National Survey on Drug Use and Health 2016-2017
First round
Nigeria, 2016 - 2017
Get Microdata
Reference ID
NGA-NBS-NDUS-2016-2017-v01
Producer(s)
National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Centre for Research and Information on Substance Abuse (CRISA)
Metadata
Created on
Mar 19, 2021
Last modified
Mar 19, 2021
Page views
707066
Downloads
20015
FEELINGS OVER PROBLEMS FACED BY THE COMMUNITY AS REGARD WORK/EMPLOYED RELATED (D11WorkEmployment)
Data file: KEY INFORMANT DATA
Overview
Valid:
1107
Type:
Discrete
Start:
1467
End:
1568
Width:
102
Range:
-
Format:
character
Questions and instructions
Question pretext
We are interested in trying to get a detailed picture of drug use patterns in your area. By this I mean information such as age at which drug users typically start to use drugs, their socio economic status, and which drugs are associated with serious problems in your area and so on.
Literal question
Now, could you describe in your own words what you feel are the most important problems faced by the COMMUNITY as a result of drug use in your area? Work/employment related
Categories
| Value | Category | Cases | |
|---|---|---|---|
| . LOSS OF JOB DUE TO TRUANCY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| 1 JOB LOST FOR THE COMMUNITY 2. LOW PRODUCTION OUTPUT 3. LOW MANPOWER; | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ABANDOMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ABANDONED WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| ABANDONMENT OF JOBS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ABSCOND FROM WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ABSCONDEMENT FROM WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ABSCONDUMENT FROM WORK. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ABSENCE FROM WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ABSENT AT WORK/ NOT EMPLOYABLE AT ALL SOMETIMES DUE TO DRUG HABITS. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ABSENTEEISM, UNSERIOUSNESS AT WORK | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| ABSENTIEISM AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ABSENTING ONES SELF FROM WORK AND IN SOME CASES LOOSING THE JOB | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ABSENTING ONES SELF FROM WORK AND IN SOME CASES LOSING THE JOB | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ACCIDENTS HAPPEN | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| AFFECT EDUCTION AND OTHER DEV IN THE COMMUNITY | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| ALWAYS NOT OF GOOD MORALS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ALWAYS NOT PRODUCTIVE, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ALWAYS OUT OF EMPLOYMENT | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| ARE NOT EFFECTIVE IN THEIR WORK PLACE AND ALSO NOT STABLE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ARREST | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| AS A RESULT OF DRUG USE OUR COMMUNITY BECOMES A HARBOUR OF THIEVES AND USUALLY YOUNG PEOPLE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| AT WORK PLACE, DRUG USERS ARE STIGMATISED, THEY FEEL BAD AND THEY BECOME HOSTILE TO THIER COLLEGUES | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| AT WORK THEY ARE ALWAYS BACKWARD INSTATE OF PROGRESSING IN MOST CASES ,THEY ARE SACKED BECAUSE THEY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| BECAUSE OF THEIR INABILITY TO FUNCTION VERY WELL IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO GET EMPLOYED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| BREACH OF THE LAW | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| BREAK DOWN OF LAW AND ORDER | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| CAN LEAD TO UNEMPLOYMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| CAN MAKE THEM LAZY AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| CANNOT ENGAGE IN COMMUNITY WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| CANT KEEP A JOB. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| CANT KEEP UP WITH JOB | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| CARELESSNESS, ACCIDENT EVEN DEATH DUE TO HUMAN ERROR AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| CASUAL WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| CHEATING | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| COMMUNITY LACKS MANPOWER | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| COMMUNITY LOOSE CREDIBLE HANDS IN THE JOB OPPORTUNITIES, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| COMMUNITY LOOSE VARIABLE HANDS IN WORK FORCE DUE TO DRUG USAGE, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| COMMUNITY PROJECTS ARE BADLY DONE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| COMPANIES DO NOT LIKE SITING PROJECTS IN SUCH COMMUNITIES FOR FEAR OF KIDNAPPING | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| COMPANIES REMOVE THEIR ATTENTION FROM THE COMMUNITY WHEN PICKING WORKERS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| CREATES A BIG VACUMN IN COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DECREASE IN COMMUNITY MANPOWER | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DECREASE IN PRODUCTIVITY AND SKILLS; | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DECREASED COMMUNITY MANPOWER | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DECREASED WORK FORCE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DECRIMINATION AT PLACE OF WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| DESTITUTION UNPRODUCTIVE YOUTHS ARE INCREASING | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DESTITUTION UNPRODUCTIVE YOUTHS ARE INCREASING. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DIFFICULTY AT WORK PLACE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DISCORDANT TUNES, UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DISCRIMINATION IN THE OFFICE | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| DISHARMONY AT WORK | 5 |
0.5%
|
|
| DISMISSAL FROM PLACE OF WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| DISMISSAL FROM PLACES OF WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DISMISSED FROM WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DISTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR; STEALING FROM OFFICES, TAKE THE NAME OF ORGNIZATION TO THE MUD; | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DIVSION OF COMMUNITY FUNDS FOR DRUGS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| DO NOT PROSSES THE ABILITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DO NOT PUT IN THEIR BEST. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DON'T HAVE A GOOD ATTITUDE TO WORK. | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| DON'T KNOW | 39 |
3.5%
|
|
| DON’T WORK EFFECTIVELY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DROP IN PRODUCTIVITY | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| DRUG ABUSERS ARE NOT READY TO WORK OR LEARN UNDER SOME BOSS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DRUG USERS ARE HARDLY GIVEN MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE PERCEIVED OF AS UNPRODUCTIVE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DRUG USERS ARE USUALLY UNEMPLOYED | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| DRUG USERS DON’T OBEY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AT WORK, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DRUG USERS DON’T USUALLY HAVE JOBS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| DRUG USERS WILL HARDLY BE GIVEN MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE PERCEIVED AS UNPRODUCTIVE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| EASILY SACKED IF DISCOVERED | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| ECONOMIC PROBLEMS | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| EMPLOYERS REJECT DRUG ADDICT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| EMPLOYERS SEE THEM AS THREATS TO THEIR WELL BEING SO THEY ARE ALWAYS SCARED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| EMPLOYMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| EMPLOYMENT RELATED: TOO MUCH COMPLAIN INTERMS OF ACTIVITIES AND MEMORY LOSS. | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| ERRONEOUS WORK, SLEEPING ON DUTY | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| FAILURE TO BE DEDICATED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| FATAL ACCIDENT DUE TO ERROR AND LOW MORALE | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| FIGHT AND ABSENTEEISM | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| FRAUD,DECREASED PRODUCTIVITY OF COMMUNITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| FREQUENT DISMISAL FROM WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| GENERAL LOSS OF REVENUE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| GOING BY THE ETHIC OF CIVIL SERVICE RULES & REGULATIONS. NOT GOOD . | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| GOVT ABANDON SUCH COMMUNITY DUE TO DRUG PROBLEMS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| GOVT ABANDON SUCH COMMUNITY ON PROJECTS AND EMPLOYMENT DUE TO DRUG PROBLEMS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| HARASS COWORKERS AT THE SLIGHTEST OPPORTUNITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| HARDLY EMPLOYED | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| HARDLY ENGAGED IN MEANINGFUL VENTURE, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| HARDLY GET EMPLOYED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| HAVE NO RESPECT FOR FELLOW COLLEAGUES | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| HAVE POOR ATTITUDE TO WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| HAVE PROBLEM WITH THEIR FELLOW WORKERS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| HAVING FACEOFF WITH THE LAW OF YOUR COUNTRY. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| HE/SHE IS CARELESS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| HEY CAN NOT FILL INTO VACANCIES IN THE COMMUNITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| HIGH CHANCES OF GETTING SACKED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| HIGH NUMBER OF DEPENDENCY, UNEMPLOYMENTS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| HIGH NUMBER OF DRUG USERS ARE INCAPABLE TO MAINTAIN WORK AND HIGHLY FOUND TO BE UNEMPLOYED, | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| HIGH RATE OF SCHOOL DROP OUTS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| HIGH RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT | 8 |
0.7%
|
|
| HIGH RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT, | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| HIGH TURNOVER AND LOW PRODUCTIVITY | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| HIGHER RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| IF EMPLOYED THEY HARDLY LAST LONG | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| IMPRISONMENT, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| IN HIS/HER WORKING PLACE ALWAYS BACKWARD. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| IN MOST CASES THE EMPLOYERS BECOME AFFECTED BY SUCH BEHAVIOURS OF DRUG USERS. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| INABILITY TO FUNCTION WELL IN PLACE OF WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| INACCURATE WORK SCHEDULE,LATENESS TO WORK,POOR PERFORMANEENGAGE IN BREAKDOWN OF ORDER,DESTRUCTION OF | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| INACTIVE AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| INCOMPETENT | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| INCOMPETENT FOR WORK/STEALING RESOURCES | 5 |
0.5%
|
|
| INCOMPETENT IN JOB | 14 |
1.3%
|
|
| INCONSISTENCY AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| INCREASE IN NO OF UNEMPLOYED YOUTH | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| INCREASE IN UNEMPLOYMENT AND HELPLESS YOUTH | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| INCREASE LOSS OF JOBS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| INCREASE NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED YOUTH | 5 |
0.5%
|
|
| INCREASED MANUAL LABOU WORKERS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| INDISCIPLINE. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| INEFFECTIVE IN DISCHARGING DUTIES | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| INEFFICIECY AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| INEFFICIENCY AND LOW PRODUCTIVITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| INSECURITY ATWORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| INSECURITY& NONCHALLANT ATTITUDE | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| INSUBORDINATION AND TRANCY AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| INSURBORDINATION AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| IS NOT ENCOURAGING | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| IT AFFECT THE YOUNG ONES IN TERMS OF SCHOLARSHIP AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE COMMUNITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| IT AFFECTS THEIR CAPACITY TO WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| IT CAUSES BROKEN HOMES | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| IT INCREASES UNEMPLOYMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| IT INHABITS EMPLOYEMENT AND AFFECT CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY OBJECTIVES OF COMPANY IN THE COMMUNITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| IT MAKES THEM LESS PRODUCTIVE AND USEFUL IN THE SOCIETY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| IT RELEGATE USERS TO POOR PERFORMANCE, NONCOMPLETION OF ASSIGNMENT ETC. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| ITS ALWAYS NO JOBS DUE TO CONTINOUS DRUG USE. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| JEOPARDISED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| JOB INCOMPETENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| JOB INCOMPETENT, | 22 |
2%
|
|
| JOB LOSS | 24 |
2.2%
|
|
| JOB LOSS AND POOR PRODUCTIVITYAND | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| JOB LOSS AND UNEMPLOYMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| JOB LOSSES HAVE CREATED UNEASINESS IN DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| JOB UNSERIOUSNESS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| JOBLESSNESS | 7 |
0.6%
|
|
| JOBLESSNESS ARE A RESULT OF DRUGS ADDICTION. | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| JOBLOSS | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| JOBS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO DRUG USERS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LACK CONCENTRATION AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LACK OF ABLE MEN AND WOMEN | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LACK OF CONCENTRATION | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LACK OF CONCENTRATION IN WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LACK OF CONCERNTRATION IN WORK (LOW OUTPUT): | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LACK OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LACK OF EMPLOYMENT AND HOPE FOR THE YOUNG PEOPLE | 10 |
0.9%
|
|
| LACK OF JOB | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LACK OF PUNCTUALITY TO WORK, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LACK OF SERIOUSNESS, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LACK OF TEAM WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LACK OF UNDERSTANDING | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LACK OF WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LACKADAISICAL ATTITUDE TOWARD WORK. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LATENESS TO WORK | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| LATENESS TO WORK, EASILY DISTRACTED, POOR CONCENTRATION | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| LATENESS TO WORK, MISCONDUCT. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LAZINESS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LAZY SET OF PEOPLE AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LCK OF CONCENTRATION AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LEAD TO STEALING, NOT PRODUCTIVE THUS LEADS TO LOW REVENUE GENERATION . | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LESS PRODUCT AT WORK AND LOW PERFORMANCE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LESS PRODUCTION, DISHARMONY IN THE WORK PLACE. | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LESS PRODUCTIVE AND THE COMMUNITY WILL SUFFER BECAUSE OF THEIR INABILITY TO OFFER SERVICES | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LESS PRODUCTIVE AT WORK, | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LESS PRODUCTIVE IN WORK, CARELESSNES | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LOSE OF WORK OR UNEMPLOYED | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LOSING OF JOB | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LOSS IN PRODUCTIVITY DUE TO THEIR LOW OUT PUT, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOSS OF HUMAN CAPITAL | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOSS OF HUMAN CAPITAL. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOSS OF HUMAN RESOURCES | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LOSS OF JOB | 11 |
1%
|
|
| LOSS OF JOBS | 11 |
1%
|
|
| LOSS OF MAN POWER, RESTIVENESS, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOSS OF MANPOWER AND RESOURCES | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOSS OF POTENTIAL SKILLED LABOUR | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| LOSS OF REVENUE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOSS OF VITAL CONTRIBUTION OF DRUG USERS TO THE COMMUNITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOSS OF WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOSS OF WORK, OR BEEN UNSERIOUS WITH HIS OR HER WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LOSS OF WORKFORCE TO DRUGS IN THE COMMUNITY | 10 |
0.9%
|
|
| LOST JOB | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOST OF JOB | 6 |
0.5%
|
|
| LOST OF JOBS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOST OF JOBS, LACK CONFIDENCE, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOW EMPLOYMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOW OUTPUT LESS PRODUCTIVITY, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOW PERFORMANCE | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LOW PERFORMANCE AT WORK PLACE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOW PRODUCTION AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LOW PRODUCTIVITY | 70 |
6.3%
|
|
| LOW PRODUCTIVITY FOR WHITE COLLAR JOBS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOW PRODUCTIVITY, SO MANY DEPENDANTS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| LOW SERVICES | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| LOW WORK /INCONSISTENT AT WORH | 9 |
0.8%
|
|
| LOW WORK QULIFICATION | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| MAKES WORK DIFFICULT FOR TEAM WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| MANY JOBLESS PEOPLE | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| MANY OPPORTUNITIES PASS THEM. | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| MASS UNEMPLOYMENT RATE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| MISAPPROPRIATION FO FUNDS TO BUY DRUGS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| MISMANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT OR COMMUNITY PROPERTY. | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| MOST LOST THEIR JOB | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| MOST OF THEM LOST THEIR JOB | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| MOST OF THEM WILL FIRED OUT AT THEIR WORK PLACES AS A RESULT OF DRUG USE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| MOSTLY JOBLESS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| MOSTLY MISSING IN THEIR PLACES OF WORK DUE TO DRUG ADDICTION. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| MOSTLY UNEMPLOYED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| MUCH POLICE RAIDS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NEGLECT WORK | 6 |
0.5%
|
|
| NEGLIGENCE OF DUTY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO COMMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO COMMITEMENT TO WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| NO COMMITMENT | 6 |
0.5%
|
|
| NO CORDIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH COMMUNITY . | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO DIGNITY AT THEIR PLACE OF WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO EFFICIENCY AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| NO EMPLOYER OF DRUG ADDICT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO EMPLOYMEN, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO EMPLOYMENT | 6 |
0.5%
|
|
| NO EMPLOYMENT FOR DRUG USERS THEREBY BECOMING A THREAT TO THE COMMUNITY. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO ONE IS READY TO EMPLOY THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR HABITS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO PRODUCTIVITY AND SERIOUSNESS TOWARDS DUTY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO RECOMMENDATION FROM ANYONE TO BE EMPLOYED | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| NO SIGN OF SERIOUSNESS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| NO STEADY WORK / UNEMPLYED, | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| NO WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO WORK FOR DRUG USERS THEY ARE NOT PRODUCTIVE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NO WORK, | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| NOBODY WANTS TO HIRE AN ADDICT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NON COMMITTED TO JOB | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| NON EFFICIENCY | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| NONCHALANT AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| NONCHALLABT ATTITUDE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NONE PERFORMANCE AT WORK, GET UNEMPLLOYED | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| NOT ATTRACTIVE AND INTRESTED, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT BEEN PUNCTUAL | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| NOT CORDIAL | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| NOT EFFECTIVE IN THE WORK PLACE. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT EMPLOYABLE BECAUSE THE ARE NOT QUALIFIED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT EMPLOYED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT EMPLOYED IN ANY GOOD WORK, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT ENCOURAGING. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT FIT FOR ACTIVE ECONOMIC SERVICES | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT INTERESTED IN JOB | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT INVOLVED IN WORK DUE TO STIGMATIZATION AND DISCRIMINATION | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT LIKELY TO BE EMPLOYED | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| NOT NEEDED AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT ON THE HIGH SIDE OF EMPLOYERS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT PRODUCTIVE AT ALL THE TIME, VERY POOR. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT PRODUCTIVE, | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| NOT QUALIFIED TO WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT REALISTIC IN REASONING | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT RELIABLE OR TRUSTWORTHY. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT SERIOUS WITH JOB | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT SERIOUS WITH WORK | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| NOT SOUND FOR WORK, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT STEADY AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT USEFUL TO THE COMMUNITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| NOT VERY GOOD IN MOST MENTAL WORKS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| OFTEN FACES SICK SLAMS. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| OFTEN SACKED | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| ORGANIZATIONS OR GROUP DON’T AT ALL | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| OT EMPLOYABLE, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| PLENTY SCHOOL DROP OUTS AND NOT QUALIFIED FOR JOBS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POLICE ARE ALWAYS ENGAGE DUE TO CONSTANT CRIME | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| POLICE IS ALWAYS IN THE COMMUNITY TO ARREST DRUG USERS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POLICE PARADES THE AREAS BECAUSE OF DRUG USERS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| POOR ATTITUDE TO WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| POOR ATTITUDE TOWARDS WORK, HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT RATE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR INCOME GENERATION AND CUSTOMER SERVICE DUE TO MOOD SWINGS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR OUTPUTWHICH CAUSES POOR PRODUCTIVITY | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE | 9 |
0.8%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE AAND LESS PRODUCTIVITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE AND LOW OUTPUT, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE AT WORK SOMETIME LEAD TO UNEMPLOYMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE AT WORK, ABSENTEEISM | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE AT WORK. | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE IN THE WORKING PLACE THE POLICE ARE ALWAYS AFTER THEM | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE IN WORK PLACES. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE IN WORKPLACE. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE THAT EVEN LEADS TO UNEMPLOYMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE, LATENESS, MISCONDUCT. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE, LOSS OF JOB MOSTLY FALL VICTIMS OF DISENGAGEMENT. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR PERFORMANCE, LOSS OF JOB, MOST LIKELY FALL VICTIMS OF OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR PODUCTIVITY AT THEIR WORKPLACE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR PRODUCTIVITY | 13 |
1.2%
|
|
| POOR QUALITY OF PRODUCED GOODS BY THEIR ORGANIZATION | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR RELATIONSHIP | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| POOR SERVICE | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| POOR WORK OUTPUT | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| POOR WORK RELATIONSHIP | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR YIELD AND LOW PRODUCTIVITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POOR, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| POSSIBILITY OF INFLUENCING COWORKERS INTO DRUGS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| POVERTY DUE TO UNEMPLOYMENET | 6 |
0.5%
|
|
| POVERTY EVERYWHERE | 5 |
0.5%
|
|
| PREFER JOBS WITH INSTANT PAYMENT | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| PROBLEM AMONG COWORKERS. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| QUALITY OF SERVICE RENDER TO THE COMMUNITY IS LIKELY TO DEPRECIATE THIS IN TURN DECREASE THE PROGRE | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| QUARRELSOME | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| REDUCE COMMUNITY RESOURCES | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| REDUCE WORK PROGRESS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| REDUCED EMPLOYED MEMBERS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| REDUCED MANPOWER | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| REDUCED WORKFORCE IN THE COMMUNITY | 60 |
5.4%
|
|
| REDUCES PRODUCTIVITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| REDUCES PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| REDUCTION IN PRODUCTIVITY, REDUCTION IN EMPLOYEES. | 10 |
0.9%
|
|
| REDUCTION IN QUALITY HUMAN RESOURCES | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| REDUCTION IN QUALITY HUMAN RESOURSES.LOOSE PROMISING INDIVIDUALS TO DRUGS,INCREASE IN DESTITUTES AND | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| REDUCTION IN THE PRODUCTIVITY. | 5 |
0.5%
|
|
| REDUNDANCY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| REDUNDANCY AND PAY OFF | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| REFUSE TO WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| REPORT LATE AT WORK , NOT FOCUS TO PERFORM ASSIGNED ROLES; | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| RESUCED MANPOWER | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SACK WHICH IS A LIABILITY TO THE COMMUNITY, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SAME AS D10 | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| SECONDARY SMOKE INHALATION | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SEVERAL QUERIES IN WORK PLACE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SLOW PRODUCTIVITY | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| SO MANY UNEMPLOYED YOUTHS ON THE SRTEETS AS A RESULT OF DRUG USE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SO MANY UNEMPLOYED YOUTHS ON THE STREET | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SO MANY UNEMPLOYED YOUTHS(IDLE) | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SOCIETAL LOSS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SOCIETY DON'T INVOLVETHEM WHEN THERE IS ANY VACANCY. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SOME EMPLOYES DO NOT TOLERATE DRUG USE IN THEIR BUSINESS PLACE. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SOME GET RELIEVED OF THEIR WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SOME PRETEND TO BE WORKING BUT STEALING | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| STIGMA/UNSERIOUS ONE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| STIGMATIZATION AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| STIMATIZATION BY COLLEGUES | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| STOOD OFF AND LAY OFF AT WORKPLACE FOR LOW PRODUCTIVITY. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SUSPENDED FROM WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| SUSPENSION FROM WORK | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| TARDINESS AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE NOT FOLLOWED, WHICH LED TO LOW PRODUCTIVITY. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THE COMMUNITIES ARE DENIED OF MOST OF THEIR LAND PROPERTIES BECAUSE BECAUSE OF THE BAD NAME AND THE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THE COMMUNITIES DON’T FIND IT EASY TO BE EMPLOYED BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA THE DRUG USERS BROUGHT TO TH | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THE COMMUNITY BEEN DEPRIVED OF JOB OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE OF THE DRUG USERS. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THE COMMUNITY DO NOT GET HELP FROM THE GOVERNMENT IN TERMS OF WORK MOSTLY THE YOUTH. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THE COMMUNITY FINDS IT DIFFICULT TO RECRUIT THESE PEOPLE, | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THE COMMUNITY HARDLY GET HELP FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES EVEN GOVERNMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THE COMMUNITY LOOK AT THEMAS UNSERIOUS HUMAN BEING THEREFORE DURING EMPLOYMENT THESE NAMES ARE NOT M | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THE DRUG USER IS NOT GOING TO BE PRODUCTIVE. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THE EMPLOYED DRUG USER DON’T EVEN GO TO WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THE EMPLOYED DRUG USER DON’T EVEN GO TO WORK. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THE POLICE ARE INSENSITIVE TO DRUG USERS IN THE SOCIETY, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THE RELATIONSHIP IN WORK PLACE IS NOT ENCOURAGING AS ARESULT OF USING DRUGS. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THE WORKING RELATIONSHI BECAMES VERY POOR I.E DISCOURAGING. | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| THE YOUTH OF THIS ARE HARD TO GET WHAT THEY WANT EASILY BECAUSE OF THE HIGH LEVEL OF DRUG USE IN OU | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEEY DON’T WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THERE IS DESCRIMINATION | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE NOT EASILY EMPLOYED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ALWAYS CAUSE CONFUSION | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY ARE ALWAYS ABSENT MINDED ON DUTY,THEY ARE NOT PUNCTUAL AND THERE IS POOR OUTPUT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE ALWAYS BACK IN RESPECT TO ANY WORK. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE ALWAYS DIMISSED FROM WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY ARE ALWAYS IN MANUAL LABOUR JOBS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY ARE ALWAYS JOBLESS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE ALWAYS OUT OF JOBS. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE ALWAYS SACKED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE BEING SACKED FROM THE PLACE OF WORK, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE DENIED OF EMPLOYMENT IF FOUND OUT THAT THEY ARE DRUG ADDICT | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY ARE HARDLY EMPLOYED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE HIGHLY UTILIZED BY POLITICIANS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE MOST OF THE TIMES UNEMPLOYED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE MOSTLY ABSENT FROM WORK AS A RESULT OF HANGOVER | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE MOSTLY BY FIRED OUT OF WORKALSO MISS JOB OPPORTUNITIES AS A RESULT OF THEIR TAKING DRUGS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE MOSTLY FIRED OUT OF WORK,ALSO THEY MISS JOB OPPORTUNITIES AS A RESULT OF THEIR TAKING DRUGS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE MOSTLY INCOMPETENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE NEITHER HARDWORKING NOR TRUSTWORTHY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS EFFECTIVE IN COMMUNITY WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE NOT DEVOUTED TO WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE NOT EAGER TO WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE NOT EMPLOYABLE | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| THEY ARE NOT INTRESTED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE NOT PROACTIVE IN THEIR JOB. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE NOT PRODUCTIVE SO SET BACK WILL GET IN | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE NOT PRODUCTIVE, THEY WILL ALWAYS COME LATE TO WORK, THEY WILL NOT DO THINGS THE RIGHT WAY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE. | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| THEY ARE OFTEN CONFUSED AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE SACKED, IF DETECTED AT SUCH CHARACTER | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY ARE SOME TIMES NOT EMPLOYED AND FIND IT DIFFICULT TO GET JOB | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE SUBJECT TO SACK MOST OFTEN | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY ARE THE BAD EXAMPLES | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE UNEMPLOYABLE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE UNEMPLOYED | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY ARE UNPRODUCTIVE AT WORK PLACE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE USUALLY UNEMPLOYED AND CANT WORK WELL | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY ARE USUALLY UNEMPLOYED AND NOT IN THEIR RIGHT MIND | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY BECOME OF NO USE FOR ANY ORGANIZATION TO TAKE THEM AS WORKERS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY BECOME USELESS TO THE WORKFORCE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY CAN BE DISENGAGED | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY CANNOT CONCENTRATE TO WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY CANT FUCTION AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY COME LATE TO OFFICE. THEY WILL NOT DO THE RIGHT THING OR NOT DO THING ARIGHT. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY COMMUNITY FIND IT DIFICULT TO EMPLOYMENT THEM. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY DO BAD JOBS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY DO NOT PERFORM AS EXPECTED. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY DO NOT TAKE PART IN COMMUNITY WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY DON'T CARE | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| THEY DONT GET EMPLOYED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY DON’T BELIEVE DRUG USERS ARE EMPLOYABLE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY DON’T DO THE RIGHT THINGS AND THAT WILL MESS THINGS UP | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY DON’T HAVE ENERGY | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY DON’T WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY EASILY LOSE THEIR JOBS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY FIND IT HARD TO GET A JOB | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY HARDLY COOPERATE IN WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY HARDLY DO THINGS THE RIGHT WAY. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY HARDLY GET EMPLOYED | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY HARDLY GET EMPLOYED DUE TO THEIR HABITS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY HARDLY PARTICIPATE IN COMMUNITY WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY HARDLY WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY LACK ACCURACY AND THEY ARE NOT INTRESTED IN WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY LACK MANPOWER DUE TO UNQUALIFIED STATUS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY LOOSE THEIR JOB, IF ANY. | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY MISS SO MANY OPPORTUINITIES DUE TO DRUG USE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY MISS SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED FOR THE AVAILABLE POSITIONS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| THEY MISS SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES DUE TO DRUG USE. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY NOT TRUSTED IN THE COMMUNITIES. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY PREFER PLACES TO SHOW STRENGHT THAN TO SHOW CHARACTER | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY PUT ORGANISATIONS INTO PROBLEM WITH THEIR NON CHALLANT ATTITUDE. | 7 |
0.6%
|
|
| THEY REMAIN UNEMPLOYED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY SEEMS TO BE VERY LAZY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY SLOW PRODUCTIVITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY TEND TO LOSE INTEREST IN DAILY WORK | 4 |
0.4%
|
|
| THEY WILL BE WEAK TO WORK. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| THEY WILL NOT GET JOB IN THE COMMUNITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| TOO MUCH COMPLAIN IN TERMS OF PRODUCTION AND MEMORY LOSS. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| TOO MUCH ERROR AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| TRUANCY AND JOB LOSS. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| TRUANCY, ABANDONMENT; | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| UN EMPLOYMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNDER EMPLOYMENT ISSUE, NOTHING TO WRITE HOME ABOUT. | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| UNDER PRODUCTIVITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNDERDEVELOPMENT | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNDERPERFORMANCE | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| UNEMPLOY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNEMPLOYABLE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNEMPLOYABLE YOUTHS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNEMPLOYABLE YOUTHS. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNEMPLOYED | 46 |
4.2%
|
|
| UNEMPLOYED, LOW PRODUCTION | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNEMPLOYMENT MOST TIMES AMONG DRUG USERS. | 3 |
0.3%
|
|
| UNEMPLOYMENT: THE DRUG USERS DON’T STAY LONG IN THEIR PLACE OF WORK BECAUSE OF THER LIFE STYLE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNPRODUCTIVE | 9 |
0.8%
|
|
| UNPRODUCTIVE AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNPRODUCTIVE IN THEIR PLACE OF WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNPRODUCTIVE,TRUANCY, LATENESS. | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNPRODUCTIVITY, SO MANY DEPENDENTS | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNPROFESSIONALISM AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNSERIOUS | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| UNSERIOUS EVEN WHEN EMPLOYED | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNSERIOUS TOWARDS WORK 2. NOT COMMITTED 3. ALWAYS HAVE EXCUSES; | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| UNSERIOUSNESS AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| UNSKILLED PERSONNEL | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| UNSTABLE AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| UNSTABLE WORK FORCE DUE TO DRUG USERS ARE FREQUENTLY LAID OFF, | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| UNTRUSTWORTHY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| USERS ARE NOT PRODUCTIVE IN THEIR VARIOUS COMMUNITIES. THEY DO NOT CONTRIBUTE POSITIVELY AT WORK. | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| USUALLY UNEMPLOYED | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| VERY BAD | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| VERY UNSERIOUS SET OF PEOPLE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| VIOLENCE AT WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| VIOLENCE AT WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
|
| WASTE OF COMMUNITY HUMAN RESOURCES | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| WEAK TO WORK | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| WHEN HE WAS DISMISSED BY HIS WORKING PLACE HE WILL BECOME A PROBLEM TO THE COMMUNITY AS A RESULT OF | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| WHILE FIRED FROM WORK THEY BECOME PROBLEM TO THE COMMUNITY | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| WILL BE DRIVEN FROM WORK PLACE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| WILL NOT LEAD PEOPLE, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| WORK RELATIONSHIP IS SEVERE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| WORK/EMPLOYMENT RELATED NOT SERIOUSNESS, | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| WORST, LESS PRODUCTIVE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| YES | 6 |
0.5%
|
|
| YES THE COMMUNITY IN WHERE THEY HAVE NO FUTURE | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| YES THEY WILL ALWAYS MESS THINGS UP,THEY WILL NOT BE PUNCTUAL | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| YOUNG ONES OF THE COMMUNITY.FIND IT DIFFICULT IN GETTING JOB BECAUSE OF THE BAD NAME GIVEN TO THE CO | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| YOUNG PEOPLE FROM THE COMMUNITY FIND IT DIFFICULT TO GET JOB BECAUSE PEOPLE THOUGHT THEY ARE ALL DRU | 1 |
0.1%
|
|
| YOUTH ESPECIALLY LOOSE INTEREST IN WORK | 2 |
0.2%
|
Warning: these figures indicate the number of cases found in the data file. They cannot be interpreted as summary statistics of the population of interest.
Interviewer instructions
(probe for answers if necessary)