The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Published by marcbmorgan, 2020-01-14 19:59:50

DAP Overtime Final Report

DAP_over time report_final

Developmental Asset Profile (DAP), over time ©BTS, November 2018

Surveys collected Number of surveys collected in past four years

Over the past few years, the number of 982 934
Developmental Asset Profile (DAP) 776
surveys collected has increased. The
increase was largest between 2016-17 235 420 508
and 2017-18. In all years there is a 171 277 245 263 250
decline from the number of pre (fall) 72
surveys collected to the number of post
(spring) surveys collected. The number 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18
paired surveys (youth who has both a pre post match
pre and a post survey) is always lowest.

Pre data throughout years

The demographics of youth Demographic changes over time
completing a DAP survey has
not changed much over time. 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
There were more girls 11.9 (2.6) 11.2 (2.9)
completing the DAP survey in Average age (st. dev.) 11 (2.8) 45%/55% 62%/38%
2016-17 and more boys in
2017-18. Boys/girls unknown
Examining pre-survey data
across the years helps Race/ethnicity
understand youth’s
Developmental Assets Profile
as they start the program in
the fall.

The average pre scores have Average scores for eight Developmental Asset Domains

Abcereonsscothnesidsitfefenrteonvteyretaimr teh.eTreheare consistent differePnocesistivbeetiwdeeenntitbyoys and girls and between white a2n122d22

balavcekraagneds bforroweanchyoouf tthh.eAcross all years, girls haSvoechiaiglhceormavpeertaegnecsycores when they start their program2222in33
tdheomfaalli.nTshjuismispesdpeacbioaulltyothne case for their Support doPmoasiitnivaenvdaflouretsheir Social Competency domain. W21e2223
222233
speoeitnhtabtewtwhietenh2av0e15co-1n6staanndcy higher averaCgeomscmorietms tehnatntoyoleuathrnwinhgo identifies as non-Hispanic
B2la0c1k6/-A17fr.iEcaxnceApmt feorrictahne or as Hispanic. ComCpoanrsetdrutcoti2v0e1u6s-e17ofthtiemgeaps between the Whites and 129201
22
B‘Claocnks/tArufrcitciavne Aumseeorfictainmyeo’ uth increasBeoduinnd2a0r1ie7s-1a8n;dtheexpgaepcstabteiotwnseen the average scores of Whites 2244
and
Hisp212a22n3ic
Hdiospmaaniinc,sarllemdoaminaeidn sicmorileasra(rweith Whites having an aEvmerpagoewsecromreenotf about one point above that of
foabr oevaechthoef t2h0epdooimntasicnust).off . 22 2244
Support

17-18 16-17 15-16

Comparing Improvements pre-and post-surveys 2016-17 and 2017-18*

Percentage youth who improved their average score Compared to 2016-17, there
was more youth in 2017-18 who
80% 78% 79% 80% 78% 81% 82% 82% improved their average score
69% 69% 70% 62% 66% 69% 75% 66% throughout the course of the
youth program. In 2016-17,
around 70% of the youth
improved, a year later around
80% of the youth did.

16-17 In both 2016-17 and 2017-18,
17-18 boys were far more likely to

improve than girls. On average (across the domains), 77% of the boys improved in 2016-17 versus 59% of

the girls, an 18 percentage point gap. A year later, both boys and girls became more likely to improve but

the 18 percentage point gap remained. In 2017-18, 85% of the boys improved vs. 67% of the girls.

The largest difference between 2016-17 and 2017-18 Percentage of youth who improved, by race
was between the percentages Black/African American,
Hispanic, and White youth who improved their average 82% 83% 81% 75%
score. In 2016-17, whites were more likely to improve
their average score than black and brown youth. In 2017- 56% 52%
18 this reversed. While white youth started out with
higher average DAP domain scores in both years, the gap 16-17
did not remain in 2017-18. 17-18

*There was no pre-post data for 2015-16 available Black/African Hispanic White
American


Click to View FlipBook Version
Previous Book
2017 November Boost Final Report
Next Book
Sirah 5