Subject: ftp://ftp.health.org/pub/files/DOS-TXT/daresc.txt
_________ ********* ********* ***** ***********
_________ ** ** ** ** ** **
_________ ** ** ** ** ** **
_________ ** ** ** ** ** **
** ********* *********** ***********
** ** ** ** ** _________
** ** ** ** ** _________
** ** ** ** ** _________
********* ********* ** ** ** _________
This File Is Provided
As A Service of PREVline (Prevention Online)
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
U. S. Public Health Service
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services
---------
for more information or assistance, contact ....
The National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information
P.O. Box 2345
Rockville, Maryland 20847
1-800-729-6686
Reducing The Risk of Drug Involvement Among Early Adolescents:
An Evaluation of
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)
April 1993
Michele Alicia Harmon
Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology
2220 LeFrak Hall
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
-----------------------------------------
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, and
the Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students
at the Johns Hopkins University. Partial support was also provided by the
Charleston County School District in South Carolina. I would like to thank
the following people for their technical support and assistance: The
Charleston County School District staff (especially Candice Bates), the
Charleston County DARE officers, and Lois Hybl and Gary Gottfredson at the
Johns Hopkins University. I am also grateful for comments provided by Denise
Gottfredson on earlier drafts of this paper.
Abstract
This paper examines the effectiveness of the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance
Education) program in Charleston County, South Carolina by comparing 341
fifth grade DARE students to 367 nonDARE students. Significant differences
were found in the predicted direction for alcohol use in the last year,
belief in prosocial norms, association with drug using peers, positive peer
association, attitudes against substance use, and assertiveness. No
differences were found on cigarette, tobacco, or marijuana use in the last
year, frequency of any drug use in the past month, attitudes about police,
coping strategies, attachment and commitment to school, rebellious
behavior, and self-esteem.
I. INTRODUCTION
The adolescent drug use epidemic in the United States dates back over
20 years. Beginning in the 1960's when much of the nation's youth began
to use psychoactive drugs such as LSD and PCP, the drug epidemic created
public concern as it continued into the 70's. The 1980's showed much of
the same with drug use on the rise and new drugs such as MDMA (XTC), ice,
and crack suddenly appearing in every major city.
This paper begins with an examination of the adolescent drug use
problem in the United States and Charleston, South Carolina (where the
current study takes place). Possible solutions to this problem are
briefly discussed and a summary of prior studies of Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (DARE) is provided. The current study is then presented followed
by a brief discussion and recommendations for future research.
Much of what is known about adolescent drug use is a result of the
annual High School Senior Survey conducted by the Institute for Social
Research at the University of Michigan (Johnston, 1973). Data from a
recent report examining drug use (Johnston, Bachman, & O'Malley, 1991) show
a gradual decline for all types of drugs since 1975. However, the current
levels of drug use in the United States imply a large number of adolescents
are still using drugs. For example, in 1990, 90 percent of U.S. seniors
reported drinking alcohol at some time in their lives, while 64 percent
said they had smoked cigarettes.
Adolescent drug use in Charleston, South Carolina, where the current
study takes place, is similar to national use.
During the 1989-90 school year all students (223,663) in grades 7-12
in South Carolina's 91 public school districts were surveyed to collect a
variety of information on current and past drug use (South Carolina
Department of Education and South Carolina Commission on Alcohol and Drug
Abuse, 1990). Many of the survey questions were modeled after the annual
High School Senior Survey (Johnston, 1973).
The main findings for grade 12 from the South Carolina survey for
Charleston County are presented in Table 1. Relevant national data are
also shown for comparison. Information collected from the Charleston
survey includes lifetime, annual, and 30-day prevalence rates.
Lifetime prevalence rates show the U.S. percentages generally larger
than those in Charleston. For example, almost 90% of the U.S. seniors
compared to 77% of the Charleston seniors said they had drunk alcohol at
least once in their lives. In addition, 10% more U.S. seniors than
Charleston seniors said they had used marijuana and 17% more U.S.seniors
said they had smoked cigarettes.
In contrast to the lifetime prevalence rates, the 30-day prevalence
rates for Charleston and the U.S. are quite similar. Very small
differences exist with about half favoring the U.S. and half favoring
Charleston.
The South Carolina and National Youth Survey data give a useful picture
of the extent of drug use in the United States and Charleston, South
Carolina. However, it should be noted that many youths leave school before
their senior year. Obviously, the youths who have dropped out of school
before their senior year are not included in either the annual High School
Senior Survey or the South Carolina Youth Survey. Since drug use is higher
for high school drop outs than it is for those who stay in-school (Anhalt &
Klein 1976; Johnston, 1973) reported senior drug use rates are most likely
underestimates for all adolescents.
Even with dropouts excluded from the survey data, the amount of
reported drug use in the United States, and Charleston, South Carolina,
is high. Although national data show reported drug involvement slowly
declining, the current high levels of drug use display a grim picture of
adolescents today. Furthermore, the drug epidemic is far from over and the
goal of drug free youth in America is still very distant. Answers to the
question of what can be done to stop the drug use epidemic still escapes
practitioners, law enforcement personnel, health professionals and social
scientists.
The past two decades have led to a variety of strategies aimed at
combatting the drug problem. Polich, Ellickson, Reuter, & Kahan (1984)
suggest the three most widely used attempts to combat or control drug use
are supply reduction, treatment, and prevention.
Supply Reduction
Efforts to limit or control the supplies of drugs have been carried out
via laws unfavorable towards drug use and corresponding law enforcement
activities. Law enforcement agencies have directed efforts at reducing the
production, import, distribution, and retail sales of illegal "street"
drugs. The hope remains that by targeting these major market areas the
quantity of drugs entering the country will decrease, trafficking and
selling drugs will become more risky, shortages of drugs in the illicit
market will take place, and the price of drugs to consumers will increase,
ultimately reducing consumption.
As Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller (1992) point out, manipulating illegal
drug supplies by increasing drug interdiction and drug dealer arrests should
lead to positive outcomes such as raising the price of street drugs to the
user, thus reducing the demand for drugs.
However, contrary evidence is cited by Polich, et al. (1984). They
conclude doubling drug interdiction, and/or increasing arrests and
imprisonment of drug dealers would affect neither retail prices nor the
availability of illegal drugs. Essentially, the point is made that large
drug quantities will always be available to take the place of any quantity
confiscated. Increasing arrests would do little, they argue, because prison
overcrowding forces the least violent to become paroled and often times
these types of prisoners are low level street dealers that end up back on
the street. Even if lower level dealers are arrested and kept in jail, there
are many more that will take their place. Finally, because there is an
immense amount of competition on the streets, dealers are forced to keep
their prices down to stay in business. Therefore, supply reduction used
alone as a means for reducing society's drug problem appears ineffective.
Treatment
Similar to supply reduction, millions of dollars are spent every year on
treatment as a means of curtailing drug use. And much like supply reduction
strategies, treatment also shows little promise for eliminating drug use,
particularly among adolescents.
Much of the drug treatment literature suggests treatment for adolescents
is ineffective (Hubbard, Cavanaugh, Graddock, & Rachal, 1983; Miller, 1973;
Stein & Davis, 1982). Treatment effectiveness is most often measured by
continued abstinence from drugs.
Research on adolescent treatment programs suggests treatment, especially
for adolescents, requires a lifestyle adjustment. This is to say that for
most adolescents drug abuse is not a problem of physiological dependence.
Rather, the problem stems from adolescent "life problems." Many researchers
suggest that attention to these types of problems should be first and
foremost (Bennett, 1983; Coupey & Schonberg, 1982). Researchers in the
medical field agree adolescent drug abuse cannot be treated apart from
family, school, and peer related problems (Macdonald & Newton, 1981;
Mackenzie, 1982; Monopolis & Savage, 1982). This implies adolescent drug
abusers are treated for the wrong problem since most programs are designed
to deal with physical drug dependence. Research supports this argument by
showing traditional drug treatment programs are ineffective in treating
adolescent clients (Hubbard et al., 1983; Sells & Simpson, 1979).
A review of treatment programs produces mixed results with no clear,
conclusive evidence and studies plagued by methodological flaws. For
example, Ogborne (1978) claims treatment is not effective, NIDA (1981)
reports it is effective, and Einstein (1981) says a general evaluation
cannot be made. However, Polich et al. (1984) and Beschner (1989) caution
that few, if any, are backed by true scientific evaluations.
Polich and his colleges (1984) reviewed several small scale treatment
studies applicable to youthful drug abusers, none of which produced any
large desired effects. A few studies did show some evidence of success.
However, these results can most often be explained by rival hypotheses.
Many studies found length of treatment stay to effect treatment success.
Since many youth drop out of treatment programs it is not known whether
these results are due to the increased benefit of treatment or to client
self-selection. The lack of control group in the typical study also makes
it difficult to evaluate the self-selection threat.
Although adolescent treatment efforts in general have not demonstrated
desired effects, this is not to say treatment should be abandoned.
Instead, steps should be taken to restructure adolescent treatment
programs to deal with general adolescent life problems. Perhaps then,
treatment programs will show more promise as a strategy for reducing or
eliminating adolescent drug use.
Prevention
Prevention holds more promise for controlling adolescent drug use
than supply reduction or treatment. Reasons for promise include the
timing of prevention programs and their focus on "gateway" substances -
alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. National data show youth initiating
alcohol use as early as age 11 and marijuana and other illicit drugs at
age 12 (Elliot & Huizinga, 1984). Because drug use often begins at such
an early age, prevention programs must target youth before they come in
contact with drugs. Currently, many drug prevention programs do in fact
target youth while they are still in elementary school. This is especially
important in light of the fact that the earlier an individual uses drugs
the more likely they are to engage in greater and more persistent use of
dangerous drugs (Flemming, Kellam, & Brown, 1982; Robins & Przybeck, 1985).
Many studies indicate drug use begins with one of the "gateway"
substances and follows a logical progression to experimentation with
other drugs (Hamburg, Braemer, & Jahnke, 1975; Kandel, 1978; Loeber &
Le Blanc, 1990; Richards, 1980). Prevention programs show promise because
most, if not all, drug prevention programs focus on "gateway" drugs.
Prevention efforts have not always been as promising, however. In the
past, evaluations of many different prevention programs showed little or
no effectiveness. Early studies were also methodologically weak. Since
then there have been several "waves" of drug prevention programs each
building on what was previously learned. More recent approaches have
proven effective in reducing "gateway" drug use with studies demonstrating
an increase in methodological rigor.
Traditional prevention approaches include information dissemination,
affective education, and alternative activities. These efforts are based
on a misunderstanding about why adolescents engaged in drug use. For
example, information dissemination programs assume adolescents use drugs
simply because they lack information about such drugs. Information
dissemination approaches provided adolescents with facts about the
pharmacology of drugs, the uses of various drugs types, and the
consequences of drug use. Fear arousal and moral persuasion are two
variations of the information dissemination, or health education model
that provide similar information, adding either scare tactics or moral
appeals. Affective education focuses on clarifying values and increasing
self-esteem assuming individuals lacking these attributes will use drugs.
Similarly, alternative activities try to relieve boredom and provide
adolescents with stimulating alternatives hoping they will engage in these
activities instead of turning to drug use.
Research clearly demonstrates the first generation of drug prevention
programs has little or no impact on deterring adolescent drug use
(Berberin, Gross, Lovejoy, & Paparella, 1976; Hanson, 1980; Kinder, Pape,
& Walfish, 1980; Malvin, Moskowitz, Schaps, & Schaeffer, 1985; Schaps,
Bartolo, Moskowitz, Palley, & Churgin, 1981). In fact, some programs are
associated with an increase in drug use (Gordon & McAlister, 1982; Swisher
& Hoffman, 1975).
The second generation of drug prevention efforts has proven more
effective in reducing adolescent drug use. Psychosocial approaches such
as psychological inoculation, resistance skills training and, personal and
social skills training target research-based risk factors for adolescent
drug use. All of these programs focus on increasing an individual's
personal and social competence through skill acquisition (Arkin, Roemhild,
Johnson, Luepker, & Murray, 1981; Botvin & Dusenbury, 1987; Schinke &
Gilchrist, 1985; Hansen, Johnson, Flay, Graham, & Sobel, 1988; Telch,
Killen, McAlister, Perry, & Maccoby, 1982). Most programs teach personal
and social skills such as problem-solving, decision-making, coping,
resisting peer pressure, and assertiveness. Of the prevention efforts
reviewed, the literature suggests continued psychosocial efforts be
employed with emphasis placed on resistance skill training and personal
and social skill training approaches. Follow-up, or booster sessions are
recommended, however, since there is some evidence initial effects may
decline (Botvin, Eng, & Williams, 1983).
II. DARE (DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION)
DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) is a drug abuse prevention
program that focuses on teaching students skills for recognizing and
resisting social pressures to use drugs. DARE lessons also focus on the
development of self-esteem, coping, assertiveness, communications skills,
risk assessment and decision making skills, and the identification of
positive alternatives to drug use.
Taught by a uniformed police officer, the program consists of 17 lessons
offered once a week for 45 to 50 minutes. The DARE curriculum can only be
taught by police officers who attend an intensive two-week, 80 hour,
training. The DARE program calls for a wide range of teaching activities
including question and answer sessions, group discussion, role play, and
workbook exercises.
The DARE curriculum was created by Dr. Ruth Rich, a curriculum
specialist with the Los Angeles Unified School District, from a "second
generation" curriculum known as Project SMART (Self-Management and
Resistance Training) (Hansen, et al., 1988). DARE was piloted in fifty
Los Angeles elementary schools with over 8,000 fifth and sixth grade
students during the 1983-84 school year. Two years later, all 345
elementary schools under the Los Angels Police Department's jurisdiction
had a DARE officer assigned to teach the curriculum. The program, which
originally targeted fifth and sixth grade students, was then expanded to
include a junior high school curriculum and a much briefer orientation for
students in kindergarten through fourth grade.
DARE is one of, if not the most, wide spread drug prevention programs
in the United States. In 1989, over three million children in 80,000
classrooms were exposed to DARE ("Project DARE", 1990). Currently, there
are DARE programs in every state in the United States and some counties
have mandated DARE as part of the school health curriculum. It has also
been implemented in several other countries including Canada, England,
Australia, and New Zealand. In addition, it has been adopted by many
reservation schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and by the
worldwide network of U.S. Defense Department schools for children of
military personnel. There is a Spanish version and a Braille translation
of the student workbook. Efforts are also under way to develop strategies
for teaching DARE to hearing impaired and other special needs students.
Previous DARE Evaluations
Several DARE evaluations have been conducted over the last eight years
in at least seven states and Canada (Agopian & Becker, 1990; Aniskiewicz
& Wysong, 1987; Clayton, Cattarello, Day, & Walden, 1991; Clayton,
Cattarello, & Walden, in press; DeJong, 1987; Earle, 1987; Evaluation and
Training Institute, 1990; Faine, 1989; Faine & Bohlander, 1988, 1989;
Manos, Kameoka, & Tanja, 1986; Nyre, 1985, 1986; Nyre & Rose, 1987;
Ringwalt, Ennett, & Holt, 1991; Walker, 1990). Some show positive
results, some show negative results, and most have serious methodological
flaws.
Most of the DARE studies conclude that DARE is a "success". However,
success has various meanings. For some evaluations it means teachers and
other school administrators surveyed said "DARE was a success". In other
evaluations it means students responded they liked the DARE program. Still
others claim success if teachers and students rate DARE as "useful" or
"valuable". For the most part, success is based on the finding that
students are more able to generate "appropriate" responses to a widely
used 19 item questionnaire about drug facts and attitudes after the DARE
program than before. In these last instances, almost all had no control
group. Several of the studies above contain such severe methodology
problems that any results, if cited, should be questioned. In a review of
several of these studies, Clayton et al. (1991, p. 300) labels most of
them as "at best pilot and/or descriptive in nature" and does not bother
mentioning any of their findings.
Methodological flaws contained in most of the DARE evaluations include
one or more of the following problems: 1) no control group, 2) post-test
only, 3) poorly operationalized measures, 4) low alpha levels for scales
(less than .50), 5) no statistical tests performed, and 6) pre-treatment differences
not taken into account. Despite the lack of methodological rigor among
most of these studies, three should be mentioned as they have corrected
many (but not all) of the cited weaknesses. The results from these studies
as well as any methodological flaws are reported below.
For their experiment in North Carolina, Ringwalt and his colleges
(1991) evaluated the DARE program using 1270 fifth and sixth grade
students as subjects. They randomly assigned 10 schools to receive the
DARE program and 10 schools to serve as controls.
All students were pre-tested before the program began using a
questionnaire designed to measure the following variables: self-report
drug use, intentions to use drugs in the next year, attitudes towards
drugs, perceived costs and benefits of drug use, perceived peer
attitudes toward drug use, perceived media influences on drug use,
self-esteem, and assertiveness. The reported internal reliability of
all scales was favorable (.60 to .90)
Significant pre-treatment differences were found on measures of race,
sex, self-report alcohol use, general attitudes towards drugs, perceived
peer attitudes towards drugs, costs of alcohol use, and perceived media
influences.
Controlling on pre-treatment differences, the dependent variable at
time 1 (pre-test), and school type, it was concluded DARE met some of its
immediate objectives. Significant differences between the experimental
and control group include general attitudes towards drugs, attitudes
toward specific drugs (beer, wine coolers, wine, cigarettes, and inhalants),
perceptions of peers attitudes towards drug use, assertiveness, recognizing
media influences to use drugs, and the costs associated with drug use.
However, no statistically significant effects were found for self-reported
drug use, future intentions to use drugs, perceived benefits of drug use
(alcohol and cigarettes) or self-esteem.
Ringwalt et al. (1991) conducted an evaluation study showing the DARE
program had effects on some of the immediate outcome objectives. However,
because the experimental and control groups were quite different to begin
with, it could be argued that even though statistical controls were
employed the groups probably differed on other variables not measured by
the pre-test. These unmeasured pre-treatment differences could account
for the observed post-test differences.
A second point about the study should also be mentioned. The initial
pages of the study explain the fact that methodological shortcomings have
existed in drug program evaluations but that the current study improves
upon one of those problems by performing statistical analyses appropriate
for the research design. Continuing, in the results section the authors
note prior evaluations have conducted the analysis at the wrong level.
They make the argument that some studies have used individuals as the unit
of analysis when schools have been assigned to treatment and control
conditions. They immediately go on to say that in order to guard against
any contamination of the results by school differences in their study,
analysis of covariance, with school as a covariate, is employed. While
the authors succeed at controlling for post-test differences associated
with school membership, they still perform the analysis at a different
level than the assignment, thus inflating the degrees of freedom.
A second DARE evaluation also demonstrating methodological strength
over previous studies is that of Faine and Bohlander (1988). The authors
not only compared DARE to nonDARE students in the fifth grade but also
looked at four school types in Frankfort, Kentucky - rural, parochial,
inner-city, and suburban. Eight schools were randomly assigned to receive
DARE and six were randomly assigned to the control condition in the Fall
and Spring of the 1987-88 school year. Two additional control group
schools were selected on the basis of school type to match the school
characteristics of the experimental group. The randomization and
selection process resulted in 451 experimental students and 332 control
students.
The six outcome variables measured were self-esteem, knowledge of
drugs, attitudes towards drugs and alcohol, peer resistance, perceived
external control and attitudes toward the police. There were no reported
interaction effects between DARE and school type on any of the outcome
measures. It should be noted that self-reported drug use was not examined.
Comparing DARE to control students, they found significant differences in
the expected direction for all six measures which included self-esteem
(p<.05), attitudes towards the police (p<.001), knowledge of drugs (p<.001),
attitudes towards drugs (p<.001), perceived external locus of control
(p<.01), and peer resistance scores (p<.001). For some outcomes, such as
self-esteem, the control group also improved from the pre- to the post-test.
However, pre- to post-test analysis revealed the greatest gains for the
DARE group.
Faine and Bohlander (1989) extended their original evaluation by
conducting two phases of a one-year follow up study. However, severe
methodological problems prohibit drawing any conclusions. The first
phase design involves testing the control and experimental cohort at the
end of the 1988-89 school year in order to assess the long term
effectiveness of DARE. However, after one year the control group had
also received DARE. In this situation, any observable differences cannot
confidently be attributed to the DARE program. This is especially true
in light of the fact the authors reported the shift from the first to the
second year meant the majority of students moved from an elementary
school to a junior high school. The change in school structure alone
could have influenced the results, not to mention other possibilities
such as a maturation effect.
Unfortunately, the second phase of the follow-up is just as
methodologically flawed as the first. Because all students in the
original DARE evaluation had received DARE by the end of the 1988-89
school year, a control group from two additional counties was sought out
in order to make comparisons. Since the additional control counties had
not been pre-tested, there is no way of knowing if any pre-treatment
differences existed between the control and experimental students before
the experimental students were exposed to DARE. Although Faine and
Bohlander's (1988) initial DARE evaluation produced convincing results,
too many rival hypothesis exist to draw conclusions about the long term
follow-up study.
The last DARE study worth mentioning took place in Lexington, Kentucky
(Clayton et al., 1991). During the 1987-1988 school year, the first of a
five year longitudinal study, 23 schools were randomly assigned to the
treatment (DARE) condition and 8 schools were randomly assigned as
controls. The control group received the standard health curriculum which
contained a drug education unit. The initial cohort was made up of 2,091
sixth grade students.
Initial equivalency tests indicate the treatment group had significantly
more white students and significantly more positive attitudes towards drugs
than the control group. The treatment group also reported significantly
more lifetime, last year, and last month alcohol use.
The authors used analysis of variance to compare the treatment and
control group outcomes. However, they only controlled on race despite
other pre-treatment differences. Statistically significant (p<.01)
differences in the expected direction were found for general drug
attitudes, and negative attitudes toward specific drugs (cigarettes,
alcohol, and marijuana). Differences between the two groups were also
found on the peer relationship scale (p<.05). Compared to the nonDARE
group, the DARE students self-reported more popularity among their peers.
Differences were not observed for self-esteem, peer pressure resistance,
or self-reported drug use.
A two-year follow-up study (Clayton, in press) examined the same
cohort of 6th grade students using two follow-up questionnaires after
the initial post-test. The first follow- up questionnaire was given
during the 1988-1989 school year when the cohort was in the 7th grade
and the second follow-up questionnaire was administered during the
1989-1990 school year when the cohort was in the 8th grade. Attrition
rates over the two years did not differ significantly between the two
groups.
The long-term effects of DARE prove to be minimal in terms of past
year alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use. The only statistically
significant difference occurred at the first follow-up for last year
marijuana use. Unfortunately, this finding occurred in the opposite
direction than that expected. Significantly more marijuana use was
reported by the DARE students than nonDARE students. Otherwise, no
significant effects were found at any other time for any other drug type.
The long-term effectiveness of DARE was not demonstrated in the
Lexington evaluation. However, Clayton and his colleagues (in press)
suggest an alternative explanation for the lack of significant findings.
They propose the lack of any long-term effects may be due to the fact
that the control group was not in a no-treatment condition. Since it
is not specified what the standard health curriculum (drug unit) entails,
it is certainly possible the control students received similar education
and training as that provided by the DARE program.
Summary of DARE Evaluations
Recent DARE evaluations demonstrate an improvement in methodology over
earlier studies. The three DARE studies described above all use
respectable research methodology. Summarizing the results of these
studies is somewhat difficult given each one utilizes unique outcome
measures such as recognizing media influences and costs and benefits of
drug use (Ringwalt, et al., 1991) external locus of control and attitudes
towards police (Faine & Bohlander, 1988) and peer relations (popularity
among one's peers) (Clayton et al., 1991). However, all three studies do
measure drug attitudes, self-esteem, and peer resistance (assertiveness)
providing inconsistent results with respect to self-esteem and peer
resistance (assertiveness). Findings from Ringwalt et al. (1991), Faine
and Bohlander (1988) and Clayton et al.(1991) agree that DARE has an
effect on drug attitudes. In all three cases, the treatment (DARE) group
had significantly less positive attitudes towards drugs compared to the
control group. There is a lack of agreement among all other outcome
variables measured.
Although other long-term studies have been attempted, the only one
demonstrating adequate methodology is the Lexington study (Clayton et al.,
in press). Possibly confounded by the lack of a true "no treatment"
control group, the results do not warrant program success.
In short, studies of the DARE program have produced mixed results and
DARE evaluations up to this point are inconclusive. Further replications
are necessary in order make more confident conclusions about the effects
of the DARE program.
DARE Compared to Most Promising Prevention Approach
Several aspects of the DARE program make it a likely candidate for
success. First, the program is offered to students just before the age
when they are likely to experiment with drugs. Second, although there
is little research on the effectiveness of law enforcement personnel as
classroom instructors, uniformed police officers serve as teachers of the
DARE curriculum in hopes of increasing favorable attitudes towards the
law and law enforcement personnel. Third, the DARE program seeks to
prevent the use of "gateway drugs" (i.e., alcohol, cigarettes, and
marijuana), thereby decreasing the probability of subsequent heavier,
more serious, drug use. Fourth, the DARE program draws upon several
aspects of effective drug prevention efforts from the "second generation"
such as the development and practice of life skills (coping, assertiveness,
and decision making).
Although DARE shows promise as a drug prevention strategy, more
evaluation efforts need to take place before forming an overall
conclusion about the program. This is especially important considering
the fact that millions of government dollars are spent on this one
particular drug prevention program every year and its dissemination
continues to spread rapidly throughout the United States - all without
any conclusive evidence concerning its effectiveness.
III. OBJECTIVE OF THE PRESENT STUDY
The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the effectiveness of
the DARE program in Charleston County, South Carolina. Specific aims of
the program include the stated DARE objectives - increasing self-esteem,
assertiveness, coping skills, and decreasing positive attitudes towards
drugs, actual drug use, and association with drug using peers. The
study also examines the program's effectiveness for reducing other known
risk factors associated with adolescent drug use such as social integration,
commitment and attachment to school, and rebellious behavior.
IV. METHODS
Research Design
The current study uses a nonequivalent control group quasi-experimental
design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) to determine if participating in the
DARE program has any affect on the measured outcome variables compared to
a similar group that did not receive the program.
The DARE program took place during the Fall and Spring semesters of the
1989-90 school year. A student self-report questionnaire was used to
measure the outcome variables. All pre- and post-tests were administered
approximately 20 weeks apart.
The survey administration was conducted by the school alcohol and drug
contact person. The administration was conducted in such a way as to
preserved the confidentiality of the students. All students were assigned
identification numbers prior to the time of the pre-test. The
identification number was used to link the pre- and post-test questionnaire
responses. A questionnaire was distributed in an envelope with the
student's name in the top right hand corner. Each name was printed on a
removable label which the students tore off and threw away. The
administrator read the cover page of the survey informing the students
there was a number on the survey booklet which may be used to match their
responses with questions asked later. The administrator also informed the
students they had the right not to answer any or all of the questions.
Response rates for the sample were high. Table 2 shows pre-test rates
range from 79.3% to 98.5%, with an average response rate of 93.5% for the
DARE students and 93.7% for the comparison students. An average of 90% of
the DARE students and 86.4% of the comparison students completed the post-
test. The pre- and post-test (combined) response rates were similar for
both groups; 86.5% (295) of the treatment and 83.7% (307) of the
comparison students completed both surveys.
Statistical analysis procedures were performed to examine the
differences between the DARE and nonDARE students. To begin, Analysis of
Variance procedures were employed. This type of analysis enables pre-
treatment differences on demographic or dependent measures to be detected
and subsequently controlled for in later analysis. Controlling for any
pre-treatment differences between the two groups and the measured dependent
variable on the pre-test, the Analysis of Covariance procedure was used to
detect significant differences at the time of the post-test.
Sample
Seven hundred eight fifth grade students from eleven elementary schools
in Charleston County, South Carolina participated in the present study.
Students came from five schools receiving the DARE program and six that
did not. Of the 708 students involved in the study, 341 received the
treatment (DARE), and 367 served as comparison students. The students
came from schools representing a cross section of those found in the
Charleston County School District. Three schools are urban, six suburban,
and two rural.
Each of the DARE schools was paired with a comparison school based on
the following characteristics: Number of students, percent of students
receiving free or reduced lunch, percent white, percent male, percent
never retained, and percent meeting BSAP (Basic Skills Assessment Program)
reading and math standards.
Measures
The You and Your School questionnaire was used to measure DARE
objectives and other factors associated with later drug use. You and
Your School was a preliminary version of What About You? (Gottfredson,
1990), a questionnaire designed to measure drug involvement and risk
factors for later drug use.
You and Your School consists of 10 scales and 4 sets of individual
questions designed to measure the dependent variables. The ten scales
used in the study are: 1) Belief in Prosocial Norms, 2) Social
Integration, 3) Commitment to School, 4) Rebellious Behavior, 5) Peer
Drug Modeling, 6) Attitudes Against Substance Use, 7) Attachment to
School, 8) Self-Esteem, 9) Assertiveness, and 10) Positive Peer Modeling.
Sets of individual variables include questions on attitudes about police,
coping strategies, and drug use in the last year and last month. Appendix
A shows the contents of each scale and the individual items used in the
survey.
Scale reliabilities were determined using Cronbach's alpha. Table 4
shows the number of items in each scale and the corresponding reliability
coefficients. Reliability coefficients range from .58 for Assertiveness
to .85 for Social Integration. Each scale was calculated so that a high
score indicates a high level of the factor. For all scales, the items
were recoded so that the responses were in the same direction and averaged.
V. RESULTS
Pre-treatment Differences for DARE and NonDARE Students
Comparisons were made between the DARE and nonDARE groups to assess
initial equivalence on the demographic and outcome variables (see Table
5). Statistically significant pre-treatment differences were found for
two of the three demographic measures. The DARE group had significantly
more female students (p<.05) and more white students (p<.01) than the
comparison group. The data indicate males made up 45% of the DARE
group and 54% percent of the comparison group while white students made
up 59% of the DARE group and 44% of the comparison group. No significant
differences were found for the respondent's average age. The mean age
for both groups of students was 10.3 years old.
Three other measures were also shown to be significantly different for
DARE and nonDARE students at the time of the pre-test. Before the DARE
program began, a higher percentage of the DARE students reported smoking
cigarettes in the last year. The DARE group was also found to be less
attached to school and believe less in prosocial norms than the comparison
group.
Post-treatment Differences for DARE and NonDARE Students
Initial analyses compared the DARE and comparison groups on each
outcome measure without applying statistical controls for known pre-
treatment differences (see Table 6). These analyses revealed differences
between only two variables, peer drug modeling and attitudes against
substance use, both at the p<.05 level. However, as shown in Table 7,
controlling for pre-existing differences and the dependent variable
measured prior to treatment, the DARE students initiated alcohol use less
in the last year (p<.05), had higher levels of belief in prosocial norms
(p<.01), reported less association with drug using peers (p<.01), felt
more of their peer associations were positive or prosocial (p<.05), had
an increase in attitudes against substance use (p<.001), and were more
assertive (p<.05) than the comparison students.
Other findings demonstrated no effect. DARE and nonDARE students did
not differ significantly on the percent reporting cigarette, tobacco, or
marijuana use in the last year or frequency of any drug use in the past
month. Items targeting coping strategies and attitudes about police were
also no different between the two groups. Finally, social integration,
commitment and attachment to school, rebellious behavior, and self-esteem
scale scores were not significantly different for those in the DARE program
than for those not in the program.
In summary, the evidence shows DARE students had more beliefs in
prosocial norms, more attitudes against substance use, more assertiveness,
and more positive peer associations than the comparison group. The DARE
students also reported less association with drug using peers and less
alcohol use in the last year. However, the DARE students were equivalent
to the nonDARE students on social integration, commitment and attachment
to school, rebellious behavior, coping strategies, attitudes about the
police, self-esteem, and last year and last month drug use (with the
exception of last year alcohol use).
VI. DISCUSSION
Limitations of the Present Study
Several factors limit the present study. These are different units
of analysis, selection threat due to lack of randomization, and multiple
comparisons.
The problem with the unit of analysis is that the treatment and
comparison groups were determined by matching schools on specified school
characteristics, the program was delivered to classrooms of students, and
the analysis was performed at the individual level. The best solution to
this problem would have been to randomly assign students to classrooms
within schools where some classrooms would receive DARE and others
classrooms would not. Assuming this could be done with many classrooms
(at least 50), in several different schools, the analysis could be
performed using the DARE and control classroom means. This was not
possible since the evaluation was conducted after student assignment to
classrooms and DARE assignment to schools had already taken place.
Given the random assignment of children into classrooms was not
possible, it then would have been better if schools were randomly
assigned to receive the DARE program or serve as control schools. This
would have decreased a selection threat since currently the argument could
be made that the treatment and comparison schools were different to begin
with on school characteristics other than those used for matching. As
previously mentioned, the decision about which schools received DARE and
which did not was determined prior to the beginning of the evaluation.
The last issue worth mentioning is that of multiple comparisons. It
is possible the significant outcome effects are overestimated due to the
fact that the statistical tests performed were not independent but were
treated as such.
Current Findings and Comparisons
The current DARE evaluation demonstrates the program's effectiveness
on some of the measured outcome variables but not on others. The current
study shows DARE does have an impact on several of the program objectives.
Among these are attitudes against substance use, assertiveness, positive
peer association, association with drug using peers, and alcohol use within
the last year.
It should be noted several of the variables showing no difference
between the treatment and control groups are not specifically targeted
by DARE (although they are shown to be correlated with adolescent drug
use). Among these are social integration, attachment and commitment to
school, and rebellious behavior. It could also be argued the DARE
program does not specifically aim to change attitudes towards police
officers, although this may be a tacit objective. Since the program does
not target these outcomes specifically, it may not be surprising there
were no differences found between the DARE and nonDARE groups. It was
hypothesized the DARE program may impact factors relating to later
adolescent drug use even if those factors were not specific aims of the
program but this hypothesis did not hold true. In a sense this is
evidence that helps to reject the selection argument. If the positive
results were due to selection, they would not be found only for the
outcomes targeted by DARE.
Much like the three previously reviewed DARE evaluations, the current
study adds to the mixed results produced thus far with one exception.
Across all studies using a pre-post comparison group design, DARE students'
attitudes against drug use have consistently been shown to increase and
differ significantly from the control students. Since favorable attitudes
towards drug use has been shown to predict or correlate with later
adolescent drug use (Kandel, Kessler, & Margulies, 1978) this finding
provides some of the most convincing evidence that DARE shows promise as
a drug prevention strategy.
On the other hand, there are no other consistent findings for
assertiveness (resisting peer pressure), self-esteem, or attitudes
towards police. The current study found an increase in assertiveness
among the DARE students as compared to the nonDARE students. Ringwalt et
al. (1991) and Faine and Bohlander (1988) also found this to be true but
Clayton et al. (1991) did not. Effects on self-esteem were not
demonstrated in the present DARE evaluation nor were they in Clayton's
(Clayton et al., 1991) or Ringwalt's (Ringwalt et al., 1991). However,
significant differences in self-esteem were seen for the DARE participants
over the controls in Faine and Bohlander's (1988) study. Thus, the
Charleston study helps to increase the consistency of the assertiveness
and self-esteem results.
Faine and Bohlander's (1988) study also showed positive attitudes
towards police were significantly greater for the treatment group than
the control group but the present study did not replicate such findings.
However, the difference found between these two studies may be due to the
measures used. The current DARE study uses only two single item questions
to assess students' attitudes about the police whereas Faine and Bohlander
(1988) used an 11-item scale. Moderate to high factor loadings (.27 to
.82) were reported for each item in the scale, and although the overall
reliability was not reported, Faine and Bohlander's (1988) measure of
police attitudes is likely to be more valid.
With reference to drug use, all of the stronger DARE evaluations
found no effects with the exception of the current study which found a
significant difference on last year alcohol use. Clayton's follow-up
evaluation showed only one significant difference in the wrong direction
on the first of two follow-up post-tests (Clayton et al., in press). As
Clayton et al. (in press) points out, the lack of short-term drug use
differences may be due to low base rates and thus, should not be
interpreted to mean DARE has no effect on adolescent drug involvement.
Recommendations
Replication studies of the evaluation of the DARE program should
be continued since mixed evidence exists about the program's overall
effectiveness. Conducting randomized experiments would certainly be best
for drawing more confident conclusions about DARE program outcomes.
Longitudinal studies would also aid in assessing the long-term program
goal of deterring adolescent drug use.
There is one large problem with recommending a long-term study on a
drug prevention program that is conducted in schools in the United States.
The problem involves finding a true "no treatment" control group. Almost
every school in the nation has some type of drug education component
embodied in the school curriculum which is often mandated by the state.
Therefore, it is likely the control group will receive some form of
drug education. This problem has been documented as Clayton's (Clayton
et al., in press) study used a comparison group that received the school
drug education unit and ETI (Evaluation and Training Institute) had to
discontinue their 5-year longitudinal study because the entire control
group had essentially become a treatment group (Criminal Justice
Statistics Association, 1990).
In the future, it may be possible only to compare student's receiving
some specified drug prevention program with the school system's drug
education unit. However, this appears acceptable if the school system
simply requires a unit session on factual drug information or a similar
low level intervention since prevention efforts such as this have
consistently been shown to have no positive effects (Berberin et al.,
1976; Kinder et al., 1980; Schaps, et al., 1981; Tobler, 1986).
Should evaluations of the DARE program continue, it is suggested one
national survey instrument be developed and used for all outcome
evaluations. Currently, it is difficult to assess whether or not DARE
is actually a success since different researchers use different survey
instruments to examine a variety of outcome measures. Measuring DARE
program objectives and other risk factors associated with later drug use
with one survey would enable researchers to compare results across
evaluations conducted in U.S. cities and other parts of the world.
Additional recommendations include employing peer leaders (i.e., high
school students) as instructors instead of police officers. There are
two reasons for this suggestion. First, it has not been consistently
demonstrated that attitudes towards police become more positive upon
receiving the DARE program, and second, there has been some evidence
supporting the use of peer leaders as primary program providers (Arkin,
et al., 1981; Botvin & Eng, 1982; Botvin, Baker, Renick, Filazzola, &
Botvin, 1984; Perry, Killen, Slinkard, & McAlister, 1980).
It would be not only interesting, but informative, to compare DARE
program outcomes utilizing peer leaders vs. police officers as instructors.
Should peer leaders provide equal or better outcomes, DARE programming
costs would be considerably less and police officers would be more
readily available to respond to citizen calls.
It is further recommended that DARE be restructured to incorporate
components shown more consistently to be effective such as those found
in "second generation" approaches. Although DARE aims to increase
resistance skills, coping, and decision-making, the lessons specifically
targeting these factors do so in the context of drug use only. As
previously mentioned adolescents engaging in drug use behavior are often
involved in other problem behaviors (Jessor & Jessor, 1977). It would
seem most practical and beneficial to target all of these behaviors
utilizing one program as Botvin (1982) and Swisher (1979) have suggested.
The DARE program could serve as this one program assuming several changes
were implemented.
First, existing components would have to be expanded and additional
components added in order to target more broad based adolescent life
problems such as family struggles, peer acceptance, sexual involvement,
intimate relationships, and effective communication (expressing ideas,
listening). Additional sessions should include components from "second
generation" programs such as setting goals, solving problems, and
anticipating obstacles (Botvin, et al., 1983; Schinke & Gilchrist, 1985).
Second, skill acquisition is said to come about only through practice
and reinforcement (Bandura, 1977). It is proposed that any new skills
taught, such as problem solving, be reinforced with "real life" homework
where students practice these skills in the context of the "real world"
rather than simply role playing them in the classroom.
The last recommendation is applicable not only to the DARE program but
any drug prevention effort. It involves the addition of booster sessions
following the prevention program. Since adolescence is a time of growth,
individual attitudes and behaviors may continue to change and develop as
the youth is maturing. While short-term evidence of program effectiveness
is encouraging, there is no guarantee a youth will continue to practice
those same behaviors or hold those same beliefs years, or even months,
after the program has ended. In fact, follow-up studies have documented
the eroding effects of drug prevention programs (Botvin & Eng, 1980;
Botvin & Eng, 1982) and the superior effects of booster session (Botvin et
al., 1983; Botvin, et al., 1984). For these reasons, DARE, or any other
drug prevention program targeting adolescents, should include a series of
follow-up sessions in order to increase the likelihood of sustaining any
positive effects.
Table 1
Charleston County and U.S. High School Seniors' Drug Use -
Prevalence Rates(a) for the Class of 1990
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime Annual 30-day
---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Drug Charleston U.S. Charleston U.S. Charleston U.S.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol 77.2 89.5 68.0 80.6 54.4 57.1
Cigarettes 47.1 64.4 30.4 NA 22.5 29.4
Marijuana 30.6 40.7 22.1 27.0 15.9 14.0
Cocaine 8.7 9.4 6.3 5.3 3.7 1.9
Crack 1.5 3.5 1.0 1.9 0.9 0.7
Hallucinogens 9.0 9.4 7.5 5.9 4.4 2.2
Amphetamines(b) 5.0 17.5 3.4 9.1 2.3 3.7
Sedatives 2.8 5.3 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.0
Any illicit drug 31.9 47.9 24.0 32.5 18.1 17.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Note. NA indicates data not available.
a Prevalence rates are based on percent ever used (lifetime), percent
used 12 months prior to the survey (annual), and percent used 30
days prior to the survey (30-day).
b Amphetamines are called stimulants on the National Youth Survey.
Table 2
Response Rates for DARE and Comparison Schools
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
of surveys Percent
completed completed
---------------- -----------------
pre pre
DARE/Comparison and and
Schools N pre post post pre post post
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DARE Schools
School 1 91 84 75 72 92.3 82.4 79.1
School 2 90 88 84 84 97.8 93.3 93.3
School 3 50 47 46 44 94.0 92.0 88.0
School 4 52 46 44 41 88.5 84.6 78.8
School 5 58 54 58 54 93.1 100.0 93.1
Total 341 319 307 295 93.5 90.0 86.5
Comparison Schools
School 6 80 72 68 64 90.0 85.0 80.0
School 7 77 73 65 63 94.8 84.4 81.8
School 8 63 61 57 56 96.8 90.5 88.9
School 9 50 48 42 41 96.0 84.0 82.0
School 10 29 23 20 18 79.3 69.0 62.1
School 11 68 67 65 65 98.5 95.6 95.6
Total 367 344 317 307 93.7 86.4 83.7
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3
Characteristics of DARE and Comparison Schools
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of 3rd graders in 1986-87 school year...
---------------------------------------------------------
| Number |
| of |Receiving| | | | Meeting | Meeting
|students|free or| | | | BSAP | BSAP
DARE/ | in 3rd |reduced| | | Never | Reading | Math
School Comparison | gradea | lunch |White|Male|Retained|Standards
|Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School 1 DARE 122 14 74 46 80 97 95
School 6 Comparison 97 41 48 64 67 95 88
School 2 DARE 91 18 74 41 72 96 94
School 7 Comparison 131 24 63 57 67 95 93
School 3 DARE 59 16 88 53 81 96 86
School 8 Comparison 117 32 62 63 74 95 90
School 4 DARE 107 69 15 44 52 94 74
School 9 Comparison 45 86 36 57 66 70 63
School 5b DARE 120 74d 30 56d 88d --c --c
School 11 Comparison 135 73 28 46 71 94 89
School 10 Comparison 102 92 05 44 48 82 64
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
a These figures were taken from the 1986-1987 school year. The third
graders in this cohort received DARE during the 1989-1990 school year.
b These figures are based on the 5th grade class.
c BSAP reading and math tests are not administered at the 5th grade level.
d These figures came from Spring 1989, Grades 1 through 3.
Table 4
Reliability of Scales
---------------------------------------------------
Number
of
Scale Name Items Alpha
---------------------------------------------------
Social Integration 15 .85
Commitment to School 9 .67
Attachment to School 8 .75
Belief in
Prosocial Norms 15 .76
Rebellious Behavior 14 .82
Assertiveness 8 .58
Positive Peer Modeling 16 .69
Peer Drug Modeling 8 .77
Self-Esteem 15 .84
Attitudes Against
Substance Use 12 .66
---------------------------------------------------
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations for Pre-treatment Measures
and Demographic Characteristics - DARE and Comparison
Students
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DARE Comparison
------------- -------------
Pre-treatment Measure M SD N M SD N
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent reporting drug use
in last year
cigarettes .09* .29 292 .04 .20 300
smokeless tobacco .01 .08 291 .00 .00 299
beer, wine, or liquor .08 .27 292 .06 .23 297
marijuana .01 .10 292 .00 .05 298
Self-reported drug use
in last month (frequency)
cigarettes .11 .42 293 .08 .39 300
alcohol .11 .41 291 .09 .35 296
marijuana .02 .25 291 .02 .25 298
Coping with stress
talking to someone .70 .46 283 .73 .44 293
try to relax .83 .38 277 .84 .37 294
do things I like most .66 .47 274 .73 .45 289
Attitudes about police
police can't be trusted .11 .31 276 .13 .34 293
police would rather catch you .27 .45 278 .23 .42 288
Social integration 1.75 .24 290 1.79 .22 304
Commitment to school 1.78 .21 292 1.79 .21 304
Attachment to school 1.70* .26 291 1.74 .25 304
Belief in prosocial norms 1.83* .18 291 1.86 .17 305
Rebellious behavior 1.24 .21 291 1.23 .22 303
Peer drug modeling 1.06 .13 293 1.07 .15 303
Self-esteem 1.75 .21 291 1.78 .21 304
Attitudes against subst. use 1.88 .14 290 1.88 .16 304
Assertiveness 2.32 .33 291 2.34 .35 302
Positive peer modeling 4.98 .43 292 5.02 .43 302
% Male .45* .50 295 .54 .50 305
% White .59** .49 293 .44 .50 305
Age 10.26 .81 294 10.30 .93 305
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Difference between DARE and comparison group mean is statistically
significant at the p<.05 level.
**Difference between DARE and comparison group mean is statistically
significant at the p<.01 level.
Table 6
Means and Standard Deviations for Outcome Measures - DARE
and Comparison Students
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DARE Comparison
------------- -------------
Outcome Measure M SD N M SD N
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent reporting drug use
in last year
cigarettes .10 .29 293 .10 .29 304
smokeless tobacco .00 .12 293 .02 .14 302
beer, wine, or liquor .10 .32 290 .13 .33 301
marijuana .01 .14 293 .01 .11 303
Self-reported drug use
in last month (frequency)
cigarettes .14 .49 291 .16 .54 302
alcohol .13 .49 289 .17 .52 301
marijuana .05 .36 290 .07 .46 301
Coping with stress
talking to someone .65 .48 280 .67 .47 283
try to relax .84 .36 276 .81 .39 281
do things I like most .73 .45 273 .75 .43 281
Attitudes about police
police can't be trusted .14 .35 273 .13 .33 273
police would rather catch you .24 .43 274 .28 .45 280
Social integration 1.75 .26 287 1.77 .24 299
Commitment to school 1.79 .20 291 1.78 .21 306
Attachment to school 1.68 .29 289 1.69 .27 300
Belief in prosocial norms 1.84 .18 295 1.82 .21 306
Rebellious behavior 1.28 .23 294 1.29 .24 306
Peer drug modeling 1.07* .15 293 1.10 .19 305
Self-esteem 1.75 .21 288 1.76 .22 300
Attitudes against subst. use 1.89* .14 289 1.86 .18 301
Assertiveness 2.33 .33 289 2.29 .36 303
Positive peer modeling 5.02 .47 292 4.98 .49 303
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Difference between DARE and comparison group mean is statistically
significant at the p<.05 level.
Table 7
F Statistics from Analysis of Covariance
-------------------------------------------------------
Outcome Variable F Statistic p-level
-------------------------------------------------------
Percent reporting drug use
in last year
cigarettes 3.39 ns
smokeless tobacco 2.65 ns
beer, wine, or liquor 4.11 *
marijuana .66 ns
Self-reported drug use
in last month (frequency)
cigarettes 1.56 ns
alcohol 1.70 ns
marijuana .00 ns
Coping with stress
talking to someone .23 ns
try to relax 1.95 ns
do things I like most .00 ns
Attitudes about police
police can't be trusted .16 ns
police would rather catch you 1.91 ns
Social integration .19 ns
Commitment to school 2.15 ns
Attachment to school 1.21 ns
Belief in prosocial norms 7.28 **
Rebellious behavior .12 ns
Peer drug modeling 8.37 **
Self-esteem .59 ns
Attitudes against subst. use 15.38 ***
Assertiveness 5.19 *
Positive peer modeling 4.42 *
--------------------------------------------------------
Note. Analysis of covariance results are adjusted for pre-existing
differences on the following variables: Sex, race, cigarettes smoked
in the last year, attachment to school, belief in prosocial norms, and
the outcome variable measured prior to treatment.
Differences between the DARE and comparison group mean that are not
significant at the p<.05 level are indicated by "ns".
*Difference between DARE and comparison group mean is statistically
significant at the p<.05 level.
**Difference between DARE and comparison group mean is statistically
significant at the p<.01 level.
***Difference between DARE and comparison group mean is statistically
significant at the p<.001 level.
APPENDIX A
Item Content of Scales and Individual Variables
Belief
How wrong is it for you or someone your age to do each of the following
things?
Cheat on school tests
Use marijuana
Break something that belongs to someone else just to be mean
Steal something worth less than $5
Drink beer or wine
Break into a car or house to steal something
Steal something worth more than $50
Sell drugs to another student
Please tell whether you think each of the following statements is mostly
true or mostly false.
Sometimes a lie helps to stay out of trouble with the teacher.
It is alright to get around the law if you can.
It is okay to lie if it keeps your friends out of trouble
Sometimes you have to be a bully to get respect.
If you find someone's purse it is OK to keep it.
Sometimes you have to cheat in order to win.
Social Integration
Please tell whether you think each of the following statements is mostly
true or mostly false.
I often feel like nobody at school cares about me.
Teachers don't ask me to help them in class.
I feel no one really cares what happens to me.
I often feel lonely at school.
Sometimes I feel lonely when I'm with my friends.
I don't feel as if I really belong at school.
I often feel left out of things.
Other students don't want to be my friend.
My friends try to help me if I have a problem.
I don't feel that I fit in very well with my friends.
Teachers don't call on me in class, even when I raise my hand.
My friends don't care about my problems.
I feel like I belong at this school.
I feel close to my friends.
I know people in this school will help me when I need help.
Commitment to School
Do you expect to complete high school?
How important do you think it is to work hard in school?
How hard do you work in school?
How true about you are the following statements?
My schoolwork is messy.
I don't bother with homework or class assignments.
I turn my homework in on time.
If a teacher gives a lot of homework, I try to finish all of it.
The grades I get in school are important to me.
I often feel like quitting school.
Rebellious Behavior
How often do you do each of the following things?
Take things that do not belong to me.
Stay after school to be punished.
Break other people's things.
Try to hurt or bother people (by tripping, hitting, or throwing things).
Tease other students.
Fight with other students.
Talk back to the teacher.
Show off in class.
Do things I know will make the teacher angry.
Cheat on tests.
Copy someone else's homework.
Come late to class.
Pay attention in class.
Do what the teacher asks me to do.
Peer Drug Modeling
During the last year, how many of your friends have done each of the
following things?
Used marijuana
Drunk beer or wine
Sold Drugs
Gotten drunk once in a while
Sold or given beer or wine to a student
Please mark T for "true" and F for "false" for each of the following
statements.
A friend has offered to share marijuana with me.
A friend has offered to share cigarettes with me.
I sometimes use marijuana or other drugs just because my friends are
doing it.
Attitudes Against Substance Use
If you think you would do each of these things, mark Y for yes. If you
think you would not do each of these things, mark N for no.
If your friends were doing something that would get them in trouble,
would you try to stop them?
If one of your friends was smoking some marijuana and offered you some,
would you smoke it?
Are the following statements mostly true or mostly false?
I will never drink beer, wine, or hard liquor.
I will never try marijuana or other drugs.
Smokers look stupid.
People my age who smoke are show-offs.
I will never smoke cigarettes.
People who smoke marijuana have more fun than people who don't.
People my age who smoke cigarettes have more friends than people who don't.
Smoking makes a person look grown up.
Girls like boys who smoke.
If a young person smokes marijuana, he or she will be popular.
Attachment to School
Please tell whether you think each of the following statements is mostly
true or mostly false.
I like the principal.
I like school.
I like to be called on by my teacher to answer questions.
I usually enjoy the work I do in class.
I care what teachers think about me.
I like my teacher.
Most of the time I do not want to go to school.
Sometimes I wish I did not have to go to school.
Self-Esteem
Please tell whether you think each of the following statements is mostly
true or mostly false.
I am happy most of the time.
I am usually happy when I am at school.
Most of the time I am proud of myself.
Other students see me as a good student.
My grades at school are good.
I am satisfied with my school work.
I am proud of my school work.
Most boys and girls think I am good at school work.
I feel good about myself.
I can't do anything well.
Sometimes I feel bad about myself.
My teacher thinks that I am a slow learner.
I often wish I were someone else.
Sometimes I think I am no good at all.
Other boys and girls think I am a trouble maker.
Assertiveness
How often do you do these things?
Compliment a friend
Ask someone for a favor
Ask people to give back things they have borrowed
Complain when someone gets ahead of you in line
Complain when someone gives you less change than you are supposed to get
Tell people what you think even if they might think you are wrong
Ask a teacher to explain something you don't understand
Ask a person who is doing something wrong to stop
Positive Peer Modeling
How important is it to you that your friends...
are interested in the same things your are?
tell you the truth?
tell you how they feel?
help you with the problems you have?
keep their promises?
care about you?
Are these statements mostly true or mostly false about your friends?
Most of my friends think getting good grades is important.
Most of my friends hate school.
My friends often try to get me to do things the teacher doesn't like.
As far as you know, are the following statements true or false about
your best friend?
Likes school
Tries to behave in school
Gets into trouble at school
If you think you would do each of these things, mark Y for yes. If you
think you would not do each of these things, mark N for no.
If your friends got into trouble with the police, would you lie to
protect them?
If a friend asked to copy your homework, would you let the friend copy
it even if it might get you in trouble with a teacher?
How often do you do these things?
Compliment a friend
Ask a person who is doing something wrong to stop
Individual Variables
Attitudes About Police
Please tell us if you think each of the following statements is mostly
true or mostly false?
Most police officers can be trusted.
The police would rather catch you doing something wrong than try to
help you.
Coping With Stress
Please tell us if you think each of the following statements is mostly
true or mostly false?
If I got into an argument with another student, I would talk to someone
about it.
When I have to talk in front of the class, I try to relax.
When I have too many things to do, I try to do the things I like the most.
Last Year Drug Use - Prevalence
In the last year have you...
Smoked cigarettes?
Used smokeless tobacco?
Drunk beer, wine, or "hard" liquor?
Smoked marijuana (grass, pot, hash, ganja)?
Last Month Drug Use - Frequency
In the last month how often have you...
Smoked cigarettes?
Drunk alcoholic beverages?
Smoked marijuana?
REFERENCES
Agopian, M. W., & Becker, H. K. (1990). Evaluation of Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (DARE) in the Long Beach Unified School District:
Final report. Long Beach: California State University, Criminal Justice
Department.
Anhalt, H. L., & Klein, M. (1976). Drug abuse in junior high school
populations. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 3, 589-603.
Aniskiewicz, R. E., & Wysong, E. E. (1987). Project DARE evaluation report:
Kokomo schools, Spring 1987. Kokomo: Indiana University, Sociology
Department.
Arkin, R. M., Roemhild, H. J., Johnson, C. A., Luepker, R. V. & Murray,
D. M. (1981). The Minnesota smoking prevention program: A seventh grade
health curriculum supplement. Journal of School Health, 51, 616-661.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Prentice-Hall.
Bennett, G. (1983). Youthful substance abuse. In G. Bennett, C. Vourakis,
& D. S. Woolf (Eds.), Substance abuse: Pharmacologic, developmental and
clinical perspectives (pp. 156-174). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Berberin, R. M., Gross, C., Lovejoy, J., & Paparella, S. (1976). The
effectiveness of drug education programs: A critical review. Health
Education Monographs, 4, 337-397.
Beschner, G. M. (1989). The problem of adolescent drug abuse: An
introduction to intervention strategies. In G. M. Beschner & A. S.
Friedman (Eds.), Treatment services for adolescent substance abusers
(DHHS Publication No. ADM 89-1342, pp. 1-12). Rockville, MD: National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
Botvin, G. J. (1982). Broadening the focus of smoking prevention
strategies. In T. Coates, A. Petersen, & C. L. Perry (Eds.), Promoting
adolescent health: A dialogue on research and practice (pp. 137-148).
New York: Academic Press.
Botvin, G. J. (1990). Substance abuse prevention theory, practice, and
effectiveness. In M. Tonry & J. Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs and crime:
Annual review of research in crime and justice, vol. 13 (pp. 461-519).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Renick, N., Filazzola, A. D & Botvin, E. M.
(1984). A cognitive-behavioral approach to substance abuse prevention.
Addictive Behaviors, 9, 137-147.
Botvin G. J., & Dusenbury, L. (1987). Substance abuse prevention and
the promotion of competence. In L. S. Bond, & B. E. Compas (Eds.),
Primary Prevention and Promotion in the Schools (pp. 146-178). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Botvin, G. J., & Eng, A. (1980). A comprehensive school-based smoking
prevention. Journal of School Health, 50, 209-213.
Botvin, G. J., & Eng, A. (1982). The efficacy of a multi-component approach
to the prevention of cigarette smoking. Preventive Medicine, 11, 199-211.
Botvin, G. J., Eng, A. & Williams, C. L. (1980). Preventing the onset of
cigarette smoking through Life Skills Training. Preventive Medicine, 9,
135-143.
Botvin, G. J., Renick, N., & Baker, E. M. (1983). The effects of scheduling
format and booster sessions on a broad spectrum psychosocial approach to
smoking prevention. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, 359-379.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Clayton, R. R., Cattarello, A., Day, L. E. and Walden, K. P. (1991).
Persuasive communications and drug abuse prevention: An evaluation of the
DARE program, In L. Donohew, H. Sypher, & W. Bukowski (Eds.), Persuasive
communication and drug abuse prevention (pp. 295-313). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Clayton, R. R., Cattarello, A., & Walden, K. P. (in press). Sensation
seeking as a potential mediating variable for school-based prevention
interventions: A two-year follow-up of DARE. Journal of Health
Communications.
Coupey, S. M., & Schonberg, S. K. (1982). Evaluation and management of
drug problems. Adolescents Pediatric Annuals, 11, 653-658.
Criminal Justice Statistics Association. (1990). Evaluating drug control
initiatives: Conference proceedings, June 20-22, 1990. Washington, DC:
Author.
DeJong, W. (1987). A short-term evaluation of project DARE (Drug Abuse
Resistance Education): Preliminary indications of effectiveness. Journal
of Drug Education, 17, 279-294.
Earle, R. B. (1987). Evaluation of the Illinois state police DARE pilot
program. Springfield, IL: A. H. Training and Development Systems, Inc.
Einstein, S. (1981). Understanding drug user treatment evaluation: Some
unresolved Issues. International Journal of Additions, 16, 381-400.
Elliot, D. S., & Huizinga, D. (1984). The relationship between delinquent
behavior and ADM problems (The Nation Youth Survey Project Report No. 28).
Boulder: University of Colorado, Behavioral Research Institute.
Evaluation and Training Institute. (1990). DARE evaluation report for
1985-1989. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Evans, R. I. (1976). Smoking in children: Developing a social
psychological strategy of deterrence. Preventive Medicine, 5, 122-127.
Faine, J. R. (1989). DARE in Nashville schools 1988-1989: An evaluation
of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program. Bowling Green: Western
Kentucky University, Social Research Laboratory.
Faine, J. R., & Bohlander, E. (1988). Drug Abuse Resistance Education:
An assessment of the 1987-1988 Kentucky State Police DARE program. Bowling
Green: Western Kentucky University, Social Research Laboratory.
Faine, J. R., & Bohlander, E. (1989) DARE in Kentucky schools 1988-89: An
evaluation of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program. Bowling Green:
Western Kentucky University, Social Research Laboratory.
Flemming, J. P., Kellam, S. G., & Brown, C. H. (1982). Early predictors of
age at first use of alcohol, marijuana, and cigarettes. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, 9, 285-303.
Gottfredson, G. D. (1990). What About You, Form B, Research Edition:
Development and applications of an inventory for assessing risk of drug
involvement. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social
Organization of Schools.
Gordon, N. P., & McAlister, A. L. (1982). Adolescent drinking: Issues
and research. In T. J. Coates, A. C. Peterson, & C. Perry (Eds.),
Promoting adolescent health: A dialog on research and practice (pp.
201-223). New York: Academic Press.
Hamburg, B. A., Braemer, H. C., & Jahnke, W. A. (1975). Hierarchy of
drug use in adolescence: Behavioral and attitudinal correlates of
substantial drug use. American Journal of Psychiatry, 132, 1155-1167.
Hansen, W. B., Johnson, A. J., Flay, B. R., Graham, J. W., & Sobel, J.
(1988). Affective and social influences approaches to prevention of
multiple substance abuse among seventh grade students: Results from
project SMART. Preventive Medicine, 17, 135-154.
Hanson, D. J. (1980). Drug education: Does it work? In F. R. Scarpitti
and S. K. Datesman (Eds.), Drugs and the Youth Culture (pp. 251-282).
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. L. (1992). Risk and
protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and
early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention.
Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64-105.
Hubbard, R. L., Cavanaugh, E. R., Graddock, S. G., & Rachal, J. V. (1983).
Characteristics, behaviors and outcomes for youth in TOPS study (Report
submitted to National Institute on Drug Abuse under Contract No.
271-79-3611). Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial
development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York: Academic Press.
Johnston, L. D. (1973). Drugs and american youth. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Johnston, L. D., Bachman, J. G., & O'Malley, P. M. (1991). Press release
from the University of Michigan News and Information Services: January
23, 1991. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Kandel, D. B. (1978). Convergence in prospective longitudinal surveys of
drug use in normal populations. In D. B. Kandel (Ed.), Longitudinal
Research on drug use: Empirical findings and methodological Issues (pp.
3-38). Washington, DC: Hemisphere-Wiley.
Kandel, D. B., Kessler, R. C., & Margulies, R. S. (1978). Antecedents of
adolescent initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 13-40.
Kinder, B., Pape, N., & Walfish, S. (1980). Drug and alcohol education
programs: A review of outcome studies. International Journal of
Addictions, 7, 1035-1054.
Loeber, R., & Le Blanc, M. (1990). Toward a developmental criminology.
In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research,
vol. 12 (pp. 375-473). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Macdonald, D. I., & Newton M. (1981). The clinical syndrome of adolescent
drug abuse. Advances in Pediatrics, 8, 1-25.
Mackenzie, R. G. (1982). The adolescent as a drug abuser: A paradigm for
intervention. Pediatric Annals, 11, 659-668.
Malvin, J. J., Moskowitz, J., Schaps, E., & Schaeffer, G. (1985).
Evaluation of two School-based alternatives programs. Journal of Alcohol
and Drug Education, 30, 98-108.
Manos, M. J., Kameoka, K. Y, & Tanja, J.H. (1986). Evaluation of Honolulu
Police Department's Drug Abuse Resistance Education project (Report No.
329). Manoa: University of Hawaii-Manoa, School of Social Work, Youth
Development and Research Center.
Miller, D. (1973). The medical and psychological therapy of adolescent
drug abuse. International Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 2, 309-330.
Monopolis, S., & Savage, C. (1982). Substance abuse, public health, and
the pediatrician. Pediatrician, 1, 176-196.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1981). Effectiveness of drug abuse
treatment programs. (Publication No. ADM 81-1143). Rockville, MD.
Nyre, G. F. (1985). Final evaluation report, 1984-1985, project DARE
(Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Los Angeles: Evaluation and Training
Institute.
Nyre, G. F. (1986). DARE Evaluation Report, 1985-1986 Project DARE (Drug
Abuse Resistance Education). Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation and Training
Institute.
Nyre, G. F., & Rose, C. (1987). Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)
longitudinal evaluation annual report. Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation and
Training Institute.
Ogborne, A. C. (1978). Patient characteristics as predictors of treatment
outcomes for alcohol and drug abusers. In Y. Israel, F. B. Glaser, H.
Kalant, R. E. Popham, W. Schmidt, & R. G. Smart (Eds.), Research advances
in alcohol and drug problems, vol. 4 (pp. 177-223). New York: Plenum Press.
Perry, C. L., Killen, J., Slinkard, L. A., & McAlister, A. L. (1980). Peer
teaching and smoking prevention among junior high students. Adolescence,
9, 277-281.
Polich, J. M., Ellickson, P. L., Reuter, P., & Kahan, J. P. (1984).
Strategies for controlling adolescent drug use. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.
Project DARE: How's it doing?. (1990 Spring). Prevention File, pp. 16-18.
Richards, L. G. (1980). The epidemiology of youthful drug use. In F.R.
Scarpitti & S. K. Datesman (Eds.), Drugs and the youth culture (pp. 33-57).
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Ringwalt, C., Ennett, S. T., & Holt, K. (1991). An outcome evaluation
of DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Health Education Research
Theory and Practice, 6, 327-337.
Robins, L. N. & Przybeck, T. R. (1985). Age of onset of drug use as a
factor in drug and other disorders. In C. L. Jones & R. J. Battles (Eds.),
Etiology of Drug Abuse: Implications for Prevention (pp. 178-192) (Research
Monograph No. 56, DHHS Publication No. ADM 85-1335). Rockville, MD:
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Schaps, E. J., Bartolo, R. D., Moskowitz, J., Palley, C. S., & Churgin, S.
(1981). A review of 127 drug abuse prevention program evaluations.
Journal of Drug Issues, 11, 17-43.
Schinke, S. P., & Gilchrist, L. D. (1985). Preventing substance abuse with
children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
53, 596-602.
Sells S. B., & Simpson, D. D. (1979). Evaluation of treatment outcome for
youths in the Drug Abuse Reporting Program (DARP): A follow-up study. In
G. M. Beschner & A. S. Friedman (Eds.), Youth drug abuse: Problems, issues
and treatment (pp. 571- 613). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
South Carolina Department of Education and South Carolina Commission on
Alcohol & Drug Abuse (1990). Youth survey results regarding alcohol and
other drug use in South Carolina during the 1989-90 school year: Survey
results for Charleston School District. Columbia, SC: Author.
Stein, M. D., & Davis, J. K. (1982). Therapies for adolescents. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Swisher, J. D. (1979). Prevention issues. In R. L. Dupont, A. Goldstein,
& J. O'Donnell (Eds.), Handbook on drug abuse (pp. 423-435). Rockville,
MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Swisher, J. D., & Hoffman, A. (1975). Information: The irrelevant
variable in drug education. In Corder, B. W., Smith, R. A., & Swisher,
J. D. (Eds.), Drug abuse prevention: Perspectives and approaches for
educators. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Telch, M. J., Killen, J. D., McAlister, A. L., Perry, C. L., & Maccoby, N.
(1982). Long-term follow-up of a pilot project on smoking prevention with
adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5, 1-8.
Tobler, N. (1986). Meta-Analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention
programs: Quantitative outcome results of program participants compared
to a control or comparison group. Journal of Drug Issues, 16(4), 537-567.
Walker, S. G. (1990). The Victoria Police Department Drug Abuse Resistance
Education Programme (DARE) (Programme Evaluation Report 2). Victoria,
British Columbia, CANADA: Author.
Get the Erowid "Words" T-shirt
Contribute $50 and show support for accurate drug information!