Empowering Girls — Endline Survey Dashboard

Study at a Glance

A school-based endline survey evaluating the Empowering Girls programme across urban schools in Pakistan. The study measures changes in gender norms, safety perceptions, academic aspirations, and psychological wellbeing among Grade 8 students — with separate instruments for boys and girls using validated psychometric scales and Randomised Response Technique (RRT) for sensitive items.

🏫

139

Schools Surveyed

3 Districts · Kasur, Lahore, Sheikhupura

🎒

3027

Total Students

100% Grade 8

👧

1800

Girls Surveyed

Avg Age 13.45 yrs

👦

1227

Boys Surveyed

Avg Age 13.71 yrs

🎓

54%

Girls Aspire to Professions

Doctor / Engineer / Lawyer

📅

Apr 2026

Data Collection Period

SurveyCTO · Digital CAPI

📈

Academic Performance Comparison

Girls averaged 56.0% in Grade 7 compared to 50.1% for boys — a 5.9 percentage-point gap, with Girls performing better.

⚠️

Girls Report Lower Safety on Commute

Girls rate commuting to school as less safe (2.85/4) compared to boys (3.35/4), reflecting gendered safety disparities in the school journey.

👗

36% of Girls Modify Behaviour

648 out of 1800 girls report sometimes or always changing their clothing due to safety concerns in their neighbourhood or on route to school.

💪

Girls Show Higher Self-Efficacy

Girls score higher on self-efficacy items 1 and 2, particularly in ability to think of solutions and belief they can handle challenges.

Sample Composition — Boys vs Girls

Endline survey respondents by gender (n=3027)

Outcome Index Radar — Boys vs Girls

Composite scores across five key study dimensions (scaled 0–100)

Academic Performance — Grade 7 %

Previous year academic scores by gender group

Safety Perceptions — Mean Scores

Average safety rating (1=unsafe, 4=very safe) by context and gender

Educational Aspirations

Highest level of education students aspire to complete

Data collected April 6–7, 2026 via SurveyCTO digital CAPI survey. Both boys and girls instruments included validated psychometric scales (PQL, Self-Efficacy, CBT, Impulse Control, CSD) and Randomised Response Technique (RRT/garbling) for sensitive harassment measures. Study design and analysis by Research Solutions (M&A Research Solutions LLC) | www.rs.org.pk

Student Demographics & Family Background

Who are the students in this study? Age distribution, household composition, parental education and occupation, language spoken at home, and household asset ownership — painting a comprehensive picture of the socioeconomic context.

🎂

13.71

Boys' Avg Age (Years)

Range: 11–17 yrs

🎂

13.45

Girls' Avg Age (Years)

Range: 11–18 yrs

👨‍👩‍👦‍👦

4.45

Boys' Avg Siblings

Girls avg: 4.54 siblings

🏠

69%

Boys Own Their Home

Girls: 85%

Father's Education Level

Highest education attained by father (boys n=1227, girls n=1800)

Mother's Education Level

Highest education attained by mother (boys n=1227, girls n=1800)

Father's Occupation

Primary occupation of student's father by gender of respondent

Mother's Occupation

Primary occupation of student's mother by gender of respondent

Household Asset Ownership

Percentage of households owning each asset — boys vs girls

Language Spoken at Home

Primary language of the household (boys n=1227, girls n=1800)

Father's Education: 7% of boys' fathers and 9% of girls' fathers completed Intermediate (Grade 12). Meanwhile, 47% of boys' fathers and 44% of girls' fathers have no schooling or primary-only education.

Mother's Employment: 81% of boys' mothers are full-time homemakers, compared to 21% of girls' mothers — indicating differing levels of maternal economic activity across the two sub-samples, which may influence gender norm exposure.

Education levels: 1=None/Primary, 2=Middle (Grades 6–8), 3=Matric (Grade 10), 4=Intermediate (Grade 12), 5=Bachelors, 6=Masters/Post-Graduate. Occupation codes: 1=Government Employee, 2=Private Employee, 3=Self-Employed/Business, 8=Homemaker.

Academic Performance & Aspirations

Student academic outcomes from Grade 7 (preceding year), school attendance patterns, barriers to education, and educational aspirations — examining the gender gap in both current performance and future ambitions.

📊

56.0%

Girls Avg Grade 7 Score

Range: 20%–99.0%

📊

50.1%

Boys Avg Grade 7 Score

Range: 14%–98.0%

📅

2.4

Boys Avg Absence Days

Girls: 2.2 days avg

🎓

54%

Girls Want Pro. Degree

vs 38% of boys

Grade 7 Score Distribution

Distribution of previous year academic percentage scores by gender

Educational Aspirations

Highest level of education students hope to complete — boys vs girls

Absence Days Distribution

Number of school days missed in the past term (students who reported absences)

Academic Performance Band Comparison

Students categorised into performance bands (<45%, 45–59%, 60–74%, 75%+)

Gender Performance Gap: The gap between girls (56.0%) and boys (50.1%) in Grade 7 scores is 5.9 percentage points, with Girls performing better on average. Performance patterns should be interpreted alongside the differing safety and mobility contexts each group faces.

Aspiration Gap: 54% of girls aspire to a professional degree (doctor, engineer, lawyer) compared to 38% of boys. Differences in aspiration levels between boys and girls provide insight into the reach of the Empowering Girls programme's educational ambition messaging.

Academic performance data based on student self-report of Grade 7 percentage scores. Aspirations coded as: Matric=Grade 10, Intermediate=Grade 12, Bachelors=Undergraduate, Masters=Postgraduate, Professional=Doctor/Engineer/Lawyer or equivalent professional degree.

Safety Perceptions & Mobility

How safe do students feel commuting to school, in their school neighbourhood, and at home? How do girls navigate safety concerns through behavioural adaptations? This panel explores the gendered dimensions of safety and mobility for urban school students.

🚶

3.35

/ 4.0

Boys — Commute Safety

Moderately Safe

🚶‍♀️

2.85

/ 4.0

Girls — Commute Safety

Moderate Concern

🏫

3.25

/ 4.0

Boys — School Neighbourhood

Moderate Concern

🏫

2.79

/ 4.0

Girls — School Neighbourhood

Moderately Safe

🏠

3.58

/ 4.0

Boys — Home Area

Mostly Safe

🏠

3.04

/ 4.0

Girls — Home Area

Moderately Safe

Safety Perception — Detailed Distribution

Response distributions across all three safety contexts, boys vs girls (1=Not safe, 4=Very safe)

School Commute Mode

Primary mode of transport to school — boys vs girls

Travel Time to School

Average commute duration in minutes — distribution by gender

Girls' Safety Behaviour Modifications

Frequency of behaviour adaptation to avoid safety risks (girls only, n=1800)

Commute Safety Gap: Boys rate their commute to school at 3.35 vs girls at 2.85 on a 4-point scale. In the school neighbourhood the scores are 3.25 (boys) and 2.79 (girls). Differences across contexts indicate where safety initiatives may have the greatest impact.

Behavioural Adaptation: Girls navigate safety concerns through adaptation — 36% sometimes or always change their clothing, 27% sometimes or always change their timing, and 32% sometimes or always change their route to school. These adaptations represent a significant daily burden and indicator of perceived risk.

Safety scale: 1=Not safe at all, 2=Not very safe, 3=Somewhat safe, 4=Very safe. Behaviour modification scale: 1=Always, 2=Sometimes, 3=Rarely, 4=Never. Travel times self-reported by students. Boys' school: School #141 (50 students enrolled Grade 7); Girls' school: 35–49 students enrolled.

Gender Norms & Harassment Attitudes

Measuring gender norm endorsement among students using a validated 4-item scale covering household roles, education access, working mothers, and women's safety. Also captures bystander attitudes toward harassment and blame attribution — a core outcome of the Empowering Girls programme.

🏠

3.67

Boys: Girls Focus on Household

Girls avg: 2.27

🤝

4.4

Boys: Men Must Protect Women

Girls avg: 4.49

👁️

41%

Boys Witnessed Verbal Harassment

Girls: 40%

⚖️

Boys Strongly Blame Perpetrator

Girls: 0%

Gender Norms Scale — Mean Scores

Agreement with gender norm statements (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree) — boys vs girls

Gender Norms — Response Distributions

Full distribution of responses to each gender norm item

Harassment — Witnessing Experiences

Whether students witnessed physical or verbal harassment of others (1=Yes, 2=No)

Blame Attribution — Whose Fault?

Student responses to "touch_fault" — who is responsible when harassment occurs (1=Completely victim's fault, 5=Completely perpetrator's fault)

Witnessing Harassment: 40% of girls and 41% of boys report having witnessed verbal harassment. Exposure patterns across gender highlight the importance of bystander intervention training as a programme component.

Blame Attribution: Only 1% of boys and 0% of girls strongly attribute fault to the perpetrator (code 5). The remainder show more distributed or victim-ambivalent responses — potentially reflecting internalised stigma that the programme aims to address.

Gender norms scale: 1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree. Items: G2="Girls should focus on household tasks"; G3="Education is equally important for boys and girls" (reverse-coded); G5="Children suffer when mothers work"; G6="Women need male protection to be safe". Blame scale: 1=Completely victim's fault through 5=Completely perpetrator's fault.

Psychological Wellbeing & Self-Efficacy

Student psychological outcomes measured using the Pediatric Quality of Life (PQL) scale across five dimensions — mood, learning, friendships, family, and overall life quality — alongside a 3-item self-efficacy scale assessing students' belief in their capacity to handle challenges.

😊

4.32

Boys Overall Life Quality (PQL)

Girls: 4.21 / 5.0

🤝

4.38

Boys Family Wellbeing (PQL)

Girls: 4.25 / 5.0

💪

2.33

Boys Self-Efficacy Item 1

Girls: 2.31 / 3.0

🧠

2.53

Girls: "I Can Find Solutions"

Boys: 2.59 / 3.0

PQL Wellbeing Scale — Mean Scores

Pediatric Quality of Life items rated 1–5 (Never to Always) — boys vs girls

Self-Efficacy Scale — Boys vs Girls

Self-efficacy items rated 1–3 (Disagree to Agree) — boys vs girls

PQL Item Distribution — Girls

Full distribution of girls' responses across all 5 PQL items

PQL Item Distribution — Boys

Full distribution of boys' responses across all 5 PQL items

Wellbeing Scores: Boys' overall PQL mean is 4.32 and girls' is 4.21 (out of 5). Family wellbeing scores are 4.38 (boys) and 4.25 (girls); friendship wellbeing is 4.27 (boys) and 4.33 (girls) — showing distinct patterns of social connectedness across genders.

Self-Efficacy: Item means — "I can think of solutions" (boys 2.59, girls 2.53), "I can handle challenges" (boys 2.33, girls 2.31), item 3 (boys 2.38, girls 2.21). Relative differences between genders inform where the programme may be strengthening girls' internal agency.

PQL Scale: Items ask how often each applies in the past month (1=Never, 2=Almost Never, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Almost Always). Self-Efficacy Scale: 3-point agreement scale (1=Disagree, 2=Neutral, 3=Agree). Higher scores indicate better outcomes on both scales.

Boys' Module — Masculinity, Impulse Control & Peer Pressure

The boys' instrument includes three additional scales not administered to girls: a 5-item Masculinity Norms scale, an 8-item Impulse Control assessment, and a 3-item Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) cognitions scale measuring thought flexibility. Peer pressure susceptibility was also measured across 3 items.

🔨

2.73

Men Should Do Repairs

Mean / 5.0

🤐

1.57

Must Tease to Fit In

Mean / 5.0

🎮

4.48

Impulse Control (Item 8)

Mean / 5.0

👥

2.03

Peer Pressure Item 1

Mean / 4.0

Masculinity Norms Scale — Boys (n=1227)

Agreement with traditional masculinity statements (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree)

Masculinity Norms — Response Distributions

Full response distributions for each masculinity norm item

Impulse Control — Boys (n=1227)

Mean scores across 8 impulse control items (1=Never to 5=Always)

CBT Cognitions & Peer Pressure — Boys

Cognitive Behaviour Therapy thought patterns (1–4 scale) and Peer Pressure (1–4 scale)

Masculinity Norms: Boys endorse men doing household repairs at 2.73/5.0, men not asking for help at 2.39/5.0, not showing worry/fear at 3.04/5.0, winning at games at 3.51/5.0, and teasing to fit in at 1.57/5.0. Lower scores on the teasing item indicate positive bystander tendencies.

Impulse Control: Boys score 4.48 on item 8, which measures a positive self-control attribute. Mean scores across the 8-item scale highlight heterogeneous profiles within the sample — see the detailed chart for per-item variation.

M1: Men should handle all household repairs 2.73 / 5.0

M2: Men shouldn't need to ask for help 2.39 / 5.0

M3: Men shouldn't show worry or fear 3.04 / 5.0

M4: A guy must win games/competitions 3.51 / 5.0

M5: Boys must tease others to fit in (REJECTED) 1.57 / 5.0

Masculinity Norms: 5-item scale measuring traditional masculine role endorsement (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree). Impulse Control: 8-item scale (1=Never, 5=Always); higher scores on positive items indicate better self-regulation. CBT scale: 4-point scale measuring cognitive thought patterns. Peer Pressure: 4-point scale (1=Never agree, 4=Always agree). Boys only (n=1227).

Girls' Module — Mobility, Household Time & Harassment Response

The girls' instrument includes an extended 7-day activity diary, household time-use measures, and detailed harassment response and reporting modules. This panel examines girls' daily mobility patterns, time burden of household tasks, and their strategies for navigating and reporting harassment experiences.

🧹

3.08h

Avg Daily Cleaning Time

Household burden

👶

3.15h

Avg Daily Caring Time

Child/elderly care

🍳

2.08h

Avg Daily Cooking Time

Food preparation

📢

28%

Would Report to Family

Primary support network

Girls' Daily Household Time Use

Average hours per day girls spend on household activities (girls n=1800)

Safety Behaviour Modifications — Frequency

How often girls change route, timing, or clothing due to safety concerns (1=Always, 4=Never)

Harassment Reporting — Who Would Girls Tell?

Proportion of girls who would share a harassment experience with each network member

Verbal Harassment Witnessed — Girls vs Boys

Proportion who witnessed verbal harassment of others (RRT garbling method)

Household Time Burden: Girls spend an average of 3.15 hours on caregiving, 3.08 hours on cleaning, and 2.08 hours on cooking per day — a substantial non-academic time burden that may affect study time and academic performance.

Harassment Reporting: 69% of girls (1244/1800) would report harassment to formal authorities. Informal disclosure: 28% would tell family, 96% would tell friends/siblings, and 1% would tell no one — informing how the programme's safe disclosure channels should be targeted.

👗

Clothing Modification

36% of girls sometimes or always change what they wear due to safety concerns — a common behavioural adaptation reported.

⏰

Timing Adaptation

27% of girls sometimes or always change what time they travel — avoiding certain hours perceived as less safe for female movement.

🗺️

Route Changes

32% of girls sometimes or always change their route to school — adding time and distance to avoid perceived danger spots.

🚨

Safety Awareness

36% of girls (code 1+2 on identify_escape) actively identify escape routes or safety strategies when in public — a key programme skill.

Girls' module data (n=1800). Household time use measured in approximate daily hours. Harassment sharing variables: 0=No, 1=Yes — respondents could select multiple people they would tell. Reporting: 1=Yes would report, 2=No. Behaviour modification: 1=Always, 2=Sometimes, 3=Rarely, 4=Never. RRT (garbling) used for sensitive harassment items to protect respondent anonymity.

Sample Coverage — Endline Progress vs. Design

Progress of endline data collection against the sample design. Rows are bucketed by matching each endline respondent's registration ID against the school's baseline / training roster (sourced from the Sample Tables docx files). Numbers below reflect only schools whose roster file has been loaded; coverage will expand as more roster files are added.

🏫 Girls Treatment — Completed Schools

Schools where ≥ 15 endline surveys have been collected. Endline column and percentage use the 20-girl baseline+training panel as denominator. BL+TR found at endline out of the 20 baseline+training girls is the recapture rate.

School ID	School Name	Endline	BL + TR	TR only	New	BL+TR / 20
1	GGHS FAISAL TOWN LAHORE	20 / 20	16	4	0	80%
2	GGHS MODEL APS MODEL TOWN	20 / 20	17	3	0	85%
3	GGHS SHAHAB-UD-DIN RAWAN SHAH KAMAL ROAD ICHHRA	20 / 20	17	0	3	85%
4	GGHS SULTAN AHMED ROAD ICCHRA LAHORE	20 / 20	14	0	6	70%
5	GGHS FEROZE PUR ROAD	20 / 20	12	0	8	60%
6	GGHS MODERN MUGHALPURA SHALIMAR LINK ROAD	20 / 20	15	5	0	75%
7	(GGHS RAILWAY COLONY MUGHAL PURA (EX-MCL))GGHS DISTRICT CITY GOVT HIGH SCHOOL MUGHULPURA (EX-MCL)	20 / 20	16	4	0	80%
8	GGHS YASMIN ISLAMIA FIAZ PARK MUGHAL PURA	20 / 20	19	1	0	95%
9	GGHS GULSHAN PARK (EX-MCL)	20 / 20	14	6	0	70%
10	GGHS MILLAT MUGHAL PURA LAHORE	20 / 20	13	7	0	65%
11	GGHS SHALIMAR TOWN LAHORE	20 / 20	17	3	0	85%
16	GGHSS SHAHDRA TOWN LAHORE	20 / 20	13	7	0	65%
19	GGHS ISLAMIA LAHORE CANTT	20 / 20	17	3	0	85%
20	GGHS TANVEER ISLAMIA MUSTAFA ABAD	20 / 20	15	5	0	75%
21	GGHS MOHLANWAL KALAN (UPGRADED)	20 / 20	14	6	0	70%
29	GGHS GOPAL NAGAR	20 / 20	17	3	0	85%
30	GGHS WALTON LAHORE	20 / 20	13	0	7	65%
31	GGHS CUSTOM COLONY	20 / 20	17	0	3	85%
32	GGHS BOSTAN COLONY QAINCHI AMER SIDHU (EX-MCL)	20 / 20	18	2	0	90%
33	GGHS JUNIOR MODEL SITARA COLONY NO. 2 CHUNGI AMERSIDHU(EX-MCL)	20 / 20	14	6	0	70%
34	GGHS SHAD BAGH	20 / 20	12	8	0	60%
36	GGHS JIA BAGGA RAIWIND ROAD	20 / 20	17	3	0	85%
37	GGHS RAIWIND PIND RAIWIND ROAD	20 / 20	16	4	0	80%
40	GGHS ARRAYIAN	20 / 20	19	0	1	95%
42	GGHS PAKKI THATHI SAMANABAD (EX-MCL)	20 / 20	14	0	6	70%
43	GGHS JUNIOR MODEL MULTAN ROAD (EX-MCL)	20 / 20	17	0	3	85%
44	GGHS SHAH PUR KANJRAN	20 / 20	14	6	0	70%
45	GGHS SODIWAL QUARTERS MULTAN ROAD LHR.	20 / 20	12	0	8	60%
46	GGHS WASAN PURA SCHEME NO. 2	20 / 20	13	7	0	65%
47	GGHS MADRASA-TUL-BINAT MISRI SHAH AZIZ ROAD	20 / 20	15	5	0	75%
48	GGHS PAK MODEL SULTAN PURA	20 / 20	16	4	0	80%
49	GGHS SAEEDA ISLAMIA WASSAN PURA SCHEME NO 2. LHR CANTT.	20 / 20	17	3	0	85%
50	GGHS SHAHEEN FAZAL PURA KOT KHAWAJA SAEED	20 / 20	12	8	0	60%
51	GGHS PAK STANDARD SHAD BAGH LAHORE	20 / 20	15	5	0	75%
54	GGHS HAIR LAHORE CANTT	20 / 20	15	0	5	75%
55	GGHS AV BATA PUR	20 / 20	17	0	3	85%
56	GGHS JALLO STATION	20 / 20	9	0	11	45%
57	GGHSS BARKI	20 / 20	19	0	1	95%
58	GGHSS MINHALA KALAN	21 / 20	19	0	2	95%
63	GGHS KOTHA KALAN	20 / 20	16	4	0	80%
64	GGHS QADI WIND	20 / 20	16	4	0	80%
65	GGHS GEHLAN HITTAR	20 / 20	17	0	3	85%
66	GGHS USMAN WALA	20 / 20	15	4	1	75%
68	GGHS TALWANDI	19 / 20	18	0	1	90%
70	GGHS MIR KOT	20 / 20	18	0	2	90%
71	GGHS BHEDIAN CHAK NO. 35 PATTOKI	20 / 20	12	0	8	60%
72	GGHS PATTOKI ALLAMA IQBAL ROAD PATTOKI	20 / 20	18	0	2	90%
73	GGHS BEHRWAL KALAN	20 / 20	17	3	0	85%
74	GGHS KHAN KE MORE	20 / 20	16	3	1	80%
75	GGHS PURANI MANDI PATTOKI	20 / 20	14	0	6	70%
78	GGHSS BHAMBA KALAN	20 / 20	12	0	8	60%
79	GGHS KOT RADHA KISHAN	20 / 20	16	0	4	80%
80	GGHSS MUSTAFA ABAD	20 / 20	17	0	3	85%
81	GGHS KOT ABDUL MALIK SCHEME NO.1	20 / 20	13	0	7	65%
82	GGHS SHARAQPUR KHURD	20 / 20	12	0	8	60%
83	GGHS MC MODEL IQBAL PARK	20 / 20	11	0	9	55%
84	GGHS MC JANDIALA ROAD SKP	20 / 20	14	0	6	70%
85	GGHS KHADIJA-TUL-KUBRA SHEIKHUPURA	20 / 20	16	0	4	80%
86	GGHS BHIKHI	20 / 20	15	0	5	75%
90	GGHS MC MODEL AKBER BAZAR SHEIKHUPURA	20 / 20	11	0	9	55%
91	GGHS FEROZ WATTOWAN	20 / 20	13	7	0	65%

🏫 Girls Control — Completed Schools

Schools where ≥ 15 endline surveys have been collected. Per-school endline target is 20. BL = matched against baseline roster; New = replacement/walk-in.

School ID	School Name	Endline	BL	New	BL / 20
12	GGHS GREEN TOWN (EX-MCL)	20 / 20	17	3	85%
13	GGHS BLOCK 2 SECTOR D-1 TOWNSHIP	20 / 20	13	7	65%
14	GGHS GREEN TOWN	20 / 20	16	4	80%
15	GGHSS PRACTISING TOWNSHIP	20 / 20	16	4	80%
17	GGHS KEER KHURD BAIDIAN ROAD	20 / 20	15	5	75%
18	GGHS HARBANS PURA (EX-MCL)	20 / 20	16	4	80%
22	GGHS KAHNA NAU	20 / 20	13	7	65%
23	GGHS SHISH MEHAL BILAL GUNJ (EX-MCL)	20 / 20	17	3	85%
24	GGHS JUNIOR MODEL MOMAN PURA KARIM PARK (EX-MCL)	20 / 20	18	2	90%
25	GGHSS VICTORIA INSIDE MORI GATE LAHORE	20 / 20	14	6	70%
26	GGHS SANT NAGAR HOTA SINGH ROAD	20 / 20	13	7	65%
27	GGHSS RAVI ROAD (NEAR DATA DARBAR)	20 / 20	16	4	80%
28	GGHS NABI PARK REHMAN ROAD LHR	20 / 20	13	7	65%
35	GGHS HANJAR WAL	20 / 20	15	5	75%
38	GGHS MARAKA VILLAG(NEWLY UPGRADED)	20 / 20	17	3	85%
39	GGHSS AWAN TOWN	20 / 20	17	3	85%
41	GGHS SHER SHAH COLONY RAIWIND ROAD	20 / 20	14	6	70%
52	GGHSS CHUNG MULTAN ROAD	20 / 20	11	9	55%
53	GGHSS MANGA MANDI MULTAN ROAD	20 / 20	9	11	45%
59	GGHS KASUR HAJI FARID ROAD	20 / 20	13	7	65%
60	GGHS MC BASTI CHIRAGH SHAH KASUR	20 / 20	12	8	60%
61	GGHS MC SHAHBAZ KHAN ROAD KASUR	20 / 20	14	6	70%
62	GGHS RASOOL PUR CHAK 14	20 / 20	13	7	65%
67	GGHS KACHA PACCA KALAN	20 / 20	19	1	95%
69	GGHS KHUDIAN KHAS	20 / 20	18	2	90%
76	GGHS CHANGA MANGA	20 / 20	10	10	50%
77	GGHS BHOE ASAL	20 / 20	14	6	70%
87	GGHS KHARIAN WALA	20 / 20	13	7	65%
89	GGHS CANAL PARK MURIDKE	20 / 20	14	6	70%

🏫 Boys Treatment — Completed Schools

Schools where ≥ 15 endline surveys have been collected. Per-school endline target is 25. Trained = matched against training roster (Table 1 + Table 2); New = replacement/walk-in. Boys Control schools are excluded by design.

School ID	School Name	Endline	Trained	New	Trained / 25
92	GHS MODEL APS MODEL TOWN	25 / 25	25	0	100%
93	GHS WALTON	25 / 25	23	2	92%
94	GHS HAIR LAHORE CANTT	25 / 25	25	0	100%
95	GHS JALLO STATION	25 / 25	25	0	100%
96	GHSS ISLAMIA MULTAN ROAD	25 / 25	24	1	96%
97	GOVT. FURQAN SHAHEED HIGH SCHOOL SHEIKHUPURA	25 / 25	25	0	100%
98	GHS SARDAR MODEL KOT ABDUL MALIK	25 / 25	23	2	92%
99	GHS ISLAMIA BHATTI GATE	25 / 25	23	2	92%
100	GHS MPE SHAHDRA	25 / 25	25	0	100%
101	GHS SHAHDARA	25 / 25	25	0	100%
102	GHS CHOBURJI GARDENS	25 / 25	25	0	100%
103	GHS CENTRAL MODEL SAMANABAD LAHORE	25 / 25	18	7	72%
104	GHS ARRIYAN RAIWIND ROAD	25 / 25	24	1	96%
105	GHS WALTON AIRPORT GOPAL NAGAR (EX-MCL)	25 / 25	25	0	100%
106	GHS NO.1 MUSTAFA ABAD	25 / 25	24	1	96%
107	GHS NO. 1 KOT RADHA KISHAN	25 / 25	25	0	100%
108	GHS JAND WALA	25 / 25	24	1	96%
109	GHS PATTOKI	25 / 25	25	0	100%
110	GHS PATTOKI NEAR IMAM BARGAH CHUNIAN ROAD PATTOKI	25 / 25	25	0	100%
111	GHSS BHAMBA KALAN	25 / 25	25	0	100%
112	GHS BARKI	24 / 25	24	0	96%
113	GHS MINHALA KALAN	25 / 25	25	0	100%