USAID YOUTH POWER 
Community Endline Report
Table of Contents
Endline Summary .........................................................................................................................................3
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................4
Sample size and sample target: ...............................................................................................................4
Indicator Results...........................................................................................................................................5
Findings.........................................................................................................................................................5
Demographics...........................................................................................................................................5
Educational Level......................................................................................................................................6
Voluntarism/civic engagement................................................................................................................6
Improve Opportunity, Well-being and Civic Engagement for Youth......................................................7
Improve Quality of Available Services and Positive Opportunities for Youth .......................................9
Recommendations .....................................................................................................................................11
Tables of Quantitative analysis using SPSS ...............................................................................................12
Endline Summary
This report aimed at formulating the findings of the analyses of the endline data that was collected from 
the community after the completion of USAID YouthPower interventions with the targeted participants in 
the 12 governorates in Jordan. Moreover, this report illustrates a clear comparison between the baseline 
and endline data of the specific identified outcomes and indicators where it will reflect the impact of 
USAID YouthPower activity on the community that was involved in the interventions. 
The Community endline survey collected the same set of questions that was also collected in the baseline 
and midline surveys that are related to project indicators which will help in measuring, comparing, and 
analyzing the values against each other. The general purpose of the survey was to provide the values of 
the following indicators post USAID YouthPower activity interventions: 
 Goal [SIR 3.2.3]: Improved Opportunity, Well-being, and Civic Engagement for Youth
o % of targeted at-risk youth reporting increased opportunities for prosocial involvement 
in the community at the conclusion of training/programming
 Result 1: Increased Awareness and Use of Existing Programs and Positive Opportunities by 
Youth 
o % of targeted at-risk youth reporting increased awareness of existing avenues for positive 
youth engagement
 Result 2: Improved Quality of Available Services and Positive Opportunities for Youth
o % of youth reporting increased utility of existing avenues for positive youth engagement
The endline analysis showed that USAID YouthPower activity was able to successfully impact the 
community in different way. In specific, the collected data revealed that the interventions positively 
impacted the participants and the community through increasing the percent of targeted at-risk youth 
reporting increased opportunities for prosocial involvement in the community at the conclusion of 
training/programming, where it was shown that in the baseline only 65% of the survey participants 
reported that but in the endline around 80.7% reported increased opportunities for prosocial involvement 
in the community. Additionally, it was shown that 83% of females reported an increase in the 
opportunities for prosocial involvement in the community and 77% of males reported the same.
Moreover, during the endline data analysis it was reported that 53% of the respondents showed an 
increase in their awareness around any existing programs upon the completion of USAID YouthPower 
interventions. Given that in the baseline only 37% of the survey participants reported the increase in their 
awareness around existing program, it is obvious that the activity was able to enhance the participants 
awareness. Disaggregated by gender, 51% of females and 57% of males reported an increase in their 
awareness of existing program. 
Furthermore, the survey results indicated that 88.9% of the respondent’s youth reported that they saw 
that there is an increase in the youth center attendees, in comparison with the baseline data, which was 
saying that 79.8% reported seeing an increase, it is clear that there is an progress in the percent of youth 
that believe they saw a growth in in the youth center attendees by 9.1%. 53% of the respondents reported 
increased awareness of existing avenues for positive youth engagement, which shows an improvement 
comparing to the baseline data, that indicated that 37% of the respondents reported an awareness of 
existing avenues, by 16%.
Finally, the participant youth suggested few points to improve the quality and increase youth utilities in 
the youth centers/places, such as, outreach more vulnerable youth, organize activities that can mainly 
target youth with disabilities and minority youth, increasing the number of activities that can help youth 
to generate income, developing training courses that can raised youth capacities in social media and 
digital platforms and much more. Also, in the endline survey, youth reported that they would like to see 
more services that provide capacity building courses that can enhanced youth’s experience in all the 
careers that are now available in the labour market, career guidance services, services that can enhance 
youth’s self-esteem and confidence, sports clubs where youth can discover their talents and provide life 
skills training like communication skills, languages courses and self-development courses.
Methodology
Aiming at achieving the endline evaluation objectives in the most efficient and effective manner, the 
project team had adopted a descriptive field survey methodology implemented through using the 
Communities that Care Youth Survey (CTCYS) and also developing a customized questionnaires to answer 
the indicators. The survey was designed to collect the needed data from selected respondents among the 
survey population from each community type; Jordanian citizens, Syrian refugees, Palestinians and other 
nationalities in 60-targeted communities in Jordan.
Sample size and sample target:
Same as the baseline and midline assessments, the sampling size was determined based on Proportions 
Stratified sampling method, in the 12 governorates youth (Jordanian and Syrian - from ages 10-29)
population size. In addition, applying USAID’s criteria to select the youth from the 60 communities in the 
12 governorates:
 High school dropout rate.
 High concentration of Syrian refugees as identified by UNHCR.
 Regions (sub-districts) of extreme poverty.
Within this sampling frame, data was collected from youth with a statistically representative sample at a 
95 percent confidence level, with a margin of error of 5 percent. To ensure better representation of the 
60-targeted communities weigh of population at each area was applied to divide the sample size at each 
community in the same governorate.
Data was collected through tablets and was then processed and analyzed through Statistical Package for 
Social Sciences software (SPSS), Microsoft Excel and Microsoft PowerBI.
The information was collected from targeted governorates as shown in the table below:
GOVERNORATE # OF RESPONSES 
Ajloun 2
Al-Balqa 42
Amman 298
Aqaba 65
Irbid 168
Jerash 71
Karak 55
Maan 59
Mafraq 9
Tafieleh 38
Zarqa 6
Total 813
Indicator Results
# Indicator Tool used to 
measure
Baseline 
value
Midline 
value
Endline 
value
Goal [SIR 3.2.3]: Improved Opportunity, Well-being, and Civic Engagement for Youth
G3 % of targeted at-risk youth reporting increased 
opportunities for prosocial involvement in the 
community at the conclusion of training/programming
CTCYS subscale 
on
Prosocial 
Involvement –
Community
65% 63% 80.7%
Result 1: Increased Awareness and Use of Existing Programs and Positive Opportunities by Youth 
R1.1 % of targeted at-risk youth reporting increased awareness 
of existing avenues for positive youth engagement
Custom 
Questions
37% 54% 53%
Result 2: Improved Quality of Available Services and Positive Opportunities for Youth
R2.2 % of youth reporting increased utility of existing avenues 
for positive youth engagement
Custom 
Questions
79.8% 77% 88.9%
Findings
Demographics
Throughout the survey, 62.5% (508) of the 
respondents were females and 37.5% (305) were 
males in the areas. The age of the respondents was 
between (10 and 29) with an average of 22 years old.
93.7% were Jordanians, 3.4% were Syrians, 1.5%
Palestinians, 0.7% Iraqi and the rest were from other 
nationalities. The following chart represents the 
distribution of respondents in each area studied.
Figure 1: Number of respondents disaggregated by gender 
Educational Level
The survey showed that out of 813 survey participants, 
495 were enrolled in education institute in the past but 
not anymore, 299 are currently enrolled and 16 
participants have never been enrolled in an educational 
institute before. 
Out of the 299 that are currently enrolled in an 
educational institution; 64% are in universities, 18% are
enrolled school, 15% enrolled in diploma, 2% in post￾graduate programs and the rest are enrolled in other 
educational institutes.
In the vocational training enrollment section, out of 813, 471 stated that they have never been enrolled 
in a vocational training program before. However, 283 respondents reported that they are not enrolled 
now but they have been in the past and 50 are currently part of a vocational training program.
People that were enrolled or currently enrolled in a vocational training were asked about the type of 
vocational training they were/are enrolled in, and they mentioned different types such as:
 Data Entry course
 Knowledge transfer course
 Hotel management
 Computer skills course
 Hairdressing
 Sewing
 Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
 Life skills course
 CV writing and interview skills
 Carpentry
Voluntarism/civic engagement
Community members engaged in the survey were asked about any volunteering work/ activities that they 
have been part of in the past or currently taking part in through a set of questions to know more about 
the community perspective of voluntary work and volunteering. 
Out of all respondents, 53.4% reported
they are not volunteering now but they 
have volunteered before, 24.6% said 
that they are volunteering now, and 
22% stated that they have not 
volunteers at all in the past. From those 
who volunteered in the past or currently 
volunteering, 72% pointed that they 
volunteer/volunteered at their 
communities, 20% pointed that the 
volunteer/volunteered in their 
Figure 2: Number of respondents reporting on their education level
Figure 3: Volunteer work disaggregated by areas
communities and other communities and 8% reported that they volunteer/volunteered in other 
communities. 
A set of follow up questions were asked to the respondents who reported that they either volunteered in 
the past or are currently volunteering to understand more how many hours do they usually volunteer, if
they receive any incentives, what exactly motivates them to do such work and much more questions.
28.7% of respondents stated that they volunteered around 2-5 hours/month when they were mostly 
engaged in voluntary work, 19.9% said that they 
volunteered more than 20 hours/month, 17.5% 
volunteered between 6-10 hours/month. The chart 
shows all responses and percentages for each option. 
Of those who were engaged in the survey, 275 
(64.8%) said that they sometimes receive incentives 
such as money, school credit, transportation 
allowance, meals and gifts for their voluntarism work. 
Moreover, 77 (18.2%) reported that they never
receive incentives and 72 (17%) mentioned that they 
always receive incentives for their volunteering.
To understand what motivates community members to be part of any volunteering work the most in the 
endline survey, a survey question was added to ask the respondent about the motivation behind their 
volunteering and the answers were as following:
 309 respondents said that they love helping people
 255 reported that they engage in voluntary work for the sake of the experience 
 181 mentioned that they do it to get recommendation letters and certificates
 143 reported that they volunteer to get some money incentives
 11 said that they do it for other reasons 
From people who reported receiving incentives (either always or sometimes), 321 said that the type of 
incentives they got is mostly transportation fees, 34 mentioned that they received money allowances and 
19 highlighted that they were provided other types of incentives.
The youth were also asked if they are currently part of any type of sports, social, art cultural institutions 
or group to see the engagement of those youth in the community. 129 reported that they are not part of 
any institution or group in the community and 7 said that they are engaged in a group. All of those who 
are engaged in one group, or more are currently engaged in a sports club and one in a non-profit 
association.
Improve Opportunity, Well-being and Civic Engagement for Youth
To best capture the improvement of youth opportunity, well-being and civic engagement, the baseline 
and endline surveys included a set of questions taken from The Communities that Care Youth Survey 
(CTCYS) that was designed to assess adolescent prevention needs in order to support strategic community 
prevention planning. It measures adolescent problem behaviors such as drug use, delinquency, and 
violence and the risk and protective factors that predict those problems in communities. Thus, a subscale 
from the CTCYS on Prosocial Involvement – Community was taken and included in the survey.
Figure 4: Percent of people reported each number of hours/month 
for their volunteering work
The scale score in the tool is average of seven items (with a minimum of 1 and maximum of 4). Higher 
score indicates higher opportunities for prosocial involvement in the community. The endline data 
analysis showed that 80.7% of the surveyed participants reported increased opportunities for prosocial 
involvement in the community at the conclusion of training/programming. Given that in the baseline 
survey only 65% reported an increase opportunity and in the midline survey 63% reported the same, it is 
clear that the activity was successful in increasing the opportunities for prosocial involvement in the 
community for the participants youth.
The findings indicated that the higher average was 
reported in Karak governorate with an overall average of 
(3.15) followed by Irbid governorate with an average of 
(3.07) and the lowest average was reported in Mafraq 
with (2.22). Furthermore, the analyses found that 
females reported a higher average than males with (3.0) 
and (2.8) respectively. Additionally, it was shown that 
83% of females reported an increase in the opportunities 
for prosocial involvement in the community and 77% of 
males reported the same.
Increased Awareness and use of existing programs and positive opportunities by Youth
To measure the awareness of youth around any existing programs a set of questions were asked in the 
baseline survey, midline survey and endline survey to respondents that include 8 questions with 5 choices
(from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) where having more score meansthat the youth are more aware 
of available positive opportunities and programs. In the endline data, the results showed the mean of all 
youth was (3.57) with a standard deviation of (0.73).
Additionally, it was shown that 53% of the 
respondents reported an increase in their awareness 
around any existing programs upon the completion of 
USAID YouthPower interventions. Given that in the 
baseline only 37% of the survey participants reported 
the increase in their awareness around existing 
program, it is obvious that the activity was able to 
enhance the participants awareness. In Mafraq, 
Youth reported the highest mean among all 
governorates (4.00) and in Zarqa youth showed the 
lowest mean (3.10). Disaggregated by gender, males
reported the higher mean (3.66) than females (3.52). All in all, 51% of females and 57% of males reported 
an increase in their awareness of existing program.
Figure 5: CTCYS average scores disaggregated by 
governorates.
Figure 6: Means of awareness of existing programs scale 
disaggregated by governorates
Improve Quality of Available Services and Positive Opportunities for Youth 
To evaluate the impact of USAID YouthPower impact on the 
perception of youth on the quality of available services in 
the targeted communities, the baseline, midline and 
endline surveysincluded question to ask whether the youth 
are aware of any youth services or youth avenues/places in 
the community.
74.4% of the respondent in the endline survey reported 
that they are aware of available services and opportunities 
in their communities. This showed an increase in the 
percentage comparing to the baseline data which indicated 
that 63.65% of the participants reported their awareness of 
available services or opportunities in their communities. 
Furthermore, surveyed youth were asked if they have ever attended/ joined/ participated/ checked any 
youth services oy youth places, the results indicated that 64% youth did attend / join/ participate/ check
youth services or centers. On the other hand, 36% did not attend/ join/ participated/ checked any services
for youth. From those who reported that they have never been engaged in any youth center specified 
several reasons behind not engaging in them such as:
 Most of the available services are far from the youth’s homes 
 Not being aware of any service or place
 The timing of the activities doesn’t suit the youth’s free time
 Lack of self-motivation to be part of any activity 
 Having mixed gender center 
 Having to travel long distance to reach for any center
 Very poor transportation means
 Parents not allowing their children to attend 
Respondents were asked to name any youth service/ place they have used/ participated in during the past
period, and they mentioned few places such as:
 Marka Youth center 
 Aqaba center
 All Jordan Youth center
 Zaha cultural center
 Youth for tomorrow center
 Juhoud centers
 Karak Youth center 
Figure 7: Percent of youth reporting their awareness of available 
services and opportunities
Around 32.36% of the youth reported spending more 
between 2-3 hours/month in the youth center and 
26.32% stated that they spent from 4-6 hour/ month in 
the youth service/center. In addition, 19.49% 
mentioned that they spent between more than 10
hour/month as shown in the chart.
To better understand the situation of youth centers and 
services in Jordan, the endline survey asked the youth 
whether they see increased number of participants/ 
beneficiaries at the youth center. 88.9% of the surveyed 
youth reported that they saw that there is an increase in the youth center attendees, in comparison with 
the baseline data, which was saying that 79.8% reported seeing an increase, it is clear that there is an 
increase in the percent of youth that believe they saw a growth in in the youth center attendees.
The results indicated that 39.34% of the respondents 
feel that the quality of the available services is very 
good and 28.88% mentioned that the quality is 
average. Furthermore, 17% said that the quality of 
services is excellent and 10.47% added that it is 
acceptable and finally 3.88% reported that it is bad.
Youth that reported that they feel that the centers 
and services are excellent or very good said that they feel 
this way due to the type of provided activities, the 
trainers, the respect that they feel from the management 
and trainers, the skills that they gain and the physical space that have all needed equipment and facilities.
Moreover, they indicated that they saw acceptance from their peers and trainers which increased their 
self-esteem and made them enjoy spending time in the center. 
On the other hand, participants that mentioned that the centers/services are average, acceptable, or bad 
said that they feel this way because they think that the provided activities need to be more interactive,
and they should be more suitable for youth with disabilities and all age groups. In addition, they felt that 
the management team in the center needs to be more aware about the youth’s needs and be close to the 
participants. The participants also mentioned that they believe that those centers need support from the 
local government to advance their services, facilities, and staff capacities.
In terms of the suggestions that the youth mentioned to improve the quality and increase youth utilities 
in the youth centers/places, the following points were mentioned couple of times:
 Outreach more vulnerable youth 
 Organize activities that can mainly target youth with disabilities and minority youth
 Increase the activities that can help youth to generate income 
 Develop training courses that can raised youth capacities in social media and digital platforms 
 Increase the number of interventions and trainers
 Create safe spaces in those centers for youth with disabilities
Figure 8: Hours spent in youth centers/places that was 
reported by youth
Figure 9: Percent of respondent on each rate of the 
quality of services
 Develop new material and training to the target parents and more community members 
 Provide more awareness raising sessions that can talking about gender inclusion, environmental 
issues, livelihood opportunities and vocational trainings.
In the endline survey, youth reported that they would like to see more services that can provide 
opportunities for:
 Capacity building courses that can enhanced youth’s experience in all the careers that are now 
available in the labour market
 Career guidance services
 Services that can enhance youth’s self-esteem and confidence 
 Sports clubs where youth can discover their talents 
 Activities that can connect decision makers with the youth in the community 
 Develop more safe spaces for entrepreneurs 
 Provide life skills training like communication skills, languages courses, and self-development 
courses
Recommendations
 Although the percent of youth that reported that they are aware of existing youth centers and 
programs is higher than the baseline, but it can be improved more in the future. Thus, it is 
recommended to add additional interventions that can work on youth’s awareness in the 
community around any existing programs, courses and positive opportunities that can improve 
young people’s wellbeing and civic engagement skills.
 As mentioned by the youth, develop more career guidance services and activity that can support 
youth in better planning for their future career and for their engagement in the labour market 
 As respondents also mentioned the need of safe spaces in youth centers and capacity building 
workshops is high. Thus, creating safe spaces inside available centers and develop programs that 
would provide workshops which focus on professional behavior, networking and interview skills, 
English skills, Computer skills, and basic job-hunting and resume-writing skills would help youth 
develop the more general skills they need to find opportunities.
Tables of Quantitative analysis using SPSS
Frequencies
Statistics
Governorate Gender Age group Age Nationality
N Valid 813 813 813 813 813
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Frequency Table
Governorate
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid Ajloun 2 .2 .2 .2
Al-Balqa 42 5.2 5.2 5.4
Amman 298 36.7 36.7 42.1
Aqaba 65 8.0 8.0 50.1
Irbid 168 20.7 20.7 70.7
Jerash 71 8.7 8.7 79.5
Karak 55 6.8 6.8 86.2
Maan 59 7.3 7.3 93.5
Mafraq 9 1.1 1.1 94.6
Tafieleh 38 4.7 4.7 99.3
Zarqa 6 .7 .7 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid Female 508 62.5 62.5 62.5
Male 305 37.5 37.5 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Age group
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid (10-14) 28 3.4 3.4 3.4
(15-19) 116 14.3 14.3 17.7
(20-24) 405 49.8 49.8 67.5
(25-29) 264 32.5 32.5 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 10 1 .1 .1 .1
11 2 .2 .2 .4
12 3 .4 .4 .7
13 12 1.5 1.5 2.2
14 10 1.2 1.2 3.4
15 7 .9 .9 4.3
16 6 .7 .7 5.0
17 12 1.5 1.5 6.5
18 36 4.4 4.4 10.9
19 55 6.8 6.8 17.7
20 71 8.7 8.7 26.4
21 101 12.4 12.4 38.9
22 78 9.6 9.6 48.5
23 76 9.3 9.3 57.8
24 79 9.7 9.7 67.5
25 73 9.0 9.0 76.5
26 53 6.5 6.5 83.0
27 46 5.7 5.7 88.7
28 39 4.8 4.8 93.5
29 53 6.5 6.5 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Nationality
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid Iraqi 6 .7 .7 .7
Jordanian 762 93.7 93.7 94.5
Other 5 .6 .6 95.1
Palestiniane 12 1.5 1.5 96.6
Syrian 28 3.4 3.4 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Statistics
Gender 
N Valid 813
Missing 0
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid Female 508 62.5 62.5 62.5
Male 305 37.5 37.5 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Frequency Table
Q1
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 3 .4 .4 .4
No, but I was enrolled in the past 495 60.9 60.9 61.3
No, I have never been enrolled 16 2.0 2.0 63.2
Yes I am enrolled now 299 36.8 36.8 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Q6
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 9 1.1 1.1 1.1
I am not in a training program 
now but have been in the past.
283 34.8 34.8 35.9
No, I have never been in a 
training program.
471 57.9 57.9 93.8
Yes, I am in a training program 
now.
50 6.2 6.2 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Q8
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 9 1.1 1.1 1.1
I am not volunteering now, but 
have done so in the past.
430 52.9 52.9 54.0
I am volunteering now. 198 24.4 24.4 78.4
No, I have not volunteered 176 21.6 21.6 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Q9
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 390 48.0 48.0 48.0
At my community. 303 37.3 37.3 85.2
In both my community and in 
other communities.
86 10.6 10.6 95.8
In other communities. 34 4.2 4.2 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Q10
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 391 48.1 48.1 48.1
11-15 hours/month 48 5.9 5.9 54.0
15-20 hours/month 47 5.8 5.8 59.8
2-5 hours/month 121 14.9 14.9 74.7
6-10 hours/month 74 9.1 9.1 83.8
Less than 2 hours/month 48 5.9 5.9 89.7
More than 20 hours/month 84 10.3 10.3 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Q11
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 389 47.8 47.8 47.8
Always 72 8.9 8.9 56.7
Never 77 9.5 9.5 66.2
Sometimes 275 33.8 33.8 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Q14
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 677 83.3 83.3 83.3
No 129 15.9 15.9 99.1
Yes 7 .9 .9 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Total Q16 813 .000000000000
000
4.00000000000
0000
2.91656709424
2372
.960582067775
556
Valid N (listwise) 813
q16avg
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid .00 157 19.3 19.3 19.3
1.00 656 80.7 80.7 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Total q17 813 1.00000000000
0000
5.00000000000
0000
3.57257072570
7255
.731082921364
214
Valid N (listwise) 813
q17avg
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid .00 381 46.9 46.9 46.9
1.00 432 53.1 53.1 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Statistics
Q18 Q19 Q22 Q23 Q24
N Valid 813 813 813 813 813
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Q18
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 1 .1 .1 .1
No 208 25.6 25.6 25.7
Yes 604 74.3 74.3 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Q19
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 5 .6 .6 .6
No 291 35.8 35.8 36.4
Yes 517 63.6 63.6 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Q22
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 300 36.9 36.9 36.9
1 hr or less 64 7.9 7.9 44.8
2-3 hr 166 20.4 20.4 65.2
4-6 hr 135 16.6 16.6 81.8
6-10 hr 48 5.9 5.9 87.7
More 100 12.3 12.3 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Q23
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 299 36.8 36.8 36.8
No 57 7.0 7.0 43.8
Yes 457 56.2 56.2 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0
Q24
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative 
Percent
Valid 297 36.5 36.5 36.5
Acceptable 54 6.6 6.6 43.2
Average 149 18.3 18.3 61.5
Bad 20 2.5 2.5 64.0
Excellent 90 11.1 11.1 75.0
Very Good 203 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 813 100.0 100.0