Satisfaction with Life 25.752 24.790 23.572 12.271 0.000 0.022
Mean JAWS Stress Scores by Court Level with ANOVA Results
Outcome Supreme (n=122) District (n=157) Local (n=268) F p Eta2
JAWS Stress (Item 1) 2.461 2.846 3.349 58.228 0 0.101
JAWS Stress (Item 2) 2.167 2.272 2.778 34.475 0 0.063

Note. Box plots display the median (centre line), interquartile range (IQR; box), and 1.5 times the IQR (whiskers). Dots represent outliers falling beyond the whiskers.

Regional Differences across Wellbeing Measures

expand
Box Plots of Regional Differences in Wellbeing Measures
Scale Metro (n=512) Regional (n=67) t df p
k10 Mean 16.67 18.11 -1.86 85.53 0.07
STSS Mean 32.48 35.11 -1.59 81.13 0.12
SWLS Mean 24.42 24.17 0.37 89.67 0.71
Box Plots of Regional Differences in JAWS Stress Scores
Scale Metro (n=512) Regional (n=67) t df p
JAWS Stress (Item 1) 2.94 3.63 -4.96 81.51 0.00
JAWS Stress (Item 2) 2.44 2.76 -2.26 77.27 0.03

Note. Box plots display the median (centre line), interquartile range (IQR; box), and 1.5 times the IQR (whiskers). Dots represent outliers falling beyond the whiskers.

Multiple Regression Predicting Wellbeing Outcomes using Court Level, Gender, and region

expand
Multiple Regression: Court Level, Gender, and Region Predicting Wellbeing
Outcome Predictor B SE t p 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper
Psychological Distress (K10) Intercept (Higher, Male, Metro) 16.268 0.533 30.511 0.000 15.220 17.315
CourtLevel_fHigher -1.244 0.573 -2.169 0.031 -2.370 -0.117
Gender_fFemale 2.153 0.545 3.950 0.000 1.082 3.224
Location_fRegional 0.987 0.876 1.127 0.260 -0.734 2.708
Satisfaction With Life (SWLS) Intercept (Higher, Male, Metro) 23.953 0.508 47.135 0.000 22.955 24.952
CourtLevel_fHigher 1.439 0.548 2.627 0.009 0.363 2.515
Gender_fFemale -0.602 0.521 -1.156 0.248 -1.625 0.421
Location_fRegional 0.173 0.837 0.206 0.837 -1.472 1.817
Secondary Traumatic Stress (STSS) Intercept (Higher, Male, Metro) 31.477 1.032 30.487 0.000 29.449 33.506
CourtLevel_fHigher -1.958 1.114 -1.758 0.079 -4.147 0.230
Gender_fFemale 4.013 1.057 3.796 0.000 1.936 6.090
Location_fRegional 1.657 1.694 0.978 0.329 -1.672 4.986
Model Fit Statistics: Court Level, Gender, and Region Predicting Wellbeing
Outcome R2 Adj. R2 F p df df error
Psychological Distress (K10) 0.048 0.043 8.688 0.000 3 512
Satisfaction With Life (SWLS) 0.018 0.012 3.116 0.026 3 512
Secondary Traumatic Stress (STSS) 0.042 0.036 7.353 0.000 3 507

Correlational Analyses for Wellbeing measures

expand
Pearson Correlations Between Wellbeing Measures
Measure
  1. K10
  1. SWLS
  1. STSS
  1. K10 (Psychological Distress)
— -0.49*** 0.84***
  1. SWLS (Satisfaction With Life)
-0.49*** — -0.49***
  1. STSS (Secondary Traumatic Stress)
0.84*** -0.49*** —
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

Judicial Officer Coping Strategy Use Across Gender, Court Level, and Region

expand
Chi-Square/Fisher’s Exact Tests: Coping Strategies by Gender
Coping Strategy Test Chi-Square df p sig
Alcohol Chi-Square 0.02 1 0.900
Smoking/Vaping Chi-Square 3.25 1 0.071
Prescribed Meds Chi-Square 2.70 1 0.101
Non-Prescribed Meds Chi-Square 5.82 1 0.016
Prof. Mental Health Support Chi-Square 2.06 1 0.152
Other Chi-Square 0.01 1 0.930
None of the Above Chi-Square 7.03 1 0.008 **
Prefer Not to Say Fisher’s Exact NA NA 0.370
Support from Colleagues Chi-Square 14.38 1 0.000 ***
Support from Family & Friends Chi-Square 12.25 1 0.000 ***
Exercise Chi-Square 0.04 1 0.850
Meditation/Mindfulness Chi-Square 6.11 1 0.013
Faith Practices Chi-Square 1.23 1 0.268
Artistic/Creative Activities Chi-Square 6.43 1 0.011
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Fisher’s Exact Test used when expected cell count < 5.
Chi-Square/Fisher’s Exact Tests: Coping Strategies by Court Level
Coping Strategy Test Chi-Square df p sig
Alcohol Chi-Square 0.13 1 0.722
Smoking/Vaping Chi-Square 3.41 1 0.065
Prescribed Meds Chi-Square 0.22 1 0.642
Non-Prescribed Meds Fisher’s Exact NA NA 1.000
Prof. Mental Health Support Chi-Square 9.23 1 0.002 **
Other Chi-Square 1.29 1 0.256
None of the Above Chi-Square 0.07 1 0.786
Prefer Not to Say Fisher’s Exact NA NA 0.622
Support from Colleagues Chi-Square 0.64 1 0.425
Support from Family & Friends Chi-Square 0.45 1 0.503
Exercise Chi-Square 0.55 1 0.460
Meditation/Mindfulness Chi-Square 0.48 1 0.488
Faith Practices Chi-Square 0.00 1 0.968
Artistic/Creative Activities Chi-Square 0.00 1 0.965
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Fisher’s Exact Test used when expected cell count < 5.
Chi-Square/Fisher’s Exact Tests: Coping Strategies by Region
Coping Strategy Test Chi-Square df p sig
Alcohol Chi-Square 7.97 1 0.005 **
Smoking/Vaping Fisher’s Exact NA NA 0.357
Prescribed Meds Chi-Square 0.73 1 0.393
Non-Prescribed Meds Fisher’s Exact NA NA 0.357
Prof. Mental Health Support Chi-Square 0.07 1 0.789
Other Chi-Square 0.03 1 0.852
None of the Above Fisher’s Exact NA NA 0.379
Prefer Not to Say Fisher’s Exact NA NA 1.000
Support from Colleagues Chi-Square 0.81 1 0.368
Support from Family & Friends Chi-Square 0.16 1 0.687
Exercise Chi-Square 0.18 1 0.674
Meditation/Mindfulness Chi-Square 1.80 1 0.180
Faith Practices Chi-Square 0.11 1 0.739
Artistic/Creative Activities Chi-Square 0.09 1 0.770
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Fisher’s Exact Test used when expected cell count < 5.

Association between Judicial Officer Coping Strategy Use and wellbeing measures

expand
Coping Strategy Use and Psychological Distress (K10)
Coping Strategy Mean (No) Mean (Yes) t df p p (Bonferroni)
Alcohol 16.58 17.40 -1.52 423.9 0.128 1.000
Smoking/Vaping 16.74 23.45 -3.21 10.3 0.009 0.126
Prescribed Meds 16.19 22.08 -5.84 72.8 0.000 0.000 ***
Non-Prescribed Meds 16.74 23.55 -3.05 10.3 0.012 0.166
Prof. Mental Health Support 16.01 20.58 -6.06 135.4 0.000 0.000 ***
Other 16.89 16.62 0.32 67.4 0.747 1.000
None of the Above 16.94 13.69 2.23 12.8 0.044 0.621
Prefer Not to Say 16.85 19.50 -2.17 3.3 0.110 1.000
Support from Colleagues 17.70 16.61 1.58 186.2 0.116 1.000
Support from Family & Friends 16.09 17.00 -1.22 113.7 0.227 1.000
Exercise 17.42 16.73 0.98 157.6 0.329 1.000
Meditation/Mindfulness 16.42 18.29 -2.94 210.3 0.004 0.051
Faith Practices 16.88 16.73 0.15 56.4 0.883 1.000
Artistic/Creative Activities 16.72 17.46 -1.16 177.6 0.246 1.000
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Significance based on Bonferroni corrected p values. n comparisons = 14. Mean (No) = did not endorse strategy, Mean (Yes) = endorsed strategy.
Coping Strategy Use and Satisfaction With Life (SWLS)
Coping Strategy Mean (No) Mean (Yes) t df p p (Bonferroni)
Alcohol 24.53 24.16 0.74 442.0 0.459 1.000
Smoking/Vaping 24.49 19.82 2.15 10.3 0.057 0.791
Prescribed Meds 24.67 22.35 2.64 76.3 0.010 0.142
Non-Prescribed Meds 24.48 20.45 1.86 10.3 0.092 1.000
Prof. Mental Health Support 24.94 22.00 4.43 144.0 0.000 0.000 ***
Other 24.29 25.48 -1.63 69.7 0.107 1.000
None of the Above 24.43 23.08 0.83 11.5 0.422 1.000
Prefer Not to Say 24.50 10.50 7.51 3.1 0.004 0.061
Support from Colleagues 22.67 24.92 -3.46 183.4 0.001 0.009 **
Support from Family & Friends 22.08 24.81 -3.47 104.7 0.001 0.010
Exercise 22.82 24.78 -2.90 150.4 0.004 0.061
Meditation/Mindfulness 24.34 24.61 -0.49 244.2 0.622 1.000
Faith Practices 24.46 23.73 0.77 55.7 0.447 1.000
Artistic/Creative Activities 24.37 24.52 -0.23 170.0 0.816 1.000
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Significance based on Bonferroni corrected p values. n comparisons = 14. Mean (No) = did not endorse strategy, Mean (Yes) = endorsed strategy.
Coping Strategy Use and Secondary Traumatic Stress (STSS)
Coping Strategy Mean (No) Mean (Yes) t df p p (Bonferroni)
Alcohol 32.13 34.15 -1.91 428.5 0.056 0.791
Smoking/Vaping 32.75 37.45 -1.37 10.5 0.198 1.000
Prescribed Meds 31.77 41.09 -5.17 75.8 0.000 0.000 ***
Non-Prescribed Meds 32.61 45.60 -3.36 9.3 0.008 0.112
Prof. Mental Health Support 31.26 39.69 -6.02 142.0 0.000 0.000 ***
Other 32.83 32.98 -0.09 65.9 0.931 1.000
None of the Above 32.98 26.75 1.78 11.5 0.101 1.000
Prefer Not to Say 32.87 29.50 0.70 3.1 0.532 1.000
Support from Colleagues 34.49 32.36 1.57 181.6 0.119 1.000
Support from Family & Friends 31.01 33.16 -1.47 111.3 0.144 1.000
Exercise 33.83 32.61 0.87 150.0 0.383 1.000
Meditation/Mindfulness 32.02 35.47 -2.81 214.3 0.005 0.076
Faith Practices 32.90 32.23 0.35 55.2 0.727 1.000
Artistic/Creative Activities 32.33 34.92 -1.95 163.5 0.053 0.741
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Significance based on Bonferroni corrected p values. n comparisons = 14. Mean (No) = did not endorse strategy, Mean (Yes) = endorsed strategy.

Household and Labour Dynamics across Gender, Court Level, and Region

expand
Gender Differences in HILDA Work-Life Balance Items
HILDA Item Mean (Male, n=302) SD (Male) Mean (Female, n=291) SD (Female) t df p sig
Job interferes with family/home 2.63 0.89 2.95 0.90 -4.22 562.8 0.000 ***
Family/home interferes with job 3.54 0.80 3.66 0.80 -1.76 563.0 0.078
Sense of time 1.67 0.60 2.09 0.64 -7.93 561.1 0.000 ***
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Higher scores indicate less frequency (1 = Always, 5 = Never). Can’t Choose responses excluded.
Regional Differences in HILDA Work-Life Balance Items
HILDA Item Mean (Metro, n=512) SD (Metro) Mean (Regional, n=67) SD (Regional) t df p sig
Job interferes with family/home 2.80 0.90 2.63 1.00 1.25 74.3 0.215
Family/home interferes with job 3.58 0.81 3.63 0.66 -0.49 86.4 0.623
Sense of time 1.88 0.66 1.90 0.67 -0.31 76.6 0.755
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Higher scores indicate less frequency (1 = Always, 5 = Never). Can’t Choose responses excluded.
Court Level Differences in HILDA Work-Life Balance Items
HILDA Item Mean (Sup.) SD (Sup.) Mean (Dist.) SD (Dist.) Mean (Loc.) SD (Loc.) F df p sig
Job interferes with family/home 2.66 0.91 2.75 0.84 2.89 0.95 2.90 2 0.056
Family/home interferes with job 3.43 0.80 3.60 0.84 3.67 0.76 3.73 2 0.025
Sense of time 1.89 0.65 1.89 0.63 1.87 0.68 0.03 2 0.970
Note. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Higher scores indicate less frequency (1 = Always, 5 = Never). Can’t Choose responses excluded.

Sharyn: JAWS Response Patterns by Gender

expand
Table 1. JAWS Item Frequencies: Source of Satisfaction and Stress
Source of Satisfaction
Source of Stress
Item Sat n Never/Almost Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always N/A Str n Never/Almost Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always/Almost Always N/A
Working with judicial colleagues 571 8 (1.4%) 30 (5.3%) 119 (20.8%) 247 (43.3%) 167 (29.2%) 0 (0%) 571 132 (23.1%) 213 (37.3%) 171 (29.9%) 47 (8.2%) 8 (1.4%) 0 (0%)
Working with other court staff 574 5 (0.9%) 19 (3.3%) 119 (20.7%) 272 (47.4%) 159 (27.7%) 0 (0%) 574 140 (24.4%) 225 (39.2%) 165 (28.7%) 35 (6.1%) 9 (1.6%) 0 (0%)
Dealing with other staff in court 573 4 (0.7%) 35 (6.1%) 158 (27.6%) 262 (45.7%) 114 (19.9%) 0 (0%) 572 118 (20.6%) 239 (41.8%) 155 (27.1%) 48 (8.4%) 12 (2.1%) 0 (0%)
Relationship between judiciary and court admin 568 26 (4.6%) 100 (17.6%) 177 (31.2%) 166 (29.2%) 99 (17.4%) 0 (0%) 569 95 (16.7%) 168 (29.5%) 194 (34.1%) 90 (15.8%) 22 (3.9%) 0 (0%)
Appellate review of decisions 556 66 (11.9%) 142 (25.5%) 251 (45.1%) 77 (13.8%) 20 (3.6%) 0 (0%) 563 71 (12.6%) 134 (23.8%) 217 (38.5%) 87 (15.5%) 54 (9.6%) 0 (0%)
Judicial leadership within my court 565 55 (9.7%) 101 (17.9%) 159 (28.1%) 139 (24.6%) 111 (19.6%) 0 (0%) 565 109 (19.3%) 163 (28.8%) 156 (27.6%) 92 (16.3%) 45 (8%) 0 (0%)
Media commentary 547 157 (28.7%) 203 (37.1%) 167 (30.5%) 17 (3.1%) 3 (0.5%) 0 (0%) 553 79 (14.3%) 156 (28.2%) 208 (37.6%) 80 (14.5%) 30 (5.4%) 0 (0%)
Capacity to develop professionally 574 41 (7.1%) 98 (17.1%) 197 (34.3%) 168 (29.3%) 70 (12.2%) 0 (0%) 572 130 (22.7%) 197 (34.4%) 168 (29.4%) 61 (10.7%) 16 (2.8%) 0 (0%)
Going on circuit 423 25 (5.9%) 56 (13.2%) 113 (26.7%) 119 (28.1%) 110 (26%) 0 (0%) 427 98 (23%) 138 (32.3%) 122 (28.6%) 55 (12.9%) 14 (3.3%) 0 (0%)
Living away from home 383 89 (23.2%) 97 (25.3%) 122 (31.9%) 54 (14.1%) 21 (5.5%) 0 (0%) 385 77 (20%) 95 (24.7%) 117 (30.4%) 63 (16.4%) 33 (8.6%) 0 (0%)
Table 2. Often and Always/Almost Always N(%) by Gender
Satisfaction
Stress
Male
Female
Male
Female
Item n Often Always n Often Always n Often Always n Often Always
Working with judicial colleagues 302 113 (40.6%) 88 (31.7%) 291 127 (44.7%) 78 (27.5%) 302 27 (9.7%) 2 (0.7%) 291 20 (7%) 5 (1.8%)
Working with other court staff 302 128 (45.6%) 83 (29.5%) 291 141 (49.6%) 74 (26.1%) 302 13 (4.6%) 2 (0.7%) 291 20 (7%) 6 (2.1%)
Dealing with other staff in court 302 121 (43.2%) 60 (21.4%) 291 139 (48.9%) 53 (18.7%) 302 20 (7.2%) 3 (1.1%) 291 26 (9.2%) 8 (2.8%)
Relationship between judiciary and court admin 302 82 (29.4%) 56 (20.1%) 291 80 (28.6%) 43 (15.4%) 302 31 (11.1%) 5 (1.8%) 291 57 (20.4%) 16 (5.7%)
Appellate review of decisions 302 35 (12.8%) 9 (3.3%) 291 41 (15%) 10 (3.7%) 302 36 (12.9%) 15 (5.4%) 291 49 (17.8%) 39 (14.1%)
Judicial leadership within my court 302 68 (24.7%) 60 (21.8%) 291 71 (25.3%) 50 (17.8%) 302 35 (12.7%) 19 (6.9%) 291 54 (19.2%) 26 (9.3%)
Media commentary 302 10 (3.8%) 2 (0.8%) 291 7 (2.6%) 1 (0.4%) 302 32 (11.8%) 8 (3%) 291 45 (16.4%) 21 (7.7%)
Capacity to develop professionally 302 87 (31.1%) 33 (11.8%) 291 78 (27.4%) 37 (13%) 302 19 (6.8%) 7 (2.5%) 291 40 (14%) 9 (3.2%)
Going on circuit 302 56 (26.3%) 60 (28.2%) 291 62 (30.5%) 49 (24.1%) 302 20 (9.3%) 1 (0.5%) 291 35 (17%) 12 (5.8%)
Living away from home 302 32 (16.3%) 12 (6.1%) 291 22 (12.2%) 9 (5%) 302 32 (16.1%) 7 (3.5%) 291 30 (16.8%) 24 (13.4%)
Table 3. Often and Always/Almost Always N(%) by Court Level
Satisfaction
Stress
Supreme
District
Local
Supreme
District
Local
Item n Often Always n Often Always n Often Always n Often Always n Often Always n Often Always
Working with judicial colleagues 122 50 (43.9%) 46 (40.4%) 157 56 (38.1%) 41 (27.9%) 268 113 (44.1%) 68 (26.6%) 122 5 (4.4%) 1 (0.9%) 157 12 (8.2%) 0 (0%) 268 26 (10.2%) 6 (2.3%)
Working with other court staff 122 57 (49.6%) 37 (32.2%) 157 67 (45%) 37 (24.8%) 268 127 (49.4%) 74 (28.8%) 122 3 (2.6%) 0 (0%) 157 10 (6.7%) 1 (0.7%) 268 17 (6.6%) 6 (2.3%)
Dealing with other staff in court 122 52 (46%) 22 (19.5%) 157 61 (40.9%) 26 (17.4%) 268 127 (49.2%) 55 (21.3%) 122 8 (7.1%) 0 (0%) 157 13 (8.7%) 2 (1.3%) 268 23 (8.9%) 6 (2.3%)
Relationship between judiciary and court admin 122 34 (30.6%) 15 (13.5%) 157 38 (26.2%) 19 (13.1%) 268 80 (31%) 56 (21.7%) 122 13 (11.6%) 2 (1.8%) 157 29 (20%) 7 (4.8%) 268 40 (15.5%) 10 (3.9%)
Appellate review of decisions 122 16 (14.7%) 6 (5.5%) 157 20 (13.5%) 6 (4.1%) 268 34 (13.7%) 7 (2.8%) 122 8 (7.2%) 7 (6.3%) 157 36 (24.3%) 14 (9.5%) 268 36 (14.2%) 27 (10.7%)
Judicial leadership within my court 122 35 (31.2%) 36 (32.1%) 157 39 (26.4%) 26 (17.6%) 268 53 (21%) 38 (15.1%) 122 8 (7.1%) 1 (0.9%) 157 23 (15.5%) 9 (6.1%) 268 50 (19.9%) 28 (11.2%)
Media commentary 122 3 (2.8%) 0 (0%) 157 2 (1.4%) 1 (0.7%) 268 9 (3.7%) 2 (0.8%) 122 11 (10%) 3 (2.7%) 157 22 (15.3%) 7 (4.9%) 268 41 (16.5%) 15 (6%)
Capacity to develop professionally 122 47 (41.2%) 18 (15.8%) 157 41 (27.7%) 21 (14.2%) 268 64 (24.8%) 28 (10.9%) 122 7 (6.1%) 2 (1.8%) 157 18 (12.2%) 2 (1.4%) 268 30 (11.7%) 10 (3.9%)
Going on circuit 122 10 (16.7%) 13 (21.7%) 157 46 (36.2%) 34 (26.8%) 268 56 (28.6%) 49 (25%) 122 2 (3.3%) 1 (1.7%) 157 16 (12.5%) 6 (4.7%) 268 33 (16.7%) 7 (3.5%)
Living away from home 122 8 (13.3%) 3 (5%) 157 19 (16.1%) 8 (6.8%) 268 26 (15%) 8 (4.6%) 122 4 (6.7%) 2 (3.3%) 157 14 (11.9%) 7 (5.9%) 268 38 (21.8%) 23 (13.2%)

Natalie: JAWS Court Leadership as Source of Satisfaction and Stress

expand
Judicial Leadership Within My Court: Source of Satisfaction and Stress
Category Satisfaction Stress
Never/Almost Never 55 (9.7%) 109 (19.3%)
Seldom 101 (17.9%) 163 (28.8%)
Sometimes 159 (28.1%) 156 (27.6%)
Often 139 (24.6%) 92 (16.3%)
Always/Almost Always 111 (19.6%) 45 (8%)
N/A 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Judicial Leadership Within My Court by Gender
Male
Female
Category Satisfaction Stress Satisfaction Stress
Never/Almost Never 29 (10.5%) 68 (24.7%) 26 (9.3%) 41 (14.6%)
Seldom 37 (13.5%) 88 (32%) 61 (21.7%) 73 (26%)
Sometimes 81 (29.5%) 65 (23.6%) 73 (26%) 87 (31%)
Often 68 (24.7%) 35 (12.7%) 71 (25.3%) 54 (19.2%)
Always/Almost Always 60 (21.8%) 19 (6.9%) 50 (17.8%) 26 (9.3%)
N/A 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Judicial Leadership Within My Court by Court Level
Supreme
District
Local
Category Satisfaction Stress Satisfaction Stress Satisfaction Stress
Never/Almost Never 5 (4.5%) 37 (33%) 15 (10.1%) 30 (20.3%) 28 (11.1%) 34 (13.5%)
Seldom 5 (4.5%) 32 (28.6%) 35 (23.6%) 44 (29.7%) 55 (21.8%) 75 (29.9%)
Sometimes 31 (27.7%) 34 (30.4%) 33 (22.3%) 42 (28.4%) 78 (31%) 64 (25.5%)
Often 35 (31.2%) 8 (7.1%) 39 (26.4%) 23 (15.5%) 53 (21%) 50 (19.9%)
Always/Almost Always 36 (32.1%) 1 (0.9%) 26 (17.6%) 9 (6.1%) 38 (15.1%) 28 (11.2%)
N/A 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Judicial Leadership Within My Court by Location
Metro
Other (Regional, Remote)
Category Satisfaction Stress Satisfaction Stress
Never/Almost Never 46 (9.5%) 98 (20.3%) 6 (10%) 6 (10%)
Seldom 84 (17.4%) 136 (28.2%) 13 (21.7%) 22 (36.7%)
Sometimes 133 (27.6%) 133 (27.5%) 18 (30%) 16 (26.7%)
Often 123 (25.5%) 78 (16.1%) 12 (20%) 10 (16.7%)
Always/Almost Always 96 (19.9%) 38 (7.9%) 11 (18.3%) 6 (10%)
N/A 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

```

Terese: Free Text Response Count by Gender

expand
Number of Participants Responding to Open-Ended Questions by Gender
Gender STSS Open Text Trauma Comments K10 Open Text JAWS Open Text Final Comments Manage Stress Other
Female 74 0 55 91 90 28
Male 66 1 43 82 70 25
NA 2 0 2 3 3 1
Total 142 1 100 176 163 54