The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.

DAP_merged_pre_and_post report_2017_18

Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Published by marcbmorgan, 2020-01-14 19:56:11

DAP Report Pre & Post

DAP_merged_pre_and_post report_2017_18

Developmental

Asset Pre and Post
Profile Enrollment Report
2017/2018
2017

Kris R. Noam Ph.D.

©BTS, August 2018

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 1

Index

Index........................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Figures .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Tables...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Overview................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Methodology......................................................................................................................................................... 4
Collected DAP surveys...................................................................................................................................... 5
Demographics...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Gender and age:.............................................................................................................................................. 6
Ethnic/Racial identity.................................................................................................................................. 6
Developmental Asset Domains ..................................................................................................................... 8
Developmental Assets: improvement in scores ................................................................................ 8
Number and percentage of clients improved (achieved goal)..................................................... 9
Context Areas.................................................................................................................................................... 10
Context Areas: before and after ............................................................................................................ 10
Context Areas: Individual student improvement........................................................................... 11
Results by Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................................... 12
Improvements by Gender ....................................................................................................................... 12
Improvements by Race............................................................................................................................. 14
Summary............................................................................................................................................................. 17
Appendix............................................................................................................................................................. 18
(A) Developmental Asset Domains...................................................................................................... 18
(B) Developmental Asset Categories .................................................................................................. 19
(C) Context Areas........................................................................................................................................ 19

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 2

Figures

Figure 1 Increase in Pre-and Post-surveys since last year................................................................. 5
Figure 2 Ethno-racial background............................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3 Do you identify as LGBTQ?............................................................................................................ 7
Figure 4 Developmental Asset Domains ................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5 Percentages youth with Higher Post Scores on each Asset Domain............................. 9
Figure 6 Context areas pre and post ........................................................................................................ 10
Figure 7 Context areas percent students improved .......................................................................... 11
Figure 8 Percentage boys and girls improved, by domain .............................................................. 13
Figure 9 Percent improved by domain, disaggregated by ethnicity/race................................. 15
Figure 10 Percent improved by context, disaggregated by ethnicity/race .............................. 16

Tables

Table 1 Domains areas pre and post, by gender……………………………………………………………12
Table 2 Mean pre-and post scores for domains, by race/ethnicity………………………………...14

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 3

Overview

Bridge to Success’s Positive Youth Development Workgroup selected the Developmental
Assets as a framework to promote healthy development among Waterbury youth.
Developmental Assets are experiences and qualities in the lives of children and youth that
can help ensure that they become productive, caring, and responsible adults. In general,
the more assets that one has the more likely that they will show positive developmental
outcomes.

Waterbury out-of-school-time organizations in the Waterbury area, administered the
Developmental Asset Profile (DAP) to children and youth in their programs. This report
summarizes both the pre-test and the post-test results. This means that it addresses how
the participants were doing before they started the program and how they were doing
after they completed the program. Results of this report should be combined with other
programmatic information (e.g., staff notes, staff observations, other program data) to
help guide the program, and ensure that program participants maintain developmental
asset levels or demonstrate gains.

Programs included in this report are:

• Big Brother, Big Sister
• Boys and Girls Club
• Boy Scouts
• Girl Scouts
• Girls Inc.
• YMCA-Berkely program
• YMCA-SCCA program
• Waterbury Youth Services

This report is slightly different from last year’s report. Changes to the report were made
to make increase the utilization of the data, especially for reporting purposes to external
funders (such as United Way of Greater Waterbury).

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 4

Methodology

Average scores were computed for each of the 8 Developmental Asset Profile (DAP)
domains along with the DAP total score which is an overall average score. In order to ensure
the validity of subscale scores, a minimum threshold of 75% was set. Thus, DAP subscales
were only computed if 75% of the total number of items comprising the subscale were
answered by the participant. For example, a scale comprised of 4 items would require
responses to at least three of these four items. If the participant missed two or more of the
four items then the subscale was not calculated.

This reports presents pre-and post-data to analyze the changes over time. The only way to
examine if there are real changes over time is by looking at the pre- and post-data from the
same participants. Participants who only completed the DAP survey before the program or
participants who only completed the DAP survey after the program were excluded from
most of the analysis. As a result, the number of participants included in this report is usually
smaller than the actual number of participants in the program.

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 5

Collected DAP surveys

Waterbury Bridge to Success and United Way of Greater Waterbury worked together to
support the programs in Waterbury in their efforts of collecting more DAP surveys. These
efforts paid off. This year, the programs combined increased their number of DAPs
significantly, they collected 474 more pre DAP surveys, 671 more post DAP surveys, and
526 more matching DAP surveys; That is three times more!

Figure 1 Increase in Pre-and Post-surveys since last year

980
934
776

506

263 250

Pre (fall) Post (spring) Match

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 6

Demographics

Demographics are based on Pre DAP data. Some programs collected additional
demographics in their post DAP, such as identification with LGBTQ, school information.
When collected, these data are included here too.

Gender and age: 574 (62%)
349 (38%)
Number of girls: 0 (0%)
Number of boys: 10.6 (SD: 2.645)
Number of children identifying as other:
Average age:

Ethnic/Racial identity

When the children were asked about their ethnic or racial identification, 26% identified as
non-Hispanic Black/African American; 44% identified as Hispanic, 21% as non-Hispanic
White; 6% identified as another race or ethnicity, but not as Hispanic, 2% the participants
identified with more than one race, and 1% did not provide any race or ethnicity.

Figure 2 Ethno-racial background

2% 1% 26% Black/AA
6% Hispanic
White
21% Other
Mixed Race
None given

44%

n=928

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 7
Two programs collected information on the sexual orientation of the youth they serve.
These data show that 16% identifies with LGBTQ and 13% says they do not know (yet).
These numbers are much higher than the national averages. A 2017 Gallup poll showed
that 8% of the current high school students identifies as LGBTQ1. The number is, however
similar to a survey that the Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness collected in 2017.
That survey showed that about 15% of the youth identified as LGBTQ.
Figure 3 Do you identify as LGBTQ?

72%

16% 13%

No Yes I don't know
n=32

A few programs asked their youth if they lived in Waterbury or not. Of the 62 children and
youth answering the question, 93% said they did and 7% said they did not.

Four programs collected student identification numbers this fiscal year. In total, they
collected 111 student ID numbers.

1 Gallop (2017). In the U.S., More Adults Identifying as LGBT. [URL:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/201731/lgbt-identification-rises.aspx]

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 8

Developmental Asset Domains

Developmental Assets: improvement in scores

The graph below displays the average score across each of the eight developmental asset
subscales, during pre-test and post-test. Each subscale ranges from 0-30, with higher scores
reflecting more developmental assets. As displayed in the graph, most Pre-scores fell below
the critical cut off score of 21. However, the average post scores increased significantly for
each of the domains. The post scores all fell above the critical cut of score of 21.

Figure 4 Developmental Asset Domains

23.0 22.7 23.2 23.4 23.1 23.3 22.8 22.9
21.3 21.6 20.9 21.2 20.7 20.9
20.8 20.8 21.4 19.5

Subscales below 21 are
considered fair or low.

Pre Post

n=514 or 515
Statistical significant differences pre- and post test using a one tailed t test:
*p<.05
**p<.01
***p<.001
[no asterisk implies there is no statistically significant change]

The average composite (overall) score increased with 1.997 points. The largest average
increase was for the Support domain (+2.205) and the smallest increase was for the
Boundaries and Expectations domain (+1.785).

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 9

Number and percentage of clients improved (achieved goal)

The graph below displays the percentage of youth who had a higher post-test score than
their pre-test. In other words, the graph below shows the percentage of youth who reached
their goal for each of the domains. The percentage of youth who showed an increase across
the sub-scales ranged from 78% (for Commitment to Learning and for Empowerment) to
82% (for Social Competency and for Positive Values). Eighty-two percent (82%) of youth
showed an increase on the aggregated composite scale which is a total of all the subscales.

Figure 5 Percentages youth with Higher Post Scores on each Asset Domain

Composite 82%
Positive ID 82%
Soc Comp 82%
Pos values 81%
Commit learn 78%
Constr use time 80%
Bound and expect 79%
Empowerment 78%
80%
Support

n=between 727 and 730

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 10

Context Areas

Context Areas: before and after

The context view provides an alternative way of scoring and interpreting the DAP
according to five context areas – personal, social, family, school, and community. These
scores all range from 0 to 30. See appendix (C) for definitions regarding context areas.

Figure 5 shows the average score on each of the context areas before and after enrollment
in the program. Each subscale ranges from 0-30, with higher scores reflecting that the
youth receives more support in this context. As displayed in the graph, average pre-scores
do not quite range in the favorable range as they are below a score of 21. The graph shows,
that the average score increased for all the five context areas. The largest average increase
was for Community (+2.23) and the smallest increase for School (+1.69).

Figure 6 Context areas pre and post

23.2 23.5 23.1 22.8 22.4
21.0 21.0 20.4 19.7
20.7

Subscales below 21 are
considered fair or low.

School*** Personal*** Social*** Family*** Community***

Pre Post cut off

n= between 726 and 729
Statistical significant differences pre- and post test using a one tailed t test:
*p<.05
**p<.01
***p<.001
[no asterisk implies there is no statistically significant change]

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 11

Context Areas: Individual student improvement

The graph below displays the percentage of youth who had a higher post-test score than
their pre-test. In other words, the graph below shows the percentage of youth who reached
their goal for each of the context areas. Youth is most likely to improve for their Social or
Community context (81%) and students were least likely to improve for School context
(78%).
Figure 7 Context areas percent students improved

78% 79% 81% 79% 81%

School Personal Social Family Community

n= between 728 and 730

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 12

Results by Demographic Characteristics

Improvements by Gender

To examine if there is any difference between boys and girls, we looked at average pre
scores, average post scores, and the percentage boys who improved their scores vs. the
percentage girls who improved their score. We compared the pre vs. post scores of boys to
the pre vs. girls scores of girls (see table 1 below). The table shows that the average pre
scores were lower for boys in all the domains. Except for the Positive Identity Domain, the
pre scores between boys and girls were highly statistically significant.

Table 1 Domains areas pre and post, by gender

Domain GIRLS Difference Pre Post BOYS Domain
Support* 0.9 19.8 22.6
Empowerment** Pre Post 1.2 20.5 22.7 Difference Support***
23.3 24.2 2.8 Empowerment***
21.6 22.8 0.5 20.6 22.9 2.2
Bound and
Bound and expect 23.4 23.9 1.0 19.4 21.7 2.3 expect***
1.2 21.4 23.5 Cont use time
Cont use time* 19.7 20.7 1.1 20.8 23.4 2.2 Commit learn***
1.0 20.6 23.2 2.1 Pos values***
Commit learn*** 22.0 23.2 0.9 20.7 23.3 2.6 Soc Comp***
0.9 20.5 23.0 2.6 Positive ID***
Pos values*** 21.4 22.6 2.6 Composite***
1.0 2.5
Soc Comp** 22.7 23.7 Average
2.4 improvement
Positive ID* 20.9 21.8

Composite*** 22.1 23.0

Average
improvement

n= between 726 and 729
Statistical significant differences pre- and post test using a two-tailed t test, for boys and for
girls.
*p<.05
**p<.01
***p<.001
[no asterisk implies there is no statistically significant change]

For the post scores, however, they boys caught up and were higher for several domains:
Constructive Use of Time, the Commitment to Learning, the Positive Values, and the
Positive Identity. The differences between boys and girls in the post test were statistically

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 13

significant for the following domains: Support***, Boundaries and Expectations*,
Constructive Use of Time*, Positive values**, and Positive Identity***
Figure 8 shows that, indeed, the percentage of boys who improved the score on each of the
domains was higher than the percentage of girls.

Figure 8 Percentage boys and girls improved, by domain

Composite*** 88%
Positive ID*** 66%
Soc Comp***
Pos values*** 88%
Commit learn** 67%
Constr use time***
Bound and expect*** 88%
Empowerment*** 69%

Support*** 86%
66%

81%
71%

85%
68%

85%
63%

82%
66%

85%
68%

Boys Girls

Boys: n=between 722 and 725; Girls: n= between 203 and 210
Statistical significant differences between boys and girls using Chi square test.
*p<.05
**p<.01
***p<.001

For the Contexts, the findings were similar: in the fall, boys had statistically lower average

scores than girls for all the contexts. But, boys were more likely than girls to improve. In

the spring, boys had higher scores than girls for their Personal context and for their

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 14

Community Context. For the post test, the average community context scores of boys is
statistically higher than girls’ community context score*** and the girls’ context score is
statistically higher for the Family context***.

Improvements by Race

Comparing pre-and post scores by race/ethnicity shows that, on average, the pre score of
White youth was highest and Black and Hispanic youth scored lower. For the Pre scores,
the difference between Black/African American and Whites and between Whites and
Hispanics was statistically significantly different for the Support domain; between Whites
and Black/African American for the Boundaries and Expectations domain; and between
Whites and Black/African American for the Composite Scores.

For the post scores there are only statistically significant differences for the Support
domain between Black/African American and Whites and for the Boundaries and
Expectations domain between Black/African American and Whites and between Hispanics
and Whites. (Statistical significant differences were analyzed with an ANOVA and an LSD
post hoc test.)

Table 2 Mean pre-and post scores for domains, by race/ethnicity

Domain Black/AA Hispanic White Other

Support (n=200-202) (n=311-314) (n=160-162) (n=40-41)
Empowerment
Bound and expect Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Cont use time 20.1 22.5 20.3 22.9 22.1 23.7 20.9 22.9
Commit learn 20.4 22.5 20.5 22.8 21.7 22.6 20 23
Pos values 20.8 22.4 21.1 23.3 22.3 23.5 21.4 23.3
Soc Comp 19.6 21.4 19.1 21.2 20.1 21.7 19 20.7
Positive ID 21.2 23.2 21.3 23.5 22.4 23.7 21.2 22.6
Composite 20.8 23.1 20.5 23 21.7 23.2 20.5 23.2
20.8 23.2 20.9 23.2 21.9 23.4 21.7 24
20.9 23.1 20.5 22.9 20.8 22.4 20.6 22.8
20.6 22.7 20.6 23 21.8 23.2 20.8 23

Comparing the percentage that of the ethnic/racial groups improved (see Figure 9 below)
shows that, overall, Black/African American youth and Hispanic youth was more likely to
improve than Whites. This is in part because, as is shown in table 2 above, white youth had

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 15

higher pre scores than Black/African American youth and then Hispanic youth. The
percentage of youth identifying with another ethnic/racial group who improved on each of
the domains fluctuated more by domain. For example, of the youth identifying as other,
63% improved on the Positive Value domain and 90% improved on the Social Competence
scale. The red lines in the graph below indicate the percentage of youth improving on the
composite scale (total scores).

Figure 9 Percent improved by domain, disaggregated by ethnicity/race

Support
Empowerment
Bound and expect
Cont use time
Commit learn
Pos values
Soc Comp
Positive ID
Composite

Black/AA Hispanic White Other
(n=200-202) (n=311-314) (n=160-162) (n=40-41)

n= Black/African American: 202, Hispanic: 314, White: 161; Other: 41

For the Context areas, findings were similar. In the fall, the average scores of White youth
were higher than they were for Black/AA and for Hispanic youth. These differences were
statistically significant for the School context (between Black/African American and White
youth and between Hispanic and White youth); for the Social context (between
Black/African American and White youth); for the Family context (between Black/African
American youth and youth identifying as other and between Black/African American and
White youth).

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 16

In the spring, the difference was only statistically significant for the Support Domain
(between Black/African American and White youth) and between for the Family domain
(between Black/AA and Hispanic youth).

Not surprisingly, percentage of youth improving was larger for Black/African American
and for Hispanic youth than it was for White youth. As figure 10 shows, around 80% of the
Black/African American youth improved, for Hispanic youth this was a few percentage
points lower. White youth was least likely to improve, around 70% did. The youth who
identified as Other changed greatly in some contexts (e.g. Social domain), but relatively
little in other domains (e.g. Community domain).

Figure 10 Percent improved by context, disaggregated by ethnicity/race

100% School
90% Personal
80% Social
70% Family
60% Community
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Black/AA Hispanic White Other

n= Black/African American: 202, Hispanic: 314, White: 161; Other: 41

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 17

Summary

The findings are encouraging, overall the youth improves their Developmental Asset Profile
over time. The number of Developmental Asset Profile surveys collected this year increased
significantly and the number of pre-and post-surveys collected increased three-fold.

These improvements show that working collectively with partners can yield incredible
outcomes. Not only did partners collect more data, the data is also becoming more
informative. Four of the eight programs collected Student Identification Numbers of the
youth they served. These student ID numbers can be used to link Developmental Asset
Profile data to Student outcome data such as academic achievement and behavior (e.g.
attendance, suspensions).

Disaggregated data in this report shows that girls start off with higher DAP Scores for all
the domains. However, by the spring, boys caught up. In fact, boys scored higher on four of
the domain scores. Girls also started off with higher context area scores, but here too the
boys catch up.

There were slight differences between the youth based on the way they identified their
race/ethnicity. White youth start off with scores, both domain scores and context scores,
that are around 1 point higher than their Black/African American and Hispanic Peers. This
difference reduced over time, because Black/African American youth and Hispanic youth
were more likely to improve their DAP scores. On the post scores the differences was only
0.2. These patterns are the case for both the Developmental Asset Domains and the Context
areas.

Closing the gaps between the different ethnic and racial groups in Waterbury is crucial,
especially because Waterbury’s black and brown youth continue to lag in academic
outcomes. Future DAP reports will hopefully be able to study the link between DAP scores
and academic achievement, and the extent afterschool providers support closing these
academic gaps.

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 18

Appendix

(A) Developmental Asset Domains

1. Support: Suggests high parent-adolescent communication, family support, caring,
encouragement and support extending outside the family to the neighborhood, school,
and community. Higher scores are associated with higher academic performance.

2. Empowerment: Adolescent feels safe across many contexts, and valued and respected
by others. Associated with reduced risk of depression, self-injurious behaviors, and
violence.

3. Boundaries & Expectations: Refers to clear rules and consequences at home, school,
and in the neighborhood, as well as positive role models (e.g., family, friends,
neighborhood).

4. Constructive use of Time: Refers to extra-curricular involvement (i.e.,
religious/spiritual, sport, creative activities, family life).

5. Commitment to Learning: Refers to motivation and active engagement in learning.
6. Positive Values: Refers to positive values such as honesty, responsibility, restraint,

caring for others and a sense of social justice.
7. Social Competencies: Refers to planning and decision-making, cultural competence,

the ability to build friendships, resist peer pressure, and resolve conflicts peacefully.
8. Positive Identity: Refers to positive self-esteem, emerging identity, optimism, and

sense of purpose in life.

B T S - Developmental Assets Pre-and Post-report, Summer 2018 P a g e | 19

(B) Developmental Asset Categories

1. Excellent: (score = 26-30) – Abundant assets, most assets are experienced frequently,
and/or strongly.

2. Good: (score = 21-25) – Moderate assets. Most assets are experienced often, but there
is room for improvement.

3. Fair: (15-20) – Borderline assets. Some assets are experienced, but many are weak
and/or infrequent. There is considerable room for strengthening assets in many areas.

4. Low: (score = 0-14) – Depleted levels of assets. Few if any assets are strong or frequent.
Most assets are experienced infrequently. Tremendous opportunities for strengthening
assets in most areas.

(C) Context Areas

1. Personal: Reflects individual characteristics (e.g., positive values, positive identity).
2. Social: Reflects assets related to relationships with others, both adults and peers. Youth

have the support and role models necessary in their lives.
3. Family: High scores suggest a young person with a warm, safe, and supportive family,

with good parent-child communication.
4. School: Reflects the school environment, relationships with teachers, and attitudes

toward school. High scores reflect a safe and caring school environment with clear rules
that are fairly enforced and combined with a personal commitment to learning.
5. Community: Reflects assets related to neighborhood and community support,
empowerment, and positive use of time in the larger community. High scores reflect a
safe and supportive neighborhood, youth service to the community, and youth
empowerment and engagement at the community level.


Click to View FlipBook Version