Sign the Resolution for a Federal
Commission on Drug Policy Sign the Resolution for a Federal
Commission on Drug Policy
Contents | Feedback | Search | DRCNet Home Page | Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library | Schaffer Library | Government Publications
An Evaluation Review
Draft Final Report
by
Research Triangle Institute
September 1994
Christopher L. Ringwalt
Jody M. Greene
Susan T. Ennett
Ronaldo Iachan
University of Kentucky
Richard R. Clayton
Carl G. Leukefeld
Supported under Award # 91-DD-CX-K053 from the National
Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice. Points of view in this document
are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent
the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Past and Future Directions of the D.A.R.E. Program:
An Evaluation Review
Draft Final Report
by
Research Triangle Institute
Christopher L. Ringwalt
Jody M. Greene
Susan T. Ennett
Ronaldo Iachan
University of Kentucky
Richard R. Clayton
Carl G. Leukefeld
September 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
List of Exhibits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
1 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Study Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Description of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Strengths and Limitations of the Study . . . 1-3
Overview of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
2 OVERVIEW AND HISTORY OF SCHOOL-BASED DRUG
PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . 2-1
History of School-Based Drug=20
Prevention Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Drug Use Prevention Strategies . . . . . . . 2-2
History of D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
D.A.R.E. Curricula. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
D.A.R.E. Officers and Training. . . . . . . .2-12
D.A.R.E. in the Context of Other School-Based Drug Use Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-13
SECTION II: IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT
3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
4 STATE-LEVEL OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Instrument Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Agencies Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
State Training Centers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Challenges and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-10
Chapter Page
5 SCHOOL DISTRICT DRUG PREVENTION
COORDINATOR SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Sample Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Sampling frame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
First-Phase Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Second-Phase Sampling . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
Survey Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
Instrument Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
Administration of D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . 5-7
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
Participation of Teachers=20
and Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
Integration and Coordination. . . . . . .5-10
Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-11
Future Use of D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . .5-12
National Prevalence Estimates of
D.A.R.E. and Other AOD Programs . . . . . . .5-13
Prevalence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-13
Grade Levels Targeted . . . . . . . . . .5-14
Substances Targeted . . . . . . . . . . .5-15
Type of Instructor. . . . . . . . . . . .5-15
Comparison of D.A.R.E. and Other
AOD Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-15
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-16
Satisfaction with Curricula . . . . . . .5-16
Support for Curricula . . . . . . . . . .5-18
Adaptations of Curricula. . . . . . . . .5-21
General Drug Policies . . . . . . . . . . . .5-22
Anti-Drug Policies. . . . . . . . . . . .5-22
Student Assistance Programs . . . . . . .5-22
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-24
6 SITE VISITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Urban Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
Urban School with D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . 6-2
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
Problems and Improvements . . . . . . . . 6-5
Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
Chapter Page
Urban School Without D.A.R.E. . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
Problems and Improvements . . . . . . . . 6-8
Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
Rural Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
Rural School with D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . 6-9
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-10
Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-10
Problems and Improvements . . . . . . . .6-10
Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . .6-11
Rural School Without D.A.R.E. . . . . . . . .6-12
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-12
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-12
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-12
Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-12
Problems and Improvements . . . . . . . .6-13
Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . .6-13
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-14
SECTION III: OUTCOME ASSESSMENT
7 D.A.R.E. OUTCOME ASSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
The D.A.R.E. Core Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
Meta-Analysis Background and Study
Selection Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
Studies Selected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
D.A.R.E. Effect Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
Comparison of D.A.R.E.'s Effectiveness=20
to Other Drug Use Prevention Programs=20
for Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-11
Methodological Considerations . . . . . . . . . .7-17
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-19
SECTION IV: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
Implementation Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
Outcome Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-12
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-21
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-1
Appendices
A Sampling for School District Drug Prevention
Coordinators Survey
B Individual Study Descriptions
C Bibliography of Comparison Program Evaluations
D Data Collection Materials for Implementation
AssessmentLIST OF EXHIBITS
Number Page
2.1 D.A.R.E.'s Original Core Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.2 D.A.R.E.'s Updated Core Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.3 D.A.R.E.'s Junior High School Curriculum . . . . . . . 2-9
2.4 D.A.R.E.'s Senior High School Curriculum . . . . . . .2-10
2.5 D.A.R.E.'s Parent Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-11
2.6 Curricular Strategies Used in D.A.R.E.'s=20
Core Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-14
3.1 Jurisdictions of D.A.R.E.'s Regional=20
Training Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
4.1 Percentage of State D.A.R.E. Programs Primarily
=20
Managed by Various State and Local Agencies. . . . . . 4-3
4.2 Percentage of States with D.A.R.E. Policy
Advisory Boards Having Representation of
Various Agencies and Individuals on Such Boards. . . . 4-4
4.3 Percentage of States with D.A.R.E.=20
Educational Advisors Reporting to the=20
Employers of These Advisors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.4 Percentage of State D.A.R.E. Coordinators=20
and Policy Advisory Boards Performing=20
Various Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.5 Funding Received in 1991-1992 School Year=20
for State-Level D.A.R.E. Operations. . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4.6 Number of States Receiving Funds for State-
Level Operations from Sources in 1991-1992
School Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
5.1 Final Sample Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.2 Use of D.A.R.E., by Grade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
5.3 Agencies Administering the D.A.R.E. Program=20
at the Local Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
5.4 Agencies with Primary Responsibility for
Coordination of D.A.R.E. Activities. . . . . . . . . . 5-9
5.5 Problem Areas That Are Barriers to=20
Implementing D.A.R.E. in All Schools . . . . . . . . .5-11
5.6 Percentage and Estimated Number of School
Districts in the Nation Using Top Three
Packaged Curricula During the 1991-1992
School Year, by Minority Status, SES,=20
and Urbanicity of the School District. . . . . . . . .5-14
5.7 Substances Targeted by, and Types of=20
Instructor of, the Three Most Frequently
Mentioned Alcohol and Drug=20
Prevention Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-15
5.8 Sources of Funding for D.A.R.E. and=20
Other Alcohol and Drug Prevention Programs=20
in the 1991-1992 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-17
5.9 Components of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol=20
and Drug Prevention Programs Rated as=20
Very Satisfactory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-17
5.10 Components of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol=20
and Drug Prevention Programs Rated as=20
Very Satisfactory, by Minority Status=20
of School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-18
5.11 Components of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol=20
and Drug Prevention Programs Rated as=20
Very Satisfactory, by Urbanicity of=20
School District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-19=20
Number Page
5.12 Individuals, Groups, and Agencies Very
Supportive of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol and
Drug Prevention=20
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-19
5.13 Individuals, Groups, and Agencies Very
Supportive of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol=20
and Drug Prevention Programs, by=20
SES of School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-20
5.14 Individuals, Groups, and Agencies Very
Supportive of D.A.R.E. and Other=20
Alcohol and Drug Prevention=20
Programs, by Size of School District . . . . . . . . .5-20
5.15 Adaptations of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol=20
and Drug Prevention Curricula to Meet=20
Specific Needs of District . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-21
5.16 Individuals Trained to Participate in=20
Student Assistance Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-23
5.17 Effectiveness in Implementing Student
Assistance Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-23
7.1 D.A.R.E. Evaluation Studies (N=3D18) . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.2 Sample and Methodological Characteristics=20
of the D.A.R.E. Evaluations (N =3D 8). . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.3 Unweighted Effect Sizes at Immediate=20
Posttest Associated with Eight=20
Evaluations of D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
7.4 Magnitude of D.A.R.E.'s Weighted Mean=20
Effect Size (and 95% Confidence Interval),=20
by Outcome Measures at Immediate Posttest. . . . . . .7-10
7.5 Comparison Drug Use Prevention=20
Programs (N=3D25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-12
7.6 Weighted Mean Effect Size (and=20
95% Confidence Interval), by Outcome=20
for D.A.R.E. and Other Drug=20
Use Prevention Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-14
7.7 Difference Between Mean Effect Sizes=20
(and 95% Confidence Interval),=20
by Outcome, for D.A.R.E. and=20
Other Drug Use Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . .7-15
7.8 Weighted Mean Effect Size, by Drug, for
D.A.R.E. and Other Drug Use=20
Prevention Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-16
7.9 Difference Between Mean Effect Sizes=20
(and 95% Confidence Interval),=20
by Drug, for D.A.R.E. and Other=20
Drug Use Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-16
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) is currently the Nation's predominant school-based drug prevention program, and both its prevalence and popularity continue to expand. The D.A.R.E. program, designed to prevent students' use of tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs, uses trained, uniformed police officers in the classroom to teach a highly structured curriculum. Developed by the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) as a collaborative venture, the primary or core D.A.R.E. curriculum is directed toward pupils in the final grade of elementary school (usually grade 5 or 6). Additional curricula for students in kindergarten through fourth grade, junior high school, senior high school, and for parents have been developed and implemented.
Purpose of the Study
D.A.R.E.'s popularity, as demonstrated by the extraordinary growth in its rate of dissemination and by abundant anecdotal reports of its success, is self-evident. In part because of its preeminent position, policymakers, researchers, educators, and parents are asking a number of fundamental questions about the program:
o How effective is D.A.R.E. in preventing drug use?
o What are D.A.R.E.'s effects compared with those of other school-based drug prevention programs?
o What are some of the basic features common to most D.A.R.E. programs?
o Who usually manages the D.A.R.E. program?
o How extensively is D.A.R.E. implemented nationwide?
o How do other alcohol and drug prevention programs compare with D.A.R.E. and D.A.R.E. with them?
To address these and other questions, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded the research team of the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) and the University of Kentucky's Center for Prevention Research (CPR) a grant to conduct an extensive review of the D.A.R.E. program and to assess its place within the context of the broad spectrum of school-based drug prevention efforts.
Study Objectives
The research team proposed and carried out two distinct types of assessments, the first pertaining to implementation and the second to outcomes or effectiveness. The primary objectives of the implementation assessment were to
o assess the organizational structure and operation of representative D.A.R.E. programs nationwide;
o review and assess factors that contribute to the effective implementation of D.A.R.E. programs nationwide; and
o assess how D.A.R.E. and other school-based drug prevention programs are tailored to meet the needs of specific populations.
The first two objectives for the implementation assessment relate exclusively to D.A.R.E. The third targets D.A.R.E. but also includes other drug use prevention programs.
The primary objectives of the outcome assessment were to
o identify all outcome evaluations of D.A.R.E.'s core curriculum conducted to date in the United States and Canada;
o assess the methodological rigor of those evaluations;
o examine the nature and extent of the effects of D.A.R.E.'s core curriculum; and
o compare the effectiveness of D.A.R.E.'s core curriculum with that of other school-based drug use prevention programs targeting 5th- and 6th-grade pupils.
Although the first three objectives of the outcome assessment focus exclusively on D.A.R.E., the fourth places D.A.R.E. in a larger context by comparing it with other drug prevention programs.
In this report, we synthesize the most important findings from both of the assessments and present overall conclusions, and some recommendations.
Description of the Study
To achieve the study's goals and objectives, the research team designed a set of research strategies that would yield data pertinent not only to a review and critique of D.A.R.E., but also to an assessment of how D.A.R.E. compares with other school-based drug prevention programs, and of future directions for these programs.
For the implementation assessment, we collected original data by conducting
o informal interviews and discussions with the coordinators and/or educational advisors of D.A.R.E.'s Regional Training Centers (RTCs);
o a survey of State D.A.R.E. coordinators; and
For the outcome assessment, the research team conducted a review and assessment of the published and unpublished evaluations of D.A.R.E.'s core curriculum conducted to date. We collected no primary data, but instead studied prior D.A.R.E. evaluations using meta- analytic techniques. The methodologies we used for the outcome assessment are presented in Section III of this report.
At the conclusion of our data collection and analysis efforts, the research team joined Tom Colthurst of the University of California at San Diego Extension Program in March 1993 to host a conference in San Diego, California, titled "Evaluating School-Linked Prevention Strategies Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs." Almost an entire day of this 3-day conference for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners centered on the preliminary results from this study. This conference provided an opportunity to disseminate early study findings from both the implementation and outcome assessments, and to incorporate participants' responses (including responses from D.A.R.E. America as well as D.A.R.E. and other drug prevention researchers) to the findings in this final report.
Strengths and Limitations of the Study
We believe our approach to this study was fully responsive to NIJ's solicitation. Among the many strengths of this approach are the following:
o a multifaceted study methodology that collected information from the national, regional, State, and school district levels of D.A.R.E. and reviewed all short- term evaluations of the D.A.R.E. core curricula conducted to date;
o a rigorous examination and synthesis of the results of previous evaluations of D.A.R.E.; and
o incorporation into this final report of both formal and informal feedback from researchers and practitioners attending the dissemination conference.
However, we recognize that there are limitations to our study, due primarily to limitations in the resources available to us. For example, our study budget would not allow us to survey local D.A.R.E. officers and classroom teachers, or monitor the delivery of D.A.R.E. in the classroom. Additionally, some questions raised in NIJ's solicitation, such as issues relating to the effectiveness of the regional and State D.A.R.E. training centers, could be answered only in part. A complete answer would have required a many-layered study that examined training centers' objectives, how these objectives are put into effect through training received both by trainers and by D.A.R.E. officers, and ultimately how the officers perform in the classroom. This was clearly outside the scope of this study. We also were limited in assessing certain questions, such as variability in effectiveness of the D.A.R.E. curriculum by the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents because of the lack of research in this area (see Chapter 8 for further details).
Given the level of resources available for this study, the research design required some compromises among the multiple objectives invoked in NIJ's stated purposes, goals, objectives, and program strategies.
However, the research team believes that the study represents an optimal mix of data collection methods and sources. Discussions with members of the D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board and other officials associated with the D.A.R.E. training centers, when combined with information gathered from the survey of State D.A.R.E. coordinators, provided answers to the questions relating specifically to the structure and operations of the D.A.R.E. program. The survey of school district drug prevention coordinators yielded information about D.A.R.E. and its relationship to other school-based drug prevention programs. The site visits provided an illustrative, if unrepresentative, snapshot of D.A.R.E.'s implementation in two schools. A rigorous examination of past D.A.R.E. evaluations provided information on the effects of the program on students.
Overview of the Report
This report is organized into four sections and four appendices. Section I contains the first two chapters, which provide an overview and history of school-based drug prevention programs, with detailed information about the curricula and teachers of D.A.R.E.
Section II has four chapters that present the methodologies and results of each of the four components of the implementation assessment. In these four chapters, we present information about the national/regional-level operations of D.A.R.E. (Chapter 3), State-level operations of D.A.R.E. (Chapter 4), and the implementation of D.A.R.E. and other drug prevention programs at the local level (Chapters 5 and 6).
Section III (Chapter 7) presents the methodology and results of the outcome assessment. In Section IV (Chapter 8), we synthesize and discuss findings from both the implementation and outcome assessments, and present recommendations.
Appendix A contains sampling information for the school district drug prevention coordinators survey.
Appendix B contains descriptions of each study utilized in the meta-analysis conducted for the outcome assessment. Appendix C presents a bibliography of comparison program evaluations, and Appendix D contains data collection materials for the implementation assessment.
CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW AND HISTORY OF SCHOOL-BASED DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND D.A.R.E.
History of School-Based Drug Prevention Programs School-based educational programs are the most common approach to drug prevention aimed at young people.
Prevention efforts are located in educational settings
both because drug use typically begins during adolescence
and because classrooms provide the best opportunity for
reaching a large number of youth simultaneously.=20
Although rates of drug use among U.S. students generally
have been declining over the past few years (University
of Michigan, 1994), these rates are still higher than
rates of all other Western industrialized nations. =20
The U.S. Congress reacted to concerns about youth
drug use by enacting the Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act (DFSCA) of 1986. The DFSCA was designed
to establish programs of drug abuse education and
prevention throughout the Nation. A key part of the
DFSCA is Subtitle B of Title IV, which provides Federal
money to States, schools, and communities to initiate or
expand drug prevention programs. Actions resulting from
Subtitle B of Title IV quickly resulted in the single
largest drug prevention activity offered by the Federal
Government, reaching $498,565,000 in FY 1993.=20
Research conducted by RTI staff concerning the
implementation of State and local programs of the DFSCA
found that in the 1988-1989 school year all 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico have actively participated in programs funded by the
DFSCA at the State and local levels. Of all the school
districts in the Nation, 78% reported that they received
DFSCA funding, either directly or through regional or
county education organizations (Thorne, Holley, Wine,
Hayward, & Ringwalt, 1991).
The DFSCA funds appear to have had a positive
effect on the school-based prevention programs of school
districts. To be eligible for DFSCA funding, schools
must implement a comprehensive drug prevention program.=20
More than half of the districts receiving DFSCA funding
reported that since the advent of such support, they had
been able to expand or increase numerous aspects of their
programs, including=20
o number of grade levels with
substance abuse curricula,
o school-wide emphasis on substance
abuse prevention,=20
o number of teachers and staff
involved, and=20
o number of students involved. =20
A total of 25% of these districts had increased their
curriculum development activities, and 48% had increased
their degree of involvement with other groups in the
community. The availability of DFSCA funds may be more
limited in the future.
Drug Use Prevention Strategies
A variety of school-based intervention programs
have been developed over the past three decades for
preventing drug use among youth (Botvin, 1990; Flay,
1985; Hansen, 1992; Moskowitz, Malvin, Schaeffer, &
Schaps, 1983; Tobler, 1986). The types of programs
differ both in terms of what they teach as well as in how
they are taught (Tobler, in press, 1994). Program
content generally reflects assumptions about why young
people use drugs. For example, activities to boost self-
esteem reflect the belief that low self-esteem is a risk
factor for drug use; strategies that teach youth how to
refuse offers of drugs from friends assume that peer
pressure leads to drug use. Similarly, teaching methods
implemented in various strategies reflect beliefs about
the most effective means for teaching young people not to
use drugs. Programs that use didactic methods reflect a
traditional expert model for learning; programs that
emphasize group activities reflect the belief that
participatory activities enhance understanding and
learning more effectively.
Although hundreds of individual school-based
prevention programs have been developed, they generally
fall into three broad categories:=20
(a) knowledge/information programs, (b) affective
programs, and (c) social influences programs. A fourth
category of prevention programs, alternative programs,
includes those usually offered outside the school
setting. Knowledge/information and affective education
programs have sometimes been grouped together as more
traditional approaches, while social influences programs
represent newer approaches (Bruvold, 1993; Tobler, in
press, 1994). These three types of programs tend to
differ in content, in methods, and in their
effectiveness. Even so, there is overlap among them.
Knowledge/information programs were the earliest
school-based prevention efforts to be developed. These
strategies are based on the assumption that youth begin
using drugs because they are not sufficiently
knowledgeable about adverse consequences. Once youth
have adequate and accurate knowledge about drugs, it is
assumed that they will behave rationally and choose not
to use drugs. It is also assumed that changes in
knowledge about drugs will promote more negative
attitudes toward drug use, which in turn will be a
deterrent to using drugs. Knowledge programs typically
present factual information about the legal, biological,
and psychological effects of drug use. Some of these
programs have adopted scare tactics to present the risks
of drug use to youth in a dramatic fashion. The methods
used by knowledge/information programs typically include
didactic presentations, discussion, and audiovisual
presentations.
Affective programs were developed in the late 1970s
and early 1980s and are based on the assumption that
young people use drugs because of personal and social
deficits. These programs emphasize increasing self-
esteem, enhancing self-awareness, clarifying values,
making responsible decisions, and improving interpersonal
skills. Affective programs often do not mention drug use
at all. By enriching personal and social development, it
is assumed that youth will make responsible decisions
about drug use. These programs typically are taught by
the same types of methods as for knowledge/ information
programs, but they also may include group activities.
Social influences programs are the most recent
approach to drug use among youth. These programs are
based on the assumption that youth use drugs because they
do not have the social competencies needed to resist
social pressures to use drugs. Some programs focus
specifically on teaching youth the skills needed for
resisting drug use influences. Other programs emphasize
developing more general social competencies, such as
increasing decisionmaking, improving communication, and
reducing anxiety, in addition to enhancing drug-specific
social skills. They may also include activities to
correct misperceptions about the prevalence and
acceptability of drug use among peers, as well as
activities that seek to establish conservative group
norms about drug use. Social influences programs
typically include active, participatory learning
experiences, such as modeling, role-playing, and
practicing behavioral skills. Social influence
strategies also frequently and actively involve "peers
leaders" as teachers, in role-playing, or to facilitate
discussion.
Despite the differences across program categories,
there is actually much overlap among school-based
prevention programs in their components. Affective
programs share similarities with some social influences
programs in their emphasis, for example, on developing
personal competencies. Social influences programs
frequently include information about drugs and adverse
consequences. Some programs include elements of all
three categories of programs and have been labeled
comprehensive programs. Indeed, many school-based
curricula, including D.A.R.E., combine strategies that
reflect knowledge/information, affective, and social
influences programs.
Research on the effectiveness of school-based
prevention programs suggests that all three program
strategies are not equally successful in preventing
adolescent drug use (Bangert-Drowns, 1988; Bruvold, 1993;
Tobler, 1986, in press, 1994). Knowledge/information
programs generally have not been effective in preventing
drug use among youth. The evidence suggests that,
although information-based programs may increase
students' knowledge of drugs, they are unlikely to result
in positive changes in either attitudes or behavior. In
fact, some research indicates that these programs may
lead to undesirable changes in attitudes (Bruvold &
Rundall, 1988). Affective strategies also have not
performed well in previous evaluations and meta-analyses
(Botvin, 1990; Tobler, 1986). For example, Hansen,
Johnson, Flay, Graham, and Sobel (1988) found that
students who received an affective education program
reported significantly more drug use than students in a
comparison group and that these differences increased
over time. In contrast, the results of evaluation of
social influences programs have been generally more
positive (Botvin, 1990; Bruvold, 1993, 1986; Bruvold &
Rundall, 1988; Flay, 1985; Hansen, 1992; Moskowitz, 1989;
Pentz et al., 1989; Tobler, 1986, in press, 1994). In
comparison with knowledge/information and affective
programs, social influences programs have been more
effective at preventing adolescent drug use.
History of D.A.R.E.
D.A.R.E. is a school-based drug prevention program
designed to prevent students' use of tobacco, alcohol,
and other drugs. Most D.A.R.E. activities are directed
toward pupils in the last grade of elementary school
(grade 5 or 6), which is thought to be the age at which
youth are most receptive to an anti-drug message, and
before they begin experimenting with drugs (Bureau of
Justice Assistance [BJA], 1991b). The original D.A.R.E.
core curriculum, which was implemented in 1983, was
developed by Dr. Ruth Rich, health education specialist
from the LAUSD. Dr. Rich based the D.A.R.E. core
curriculum on a review of other prevalent drug prevention
programs, particularly Project SMART (Self-Management and
Resistance Training), a prevention program designed by
the Health Behavior Research Institute of the University
of Southern California. =20
From its inception, D.A.R.E. was designed to be a
continuing education program for kindergarten through
high school. To that end, junior high and senior high
curricula were developed in 1986 and 1988, respectively.=20
Additionally, D.A.R.E. designers created a parent
curriculum to teach parents how to recognize and prevent
drug use among youth and to provide them with information
about the program.
D.A.R.E. is distinctive among school-based drug
prevention programs in that it uses trained, uniformed
police officers in the classroom to teach a highly
structured curriculum. D.A.R.E. officers enter the
classroom not only because of a cooperative agreement
between the local school district and law enforcement
agency, but also because the community is willing to
forgo or replace the time that D.A.R.E. officers lose to
other police duties. During D.A.R.E.'s first year, 1983-
1984, 10 officers taught the curriculum to around 8,000
students in 50 Los Angeles elementary schools (BJA,
1991a). D.A.R.E. is now widely implemented throughout
the Nation and parts of Europe and Asia. According to
the BJA (1991b), some 6 million students in the United
States received D.A.R.E. in the 1991-1992 school year,
and D.A.R.E. is currently implemented in 8,000 cities
across the Nation (Glenn Levant, personal communication).=20
Indeed, the D.A.R.E. workbooks are currently available in
Japanese, Vietnamese, Spanish, and Braille. In addition,
D.A.R.E. has been adopted by several governmental
agencies that sponsor schools, including the Department
of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
Capitol police, the National Park Service, and all
overseas branches of the Department of Defense.
D.A.R.E. combines an essentially local, grass-roots
effort with a high degree of centralized program control
asserted by coordinating mechanisms at the national,
regional, and State levels. At the national level,
D.A.R.E. America assumes the primary responsibility for
implementing and managing D.A.R.E., assisted by five RTCs
that constitute the D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board.=20
A detailed examination of the roles of national,
regional, and State D.A.R.E. organizations is presented
in Section II, Chapter 3.=20
D.A.R.E. Curricula
The primary purposes of all the D.A.R.E. curricula
for students are to
o teach students to recognize pressures
to use drugs from peers and from the
media,
o teach students the skills to resist
peer inducements to use drugs,
o enhance students' self-esteem,=20
o teach positive alternatives to
substance use, and
o increase students' interpersonal,
communication, and decision-making
skills (BJA, 1991a).
Each of the curricula is periodically updated; an updated
version of the core curriculum is currently being pilot
tested and will be implemented in September 1994. A
brief summary of each of the five D.A.R.E. curricula
follows.
The D.A.R.E. core curriculum, which is taught in
the 5th or 6th grade, comprises
17 hour-long weekly lessons. The D.A.R.E. officers have
sole responsibility for teaching all of the lessons,
although classroom teachers are encouraged to
participate. Officers use a variety of teaching
approaches, including the presentation of facts, group
discussions, role-playing, and workbook exercises. =20
The core curriculum was updated in 1993 and will be
fully implemented in 1994. The updated curriculum
differs from the previous version in a variety of ways.=20
The new curriculum, which has been renamed "D.A.R.E. to
Resist Drugs and Violence,"
o includes specific lessons concerning
tobacco and inhalants,
o emphasizes normative beliefs and
protective factors,
o adds violence prevention/conflict
resolution strategies,
o uses more participatory learning
activities, and
o employs a more collaborative
partnership between the D.A.R.E.
officer and the teacher in the
classroom (Charles Dunn, personal
communication, June 22, 1993).
In both the old and new versions of the core curriculum,
the lessons are cumulative, building upon concepts
introduced in previous lessons. With the exception of
lesson 14 in both versions, the lessons are implemented
in sequence and without variation.
The data collection for the implementation
assessment and the evaluations studied in the outcome
assessment occurred before the introduction of the new
curriculum. We, therefore, believe it is important to
provide information on both versions. Exhibit 2.1
presents a summary of the original version of the core
curriculum upon which the outcome evaluation was based,
and Exhibit 2.2 displays a summary of the updated
curriculum.=20
In elementary schools that receive the D.A.R.E.
core curriculum, officers may also visit students in
kindergarten through 4th grade to teach brief
introductory (15- to 20- minute) lessons. Topics in this
curriculum include personal safety, the consequences of
taking medicine and using drugs, saying "no" when asked
to engage in antisocial activities, and learning about
feelings.
The D.A.R.E. junior high school curriculum was
originally developed to provide or
reinforce information and skills that help students
resist pressure to use drugs. Revisions were made in
1989 to include violence reduction, conflict resolution,
and anger management. The 10 lessons are taught
cooperatively by the officer and the classroom teacher.=20
The lessons and activities (summarized in Exhibit 2.3)
are implemented over a 10-day period as part of a
required course, such as health, science, or social
studies.
The senior high school curriculum also focuses on
drug abuse and its effect on communities and young people
(see Exhibit 2.4 for a summary of the lessons). The
senior high school curriculum was designed to be taught
over an 11-day period during health or another
appropriate class. Responsibility for teaching the
lessons is divided between the officer and the classroom
teacher. Officers and teachers are trained together and
are encouraged to be present during the entire 11-day
period.
Because of the difficulties educators have
continually faced persuading parents to attend school
educational functions, the D.A.R.E. parent curriculum was
designed to be
implemented where parents live and work. This curriculum
consists of four or five 2-hour Exhibit 2.1 D.A.R.E.'s Original Core
Curriculum
Session Topic Descript=
ion
1 First visit/personal safety Introduction
of D.A.R.E.
and law
enforcement
officer;
safety
practices;
discussion of
personal
rights
2 Drug use and misuse Harmful
effects from misuse of drugs
3 Consequences Consequences
of using and
choosing not
to use
alcohol,
marijuana,
and other
drugs
4 Resisting pressures Sources of
pressure;
types of
pressure to
use drugs
5 Resistance techniques Refusal
strategies
for different
types of peer
pressure
6 Building self-esteem Identifying
positive
qualities in
oneself;
giving/
receiving
compliments;
importance of
self-image
7 Assertiveness Personal
rights/respon
sibilities
discussion;
situations
calling for
assertiveness
skills
8 Managing stress without =20
Identification of sources of stress; when stress
drugs can be
helpful or
harmful; ways
to manage
stress; deep
breathing
exercise
9 Media influences Media
influences on
behavior;
advertising
techniques
10 Decisionmaking and risk Risk-taking
behaviors;
reasonable
and
taking harmful
risks;
consequences
of various
choices;
influences on
decisions
11 Drug use alternatives Reasons for
using drugs;
alternative
activities
12 Role modeling Meet older
student
leaders/role
models who do
not use drugs
13 Forming support system Types of
support
groups;
barriers to
friendships;
suggestions
for
overcoming
these
barriers
14 Ways to deal with gang Types of gang
pressure; how gangs differ from
pressures groups;
consequences
of gang
activity
(optional)
15 D.A.R.E. summary D.A.R.E.
review
16 Taking a stand Taking
appropriate
stand when
pressured to
use drugs
17 D.A.R.E. culmination Award
assembly;
recognition
of
participants
Exhibit 2.2 D.A.R.E.'s Updated Core Curriculum
Lesson TopicDescription
1 Introducing D.A.R.E. Acquaints
students with
the D.A.R.E.
officer;
defines roles
and
responsibilit
ies of
students
2 Understanding the effects of Presents
basic facts about mind-altering
mind-altering drugs drugs and
harmful
effects from
misuse
3 Consequences Presents
consequences
of using and
choosing not
to use
alcohol and
other drugs
4 Changing beliefs about drug use Teaches
students to identify sources and
kinds of
pressure;
compares
students'
estimates of
drug use with
estimates
reported in
national
surveys
5 Resistance techniques: Ways to Presents
refusal strategies for different
say "NO" types of peer
pressure
6 Building self-esteem Teaches
students to
recognize
positive
qualities in
themselves
7 Assertiveness: A response style Teaches
students to
respond
assertively
in refusing
offers to use
drugs
8 Managing stress without drugs Identifies
stressors in
students'
lives
9 Reducing violence Identifies
nonviolent
ways to deal
with anger
and
disagreement
10 Media influences on drug use and Teaches
students to recognize media influ-
violence ence in
presentations
about
tobacco,
alcohol,
other drugs,
and violence
11 Making decisions about risky Teaches
students decisionmaking skills
behavior to evaluate
risks in
situations
involving
using drugs
and using
weapons
12 Say "YES" to positive alternatives
Teaches students to identify and participate in
positive alternative activities
13 Positive role modeling Teaches
students to
identify ways
high school
students
avoid drug
use
14 Resisting gang and group violence
Identifies negative consequences of gang and group
violence and ways to avoid becoming involved
(optional)
15 Project D.A.R.E. summary Summarizes
D.A.R.E.;
asks students
questions
about drug
use and
violence
16 Taking a stand Puts
student's
commitment to
be drug-free
and to avoid
violence in
writing=20
17 D.A.R.E. culmination Reinforces
the values
and skills
learned;
recognizes
individual
achievement
of all
participants=20
Exhibit 2.3 D.A.R.E.'s Junior High School Curriculum
Lesson TopicDescription
1 Drug use and abuse Helps
students
understand
how drugs can
change the
way the mind
and body
function
2 Drugs, violence, and the law Informs
students
about laws
and school
behavior
codes
regarding
possession of
substances
and acts of
violence;
helps
students
understand
their role in
following
these
expected
standards of
conduct
3 Consequences Explores how
drug use
affects every
person living
in a
community
4 Assertive resistance Makes
students
aware of
pressures
that
influence
people to use
drugs;
teaches
assertiveness
as a way to
resist these
pressures
5 Forming positive friendships Helps
students
recognize
ways
individuals
can reach out
to form
positive
relation-
ships=20
6 Resolving conflicts without Explores ways
of dealing
with anger
and
violence conflict
without
resorting to
acts of
violence
7 Destructive ecology: Tagging and
Helps students understand how destruc-
trashing tive acts of
vandalism
against
personal or
public
property or
living things
affect
everyone
8 Pressure from gangs and gang Makes
students aware of kinds of pres-
violence sures and
violence they
may encounter
from gangs;
helps them
evaluate the
consequences
of choices
available to
them
9 Project D.A.R.E. review activities
Provides an opportunity for students to review and
strengthen what they learned in D.A.R.E.
10 D.A.R.E. to Be Helps
students act
in their own
best interest
Exhibit 2.4 D.A.R.E.'s Senior High School Curriculum
Day TopicDescription
1 Pretest/Introduction Pretests
students to
measure
knowledge and
understanding
of drug abuse
and its
effects on
communities
2 Reducing the demand for drugs: Officer
taught:
Focuses on
drug abuse
and
A shared responsibility its
correlation
with
increased
risk for
problem
behaviors
that result
in negative
consequences
3 Day 2 follow-up Teacher
taught:
Focuses on
the conse-
quences of
drug use for
individuals,
as well as
the community
4 Communicating choices assertively
Officer taught: Teaches skills to communi-cate
choices assertively in situations involving
substance abuse
5 Drug-related behaviors and the Officer
taught:
Focuses on
the purpose
of
law laws and how
drug-related
behaviors can
affect the
balance
between the
need to
maintain
order and the
right of an
individual
6 Day 5 follow-up Teacher
taught:
Focuses on
blood-alcohol
levels; uses
cooperative
learning
groups and
case studies
to
demonstrate
risks
involved in
drug abuse
7 Drugs, media, and violence Officer
taught:
Focuses on
how drug
abuse and the
media can
increase
violent
behavior
8,9 Managing anger and resolving Officer
taught:
Identifies
positive ways
conflict without drugs of expressing
and managing
anger without
the use of
drugs
10 Day 8, 9 follow-up Teacher
taught:
Focuses on
the use of
"I-message"
statements
11 Evaluation/Posttest Posttest of
students:=20
Evaluation of
the program
by students
Exhibit 2.5 D.A.R.E.'s Parent Curriculum
Lesson TopicDescription
1 Effective communication Helps parents
understand
that self-
esteem,
listening,
and
communication
skills are
critical in
adult-child
communication
2 Risk Factors (two options): Parents
select Section A, B, or both
(2A) Risk factors (yrs 0-8) Addresses the
risk factors
of children
from birth to
age 8;
provides an
awareness of
safety
measures that
can be used
in the home
to reduce
likelihood of
dangerous
exposure to
drugs;
introduces
strategies
parents can
use to reduce
the
likelihood
that young
children will
be at risk of
drug abuse
(2B) Risk factors (early adolescents)
Introduces risk factors of substance use in early
adolescents; introduces parents to basic drug
identification and stages of adolescent chemical
dependency
3 Youth pressure resistance skills Helps parents
in awareness
and under-
standing of
life skills,
particularly
in areas
dealing with
peer pressure
and media
influence;
assists in
strengthening
the family
network
4 Panel discussion Initiates
discussion by
members of
the community
from a
variety of
backgrounds
on the scope
of local
substance
abuse;
provides an
exchange of
ideas on
resources and
referrals
sessions generally held in the evenings (see Exhibit 2.5
for a summary of these lessons). Topics covered in this
curriculum include developing better skills to interact
with children, learning about peer pressures, and
identifying signs and reducing risks of potential
substance abuse.
D.A.R.E. Officers and Training
Law enforcement agencies exercise considerable
discretion in identifying qualified, motivated police
officers to be trained as D.A.R.E. officers. D.A.R.E.
officers must be full-time, uniformed officers with at
least 2 years of experience. When selecting candidate
officers, local police departments are encouraged to
consider the officer's ability to interact with children,
ability to organize, and ability to handle the
unexpected, as well as whether the officer would provide
an exemplary role model and refrain from sexual, racial,
stereotypical, or inappropriate remarks (BJA, 1991b). =20
Selected officers undergo an intensive, 2-week
course of at least 80 hours of training. Officers are
trained not only in the core curriculum, but also in
public speaking, teaching skills, and classroom
management. Their performance is directly critiqued by
assigned mentors, who are experienced and specially
trained D.A.R.E. officers. Outside speakers and
consultants are also used to instruct the officers in
areas requiring special expertise (e.g., a psychologist
may present information on the stages of child
development). The core curriculum training course
includes opportunities to practice lessons both with
peers and in an actual classroom setting. =20
Additional training is provided for officers
teaching the junior and senior high school and parent
curricula. Officers teaching these curricula are
required to be certified as a D.A.R.E. officer and to
have taught the core curriculum at least two semesters.=20
In-service training is provided to review what officers
have previously learned in light of their actual
classroom experiences and to acquaint them with changes
to the curricula. The time that D.A.R.E. officers commit
to the program varies considerably from one law
enforcement jurisdiction to the next. For some officers,
particularly those in large urban departments, teaching
D.A.R.E. is a full-time occupation. In departments that
serve rural communities, D.A.R.E. officers administer the
program on a part-time basis, devoting the remainder of
their time to other law enforcement tasks. =20
Once in the field, D.A.R.E. officer performance is
monitored by mentors who observe classroom presentations
and evaluate performance. Mentors may also use input
from school administrators, classroom teachers, health
education coordinators, and advisory committees to
provide officers with feedback on their presentations. =20
D.A.R.E. in the Context of Other School-Based Drug Use
Prevention Programs
Considering that the D.A.R.E. curricula were based
on several preexisting school-based drug prevention
curricula (primarily Project SMART), it is not surprising
that the curricula closely resemble other programs in
content. Exhibit 2.6 show that D.A.R.E.'s core
curriculum includes lessons that represent all three
curricular strategies discussed earlier.=20
D.A.R.E. differs from most other school-based drug
prevention programs in the structure by which it is
organized and implemented. First, D.A.R.E. is
implemented by law enforcement officers; most other
programs are taught by teachers. Second, D.A.R.E.
officer training lasts 2 weeks and is highly intensive;
most drug prevention program training for teachers is of
a shorter duration. Third, D.A.R.E. officers are
strongly encouraged to deliver their lessons in sequence,
departing only minimally (if at all) from their lesson
plans; teachers are much more free to adapt curricula at
will, emphasizing those areas they believe to be most
salient or useful or integrating the drug prevention
material into their general education curriculum.=20
Fourth, D.A.R.E. officer performance is often carefully
monitored and evaluated; generally, the accountability
mechanisms for teachers' implementation of their
curricula are less structured. Fifth, the mission of
D.A.R.E. officers in the school is exclusively drug
prevention; to most teachers, drug prevention is often
only part of a larger curriculum.
Exhibit 2.6 Curricular Strategies Used in D.A.R.E.'s
Core Curriculum
Curricular Strategies
Session Social
Skills Topic Cognitive=20
Affective Skills
1 Introducing D.A.R.E. X
2 Understanding the effects of mind- X
altering drugs
3 Consequences X
4 Changing beliefs about drug use XX
5 Resistance techniques: Ways to X
say "NO"
6 Building self-esteem X
7 Assertiveness: A response style X
8 Managing stress without taking X
drugs
9 Reducing violence X
10 Media influence on drug use X
and violence
11 Making decisions about risky X
behaviors
12 Saying "YES" to positive X
alternatives
13 Positive role modeling X X
14 Resisting gang and group X
violence
15 Project D.A.R.E. summary XXX
16 Taking a stand X
17 D.A.R.E. culmination X
CHAPTER 3
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL OPERATIONS
In any consideration of the organization of
D.A.R.E. at the national and regional levels, it is
important to remember that D.A.R.E. is very much a grass-
roots program. In essence, it is a product of memoranda
of understanding between community law enforcement and
local public school districts across the Nation. The
primary purposes of the D.A.R.E. hierarchy described in
this chapter are to ensure the integrity of the D.A.R.E.
curriculum and the fidelity with which it is delivered;
to develop and uphold standards for the integrity,
coordination, and quality of D.A.R.E. operations; and to
provide support to D.A.R.E. at the community level.
As we have said, in its degree of organization at
the national and regional levels, D.A.R.E. differs
greatly from other school-based drug use prevention
programs, most of which limit their activities to
delivering packaged curricula to school districts and
offering some level of training to teachers. In
contrast, the D.A.R.E. organization oversees all aspects
of the prevention program, including the consistency with
which it is implemented in the classroom. In this
chapter, we discuss the functions of D.A.R.E. America,
the preeminent D.A.R.E. organization, and its
relationship with the
o D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board;
o State Training Centers, State Charter
Organizations; and State D.A.R.E.
Coordinators;
o Los Angeles United School District
(LAUSD); and
o D.A.R.E. America Scientific Advisory
Board.
We obtained much of the information for this chapter from
an interview conducted in August 1994 with Glenn Levant,
Executive Director of D.A.R.E. America. This information
is supplemented by relevant D.A.R.E. documents. We also
summarize a series of loosely structured interviews
conducted in 1992 with representatives of the D.A.R.E.
America RTC Advisory Board.
D.A.R.E. at the national, regional, State, and
local levels is promoted, monitored, and overseen by
D.A.R.E. America, which is chartered as a nonprofit
organization. As specified in its charter, D.A.R.E.
America has responsibility for a variety of key func-
tions, including
o administering the D.A.R.E. program,
o providing educational materials to
communities implementing D.A.R.E.,
o overseeing D.A.R.E. officer training
and ensuring its consistency,
o improving the curriculum, and
o providing support to D.A.R.E. both
nationally and internationally. =20
In 1988, the BJA awarded four grants to establish
the RTCs that constitute the D.A.R.E. America RTC
Advisory Board, and a fifth RTC was established the
following year. The RTCs are located in Arizona,
California, Illinois, Virginia, and North Carolina, and
the States associated with each are presented in Exhibit
3.1. The responsibilities of the RTCs include making
recommendations to D.A.R.E. America concerning the
accreditation of State-level training centers. In
addition, the RTCs provide oversight to the local
D.A.R.E. programs to ensure that the copyrighted
curriculum is taught as specified. Educational
specialists representing the five RTCs, together with
staff of the LAUSD, are charged with curricular
development, taking advice from the Scientific Advisory
Board and other specialists. In Federal FY 1994, it is
expected that the BJA grant, which in the past has flowed
to the RTCs, will come directly to D.A.R.E. America to
support the RTCs.
D.A.R.E. is also organized at the State level. In
more than one-third of the States, D.A.R.E. America has
helped charter a nonprofit (501C3) organization, over
which D.A.R.E. America has oversight, and which is
designed to support the program in that State. The board
of the chartered organization typically comprises the
State's attorney general, the superintendent of
education, and prominent business and education people.=20
The board of directors may also include a representative
of the State's D.A.R.E. Officers' Association (described
below) as well as, in some States, a D.A.R.E. coordinator
whose prominence and position may vary considerably. It
is expected that in time there will be D.A.R.E. charter
organizations in the remaining States. In those States
that currently lack a charter organization, there is
typically some individual identified as the State
D.A.R.E. coordinator who often is a State employee. This
person's responsibilities include coordinating candidate
selection and scheduling training for D.A.R.E. officers,
obtaining State funds to support D.A.R.E. programs,
providing local technical assistance, and overseeing
policy development and implementation at the State level.=20
D.A.R.E. America meets with these individuals, and with
the State charter organizations, on a quarterly basis.
In addition to D.A.R.E. State charter organizations
at the State level, a total of 42 States currently have
developed State Training Centers (STCs), the purpose of
which is to conduct training for prospective D.A.R.E.
officers. These centers are differentially accredited;
all conduct training for prospective D.A.R.E. officers in
the core curriculum, while only some are accredited to
teach the other curricula or to train D.A.R.E. mentors.=20
The STCs are supported both by the States and by D.A.R.E.
America. The level of activity of these centers varies
considerably given the size of the State and demand for
D.A.R.E. officer training. At present, there are some
20,000 certified D.A.R.E. officers.
D.A.R.E. America also owns and protects the
copyright to the D.A.R.E. name, logo, and associated
slogans. D.A.R.E.'s name is considered a valuable
intellectual property. D.A.R.E. America approves all
materials (e.g., bumper stickers) and celebrities used to
promote the D.A.R.E. program. In addition, the
organization screens sponsors for fund-raising events to
exclude companies manufacturing alcohol or tobacco
products. =20
Together with the LAUSD, D.A.R.E. America owns the
copyright to the core curriculum. The superintendent of
the LAUSD has been represented on the board of D.A.R.E.
America since 1983. Through the RTCs, D.A.R.E. America
monitors the implementation of D.A.R.E. in each community
and may withdraw its permission to use D.A.R.E. if a
local school district has improperly modified the
curriculum. To fulfill its responsibility of improving
the curriculum, D.A.R.E. America established in 1993 a
Scientific Advisory Board, which is chaired by Dr. Herb
Kleber of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse
(CASA) at Columbia University. Dr. Kleber was formally
the chief official for demand reduction in the Bush
Administration's White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP). The board includes prevention
specialists from across the Nation.
The National D.A.R.E. Officers' Association, which
D.A.R.E. America helped to found in 1987, serves to
improve communications among police officers within
D.A.R.E. The association now has a State D.A.R.E.
Officers' association in each of the 50 States. Each of
the 18 other countries that have adopted the D.A.R.E.
program also has an association of D.A.R.E. officers,
although those association are not formally a part of the
national association. However, all associations, both
domestic and foreign, look to D.A.R.E. America for
guidance in matters of policy.
Finally, D.A.R.E. America provides considerable
support to communities implementing D.A.R.E. in the form
of the educational materials that support the curriculum.=20
In some cases, D.A.R.E. America offers communities direct
financial support as well.
We collected further information by means of
informal interviews and discussions we conducted with the
coordinators and/or educational advisors of each of the
five RTCs in January 1992. The RTC coordinators/advisors
discussed with us a number of their needs and
recommendations for the D.A.R.E. program. Summaries of
their discussions with us are presented below.
An increasing need for in-service training. RTC
coordinators/advisors indicated that a substantial number
of officers have received D.A.R.E. training in the past
decade. However, they stressed that the original
training of many officers may now be several years old.=20
RTC coordinators/advisors indicated that although
mechanisms for providing in-service training do exist,
these mechanisms may not be sufficient. Furthermore,
they suggested that because training of new officers
already stretches available resources, the increasing
need for in-service training for existing D.A.R.E.
officers will strain D.A.R.E.'s budget further.=20
Exhibit 3.1 Jurisdictions of D.A.R.E.'s Regional
Training Centers
Southeast Midwest =20
Southwest
East RTC RTC RTC RTC
West RTC
Connecticut Alabama Arkansas =20
Alaska California*
Delaware Florida Illinois* =20
Arizona* Hawaii
District of Columbia Georgia Indiana =20
Colorado Idaho
Maine Louisiana Iowa =20
Kansas Montana
Maryland Mississippi Kentucky =20
Nebraska Nevada
Massachusetts North Carolina* Michigan New
Mexico North Dakota
New Hampshire South Carolina Minnesota =20
Oklahoma Oregon
New Jersey Tennessee Missouri South
Dakota Washington
New York Ohio Texas =20
Wyoming
Pennsylvania Wisconsin Utah
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia*
West Virginia
*Indicates location of Regional Training Center.
The increasing need to train State D.A.R.E.
coordinators. RTC coordinators/
advisors indicated that most States now have State
D.A.R.E. coordinators (see Chapter 4). However, they
reported that many are relatively new in these positions
or have received little formal information about how to
conduct their jobs. They stated that coordinator
training should include the responsibilities and roles of
State D.A.R.E. coordinators, as well as how they can
effectively interact both with their RTC and the schools
in their States. RTC coordinators/advisors reported that
plans are currently under way to establish procedures to
accredit State D.A.R.E. coordinators. =20
The need to improve lines of communication and
clarify lines of authority. RTC coordinators/advisors
indicated that because of the lack of formal training and
the lack of communication among State coordinators, many
State D.A.R.E. coordinators have had to learn their jobs
by trial and error. They stated that although a certain
amount of communication occurs among State D.A.R.E.
coordinators (especially among coordinators in
neighboring States), increasing communication would
greatly enhance efficiency by enabling coordinators to
draw on the experiences of others instead of "reinventing
the wheel."=20
RTC coordinators/advisors also indicated that State
coordinators may need assistance with getting local
programs to recognize developing lines of authority. For
example, they stated that in the past, local programs
worked directly with RTCs; they said that many local
programs will need to be prompted to now work with the
STC instead.
The need for increased D.A.R.E. officer mentoring.=20
At present, RTC coordinators/
advisors reported that there is a well-developed system
for monitoring D.A.R.E. officer performance in the
classroom. They reported that D.A.R.E. mentors
periodically monitor and evaluate officer performance by
observing classes taught by the officer. They also
indicated that teachers are given the opportunity to rate
officer performance. They reported that D.A.R.E.
officers are informed of any problem areas, told how to
correct these problems, and later reevaluated to ensure
that the problem has been corrected. However, to be
truly useful, RTC coordinators reported that these
mentors should have the time and resources necessary to
work closely with D.A.R.E. officers to improve their
performance.
The need for increased collaboration between
education and law enforcement. RTC coordinators/advisors
indicated that because D.A.R.E. was created as a close
partnership between the LAUSD and the Los Angeles Police
Department, the program is dependent on a strong and
continuing relationship between education and law
enforcement at every level.
At the State level, RTC coordinators/advisors see
close collaboration between the department of education
and the organization administering D.A.R.E. (typically
related to law enforcement) as essential. They indicated
that the institutional commitment of State Departments of
Education to D.A.R.E. is essential, in part, to help
resolve any community-level problems. Further, they
indicated that as administrators of DFSCA funds, State
Departments of Education have an increasing role to play
in providing guidance concerning the various components
of a school district's comprehensive K-12 curriculum
(including D.A.R.E.) and how these components should be
integrated to ensure a comprehensive approach. RTC
coordinators indicated that ways in which State
Departments of Education could play a role in assisting
with the evaluation of D.A.R.E. officer performance
should be examined.
At the local level, RTC coordinators indicated that
D.A.R.E. is initiated when a school district invites a
police department to teach the program. They reported
that the police department nominates a candidate for
D.A.R.E. officer training, and the candidate must be
acceptable to the school district administration. In the
classroom, they stated, the role of the teacher is
evolving from an observer and monitor of the officer's
performance to an active partner in D.A.R.E. instruction.=20
The need to maintain limits to the D.A.R.E.
"bureaucracy". RTC coordinators/
advisors stressed that pressures on D.A.R.E. to expand
its operations are considerable. They indicated that as
an institution, D.A.R.E. remains committed to maintaining
high standards at the community level. They reported
that as the role of the State coordinator continues to
become more important in this regard, the need for the
RTCs to provide technical assistance and to monitor State
activities becomes even more crucial. RTC
coordinators/advisors reported that because existing RTC
resources are already strained by current demands,
further growth at the national level seems inevitable.=20
They indicated that even if support for such growth
exists, however, there is concern that a bureaucracy will
develop that may weaken the "grass-roots" nature of the
enterprise. Coordinators/advisors indicated that it will
be a challenge to increase the size and capabilities of
the D.A.R.E. bureaucracy to manage and control this
burgeoning program with the need to keep the bureaucracy
streamlined and responsive to the needs of the
communities that D.A.R.E. serves.
The need to locate permanent funding sources. RTC
coordinators/advisors indicated that D.A.R.E. currently
receives substantial support from DFSCA. However, they
feel that Federal DFSCA funds appear to have reached a
plateau in the past 3 years and are likely to be
subjected to budget cuts in the future. RTC
coordinators/advisors fear that D.A.R.E. could be reduced
or even eliminated as a line item. Regardless, they
reported that Federal funding may have been a mixed
blessing, insofar as Federal support may displace local
efforts to secure the resources necessary to implement
the program.=20
Summary
In this chapter, we focused on the national- and
regional-level operations of D.A.R.E. We conducted
unstructured interviews with the executive director of
D.A.R.E. America and representatives from each of the
RTCs. We also reviewed available documents.
D.A.R.E. is a grass-roots program that operates
through memoranda of understanding between community law
enforcement agencies and local schools. D.A.R.E.
America, a nonprofit organization, coordinates, promotes,
monitors, and assumes ultimate responsibility for the
D.A.R.E. program at all levels. The D.A.R.E. America RTC
Advisory Board, which is composed of staff from the RTCs,
serves in an advisory capacity to D.A.R.E. America. In
addition to making recommendations to D.A.R.E. America,
RTCs are responsible for oversight of the local D.A.R.E.
programs and coordinating and conducting D.A.R.E. officer
training. Organizations and individuals working to
promote and coordinate the D.A.R.E. program at the State
levelinclude State-chartered nonprofit organizations, State
D.A.R.E. officers' associations, and State D.A.R.E.
coordinators. Also at the State level are STCs that
provide training to D.A.R.E. officers.
Curriculum development and changes are the
responsibility of educational specialists from each of
the RTCs, together with staff from the LAUSD. A
Scientific Advisory Board, composed of leading prevention
specialists, assists in these endeavors.
Our interviews with the RTC coordinators indicated
the following key issues: a need for increased in-
service training and mentoring, providing training to
State D.A.R.E. coordinators, improving communication and
collaboration between agencies, maintaining limits on the
D.A.R.E. bureaucracy, and locating permanent funding
sources.
Findings from this chapter and resulting
recommendations are discussed fully in Chapter 8.
CHAPTER 4
STATE-LEVEL OPERATIONS
In this chapter, we present the second component of
the implementation assessment, a survey of those
individuals who generally manage the State-level D.A.R.E.
operations: the State D.A.R.E. coordinators. This
component was conducted to fulfill NIJ's request for
information concerning:
o features common to most D.A.R.E. programs,
o funding arrangements for D.A.R.E.,
o management of D.A.R.E. and supporting
organizations, and
o availability of the D.A.R.E. curricula.
The primary objective of this component was, of course,
to provide information concerning D.A.R.E.'s State-level
operations. As a secondary objective, we collected
preliminary information to facilitate sample selection
for the school district drug prevention coordinators
survey, the results of which we present in Chapter 5.
This chapter covers both the methodology for and
findings from the survey of State D.A.R.E. coordinators.=20
The findings section presents data concerning the
administration, funding, implementation, challenges, and
problems of State-level D.A.R.E. operations.
Methodology
Instrument Design
We based the content of the State D.A.R.E.
coordinators' survey on the research issues raised in
NIJ's solicitation, discussions with NIJ personnel, a
review of the literature on D.A.R.E.'s structure and
operations, and an examination of prior studies of
school-based drug education conducted at RTI.=20
Recognizing that State D.A.R.E. coordinators have
considerable demands on their time, we designed the
instrument to be as brief and straightforward as
possible. To minimize ambiguity and burden, we used
mostly close-ended items. A few open-ended questions
were included to encourage respondents to provide
detailed information. =20
The survey instrument was composed of two parts: a
questionnaire and a list of school districts. The
questionnaire contained items concerning administration,
funding, and implementation of the State D.A.R.E.
program. The list of school districts contained those
districts we selected from that State for the first-phase
sample of the school district drug prevention
coordinators' survey (see Chapter 5). We asked State
coordinators to indicate whether each district on their
list used D.A.R.E., and we then used this information to
draw the second-phase sample for the school district
survey.
We pretested the instrument on three State D.A.R.E.
coordinators in early February 1992. We also shared the
instrument with all five RTC coordinators and requested
their feedback. We incorporated the responses of pretest
participants, as well the comments of the RTC
coordinators, the NIJ program manager, and other alcohol
and drug prevention program experts into the final draft
of the data collection instrument. A copy of the survey
instrument and other data collection materials can be
found in Appendix D.
Data Collection
In January 1992, the RTC coordinators provided us
with lists of names and addresses of State D.A.R.E.
coordinators. Based on this information, we identified
44 States with D.A.R.E. coordinators. We mailed each
coordinator a package containing cover letters from the
D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board and RTI, a
questionnaire, and a list of school districts in the
coordinator's State. The cover letter from the RTC
Advisory Board expressed support for the research effort
and encouraged participation. The cover letter from RTI
explained the study, provided assurances that all
information would be kept strictly confidential, and
requested copies of any pertinent State documents
concerning the organization and/or administration of
D.A.R.E. =20
We mailed the packages to the State D.A.R.E.
coordinators on February 18, 1992. Two weeks after the
initial mailout, we contacted nonresponders by telephone.=20
We made repeated attempts by mail and telephone to secure
the return of completed materials or to collect the
information by phone. The RTCs were again of great
assistance to us in urging coordinators to return
surveys.
Of the 44 respondents identified by the RTC
coordinators, 39 completed the instrument. For purposes
of verification, one question in the survey asked
respondents to confirm that the State had a D.A.R.E.
coordinator. Although four States responded that they
did not have such a position, we determined after some
investigation that they did have a person who performs a
coordinator's role. Respondents from all four of these
States reported that administration of the State D.A.R.E.
program was one of several roles they performed as
supervisors or directors in law enforcement agencies.=20
We, therefore, did not delete these responses from our
analysis. It should be noted, however, that because of
skip patterns in the survey instrument, these four
respondents did not complete survey items specifically
directed to the State D.A.R.E. coordinator. =20
Findings
Administration
To address issues raised in the NIJ solicitation
concerning management of the D.A.R.E. program, we asked a
series of questions about the agencies involved in
D.A.R.E.'s administration at the State level, the
functions of each agency, and the relationships among
them. Findings from these questions are presented below.
Agencies Involved. We first asked respondents to
report the agency with primary responsibility for
managing the State D.A.R.E. program. As shown in Exhibit
4.1, the great majority of States indicated that a law
enforcement or criminal justice agency was entrusted with
this responsibility. =20
Exhibit 4.1 Percentage of State D.A.R.E. Programs
Primarily Managed by Various State and
Local Agencies
Agency (N=3D39) %
State Department of Public Safety 17.8
State Police 15.4
State Investigative Agency 7.7
State Highway Patrol 5.1
Other State Criminal Justice Agency 10.3
Governor's Office 7.7
State Attorney General's Office 10.3
State Department of Education/
Public Instruction 2.6
City/County Law Enforcement Agency 12.8
D.A.R.E. Agency 5.1
Board on Public Safety Training=20
and Standards 2.6
Association of Chiefs of Police 2.6
100.0
States are encouraged to establish statewide boards
that will help ensure that the State D.A.R.E. program
accommodates competing points of view, remains responsive
to the needs of its constituency, and continues as a
permanent component of State prevention activities (BJA,
1988). We asked coordinators if the State had a policy
advisory board (PAB), and 15 States (38%) reported
affirmatively.
To explore PAB membership, we asked the 15
coordinators with PABs to indicate the
agencies/individuals who held memberships on these boards
and to indicate the representative who chaired it.=20
Exhibit 4.2 shows that 65% or more of the States with
PABs listed State and local educational agencies, local
law enforcement agencies, and State D.A.R.E. officer
associations among their members. The leadership role of
the PABs was primarily held by law enforcement
representatives. The board was chaired by State law
enforcement agencies in six States, by local law
enforcement in three States, by local education agencies
in two States, by the State Department of Education in
one State, by another State agency in one State, and by
an Association of Chiefs of Police in one State. =20
Exhibit 4.2 Percentage of States with D.A.R.E. Policy
Advisory Boards Having Representation of
Various Agencies and Individuals on Such
Boards
Agency/Individual (N=3D15) %1
State Law Enforcement Agency 60.0
Local Law Enforcement Agency 80.0
Representatives for Other Criminal Justice 13.3
Agencies
State D.A.R.E. Officers' Association 73.3
Police Associations 20.0
State Department of Education/Public Instruction 86.7
Regional, County, or Local Education 66.7
Associations of Educators 26.7
University Representative 6.7
State Alcohol/Drug Abuse Agency 46.7
Governor's Office 26.7
State Legislature 20.0
State Judiciary 13.3
Other State Agency 33.3
Parents 26.7
Community-Based Organizations 26.7
Citizens-at-Large 13.3
Business Representatives 13.3
1Column percents will total more than 100.0% because
multiple responses could be indicated by
the same respondent.
Yet another agency encouraged to become involved in
D.A.R.E. is the State Department of Education. States
are encouraged to retain an educational consultant to act
as a liaison between the State Department of Education,
local school administrators, and D.A.R.E. instructors
(BJA, 1988). We, therefore, asked if the State had an
educational consultant. Twenty-five (64%) of the 39
respondents reported having an educational advisor, and
two States reported two advisors. Further, we inquired
about the employers of these consultants and found that
educational systems employed 17 of the 27 educational
advisors and law enforcement agencies employed 4 (Exhibit
4.3).
Exhibit 4.3 Percentage of States with D.A.R.E.
Educational Advisors Reporting to the
Employers of These Advisors
Employer (N=3D25) %1
State Department of Education 20.0
Local School Systems 36.0
Boards of Education 12.0
College/University 4.0
State Highway Patrol 8.0
Other Law Enforcement Agencies 8.0
Other State Agencies 12.0
Private Consultants 8.0
1Column percents will total more than 100.0% because
multiple responses could be indicated by
the same respondent.
Functions. Next, we sought to examine the
responsibilities of both the State D.A.R.E. coordinators
and the PABs by asking respondents to indicate the
functions of each agency (Exhibit 4.4). The most fre-
quently mentioned roles of State D.A.R.E. coordinators
were D.A.R.E. advocacy and officer training within the
State. The most frequently mentioned roles of PABs were
formulating State policy, exploring funding sources, and
advocating for D.A.R.E.=20
We also asked respondents to list functions
performed by the State D.A.R.E. coordinators and the PABs
that were not provided as close-ended response options.=20
Additional duties mentioned for State D.A.R.E.
coordinators included=20
o acting as liaison to other D.A.R.E. agencies
(three States),
o distributing D.A.R.E. materials (three
States),
o making and managing grant applications (two
States),
o training D.A.R.E. officers for schools on
military bases (one State),
o recertifying officers (one State),
o selecting officers (one State), and
o serving as a clearinghouse for information
(one State).
Other duties performed by the PABs included long-term
planning (two States) and the selection and supervision
of the State D.A.R.E. coordinator (one State).
Exhibit 4.4 Percentage of State D.A.R.E. Coordinators
and Policy Advisory Boards Performing
Various Functions
State
D.A.R.E. Policy
Advisory
Coordinator=20
Board
Functions (N=3D35)=20
(N=3D15)
Formulating State policy 82.9=20
86.7
Advocating D.A.R.E. 97.1=20
66.7
Exploring funding sources 80.0=20
73.3
Distributing funds 34.3=20
33.3
Training D.A.R.E. officers within the State 91.4=20
26.7
Training D.A.R.E. officers from other States 68.6=20
26.7
Follow-up in-service training 77.1=20
33.3
Direct student instruction 48.6=20
20.0
Implementation/development of local sites 80.0=20
26.7
On-site monitoring of D.A.R.E. officers
activities 71.4=20
33.3
Program evaluation 77.1=20
53.3
Approving school districts' involvement
with D.A.R.E. 45.7=20
60.0
Approving local law enforcements' involvement
with D.A.R.E. 71.4=20
26.7
D.A.R.E. officer certification 82.9=20
60.0
D.A.R.E. officer decertification 68.6=20
53.3
Communication. As mentioned earlier, State
D.A.R.E. programs are strongly encouraged to develop
relationships with State Departments of Education.=20
Having an educational consultant, however, does not
guarantee communication between the agencies. We,
therefore, asked the State coordinators about how well
they communicate with the Department of Education. Most
of the State D.A.R.E. coordinators reported having a
great deal (35%) or some (47%) communication with the
State Department of Education. In six States,
coordinators reported little communication, and only one
reported none. Seven coordinators (20%) reported having
a signed agreement between the State D.A.R.E. coordinator
and the Department of Education. =20
We also asked coordinators about the level of
communication between the PABs and the State Department
of Education. Most of the coordinators reported that
PABs had a great deal of communication with the Depart-
ment of Education. Eight of the 15 States with PABs
reported that their boards had a great deal of
communication, three reported some communication, three
reported little, and one reported none. =20
Only one State reported that both the State
D.A.R.E. coordinator and the PAB had little communication
with the Department of Education.
Funding
The NIJ solicitation also requested information on
funding arrangements for D.A.R.E. To this end, we asked
respondents to report the amount of funding received by
the primary managing agency. Exhibit 4.5 presents
ranges of funding received for D.A.R.E. at the State
level. Four States reported that no funds were received
for State-level D.A.R.E. operations, and two State
coordinators were unable to provide this information. =20
The mean amount of funds received by the primary
managing agency for operating D.A.R.E. at the State level
in the 1991-1992 school year (excluding $0 values) was
$273,657; funding ranged from $25,000 to $2,635,000. The
total amount received by the responding States was
$9,260,700.
Exhibit 4.5 Funding Received in 1991-1992 School Year
for State-Level D.A.R.E. Operations
Funding Range (N=3D39) %
$ 0 10.3
$ 25,000 - 49,000 12.8
$ 50,000 - 99,999 28.2
$100,000 - 299,999 25.6
$300,000 + 17.9
Data Unavailable 5.1
We asked the 33 respondents who reported the amount
of funding for State-level operations to identify the
sources of this funding (Exhibit 4.6). Four of the 33
respondents did not answer this question. We also asked
coordinators to indicate the percentage of funds received
from each source. Fifteen States indicated that all
funds were received from one source (six from the BJA,
four from State governors' grants, two from the State
Department of Education, two from legislative funds, and
one from other sources). Eight States reported that
funding was received from two sources, and eight States
reported receiving funding from three or more sources. =20
Additionally, we asked respondents to report other
sources of funding not mentioned in the close-ended
response options. Responses included State and local
matching funds, special education trust funds, State
penalty assessment funds, funds from the Exhibit 4.6 Number of States
Receiving Funds for State-
Level Operations from Sources in 1991-1992
School Year
Funding Source (N=3D31) %
Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant 58.1
Grant from Governor's Office 29.0
State Department of Education 12.9
Legislative Funds 25.8
Grant from Other State Agency 29.0
Local Funds 9.7
Corporate Donations 9.7
Individual Donations 3.2
Civic or Community Groups 3.2
D.A.R.E. America 3.2*
*As indicated by Question 2 of the State D.A.R.E.
coordinator survey, this information refers to
funding of State-level D.A.R.E. programs only. D.A.R.E.
America has informed us that all
State-level programs receive support from D.A.R.E.
America (Glenn Levant, personal communi-
cation, August 9, 1994).
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP), fund-raisers, and Federal forfeiture funds.
State Training Centers
As mentioned in Chapter 3, one goal of the RTCs has
been to develop STCs in their geographic areas.=20
Increasingly, RTCs have adopted a "train the trainer"
model to prepare STCs in their jurisdiction to conduct
their own D.A.R.E. officer training and certification
procedures. We, therefore, asked coordinators whether
their State had its own STC. About 87% (34 States)
reported affirmatively. One of the five States without a
training center reported that the State was in the
process of establishing a training center.
Implementation
To obtain a general idea of the level of
implementation of each of D.A.R.E.'s curricula, we asked
respondents to indicate each curriculum used in the State
during the 1991-1992 school year. All respondents
reported that the core curriculum and the K-4 visitations
were used in at least one school in the State.=20
Furthermore, 28 States (72%) implemented the junior high
curriculum, 26 States (67%) implemented the senior high
school curriculum, and 9 States (23%) implemented the
parent curriculum in at least one school.
Challenges and Problems
To acquire an understanding of the challenges and
problems facing D.A.R.E. and the State D.A.R.E. coordina-
tor in the coming years, we asked two open-ended
questions about these issues. We categorized the
responses and counted the number of State coordinators
indicating each category. (We advise caution in using
these findings to make recommendations given the small
number of coordinators mentioning each category.) =20
First, we asked respondents to identify the most
significant issues they face in working with the State's
Department of Education. The two most common responses
were improving communication between agencies (mentioned
by eight States) and acquiring a full-time educational
advisor (mentioned by seven States). Most of the other
responses were specific actions that coordinators wanted
the State Department of Education to undertake, such as
o assisting with program evaluation and monitoring
D.A.R.E. officers (six States),
o formally mandating the D.A.R.E. program (three
States),
o understanding the role of law enforcement in
education (three States),
o assisting with funding for D.A.R.E. (three
States),
o providing greater support for the D.A.R.E.
program (two States),
o assisting in training programs (one State), and
o helping resolve problems between officers and
teachers (one State).
We then asked respondents to indicate the most
significant issues facing the State D.A.R.E.
coordinator. It should be noted that most of these
issues could be mentioned by coordinators of other drug
prevention programs, as well as coordinators of D.A.R.E.=20
Most of the responses centered on funding, communication,
evaluation, and training. The responses, by category,
were as follows:=20
Funding
o maintaining or increasing funding (13 States)
o locating funding sources (8 States)
o locating funding specifically for training (6
States)
Communication
o increasing communication between
D.A.R.E. agencies at the local,
regional, and national levels (10
States)
o improving relations with State
Department of Education (4 States)
o coping with the disorganization of the
program (4 States)
o improving public relations (3 States)
o keeping up with constantly shifting
policies of the D.A.R.E. America RTC
Advisory Board (2 States)
Evaluation
o monitoring officers in the classroom (8
States)
o evaluating the program (4 States)
Training
o improving training (3 States)
o handling problem officers (2 States)
o obtaining STC certification (1 State)
Staffing
o increasing staffing (6 States)
o formally establishing a State D.A.R.E.
coordinator position (2 States)
o forming a PAB (2 States)
Expansion
o expanding D.A.R.E. to other grades or
schools (7 States).
Summary
This chapter focused on a survey of the
administrators of the State D.A.R.E. programs. Thirty-
nine of the 44 States with State D.A.R.E. coordinators
responded to the survey. =20
We found that most of the State D.A.R.E. programs
are managed by law enforcement or criminal justice
agencies and that most retain educational consultants.=20
About two-fifths of the States had PABs. Most of the
coordinators reported high levels of communication
between themselves and the State Department of Education.=20
They also reported high levels of communication between
the PABs and the Department of Education. Most States
received at least $50,000 in funding for training and
administrative purposes, and most States had their own
STC.
Findings from this chapter and resulting
recommendations are discussed fully in Chapter 8.
CHAPTER 5
SCHOOL DISTRICT DRUG PREVENTION
COORDINATOR SURVEY
A survey of school district drug prevention
coordinators was the main component of our implementation
assessment. This component of the assessment was
conducted to fulfill NIJ's request for information about
the implementation of D.A.R.E. and other school-based
drug prevention programs at the local level. NIJ
specifically requested information on the following
questions:
o Who usually manages the D.A.R.E.
program at the local level?
o How involved in D.A.R.E. are
classroom teachers, churches, and
community groups?
o How extensively are D.A.R.E. and
other school-based alcohol and
other drug (AOD) prevention
programs implemented nationwide
in terms of geography, target
populations (such as ethnic
groups, economic strata, and
urbanicity), and grade levels?
o How do other AOD programs compare
with D.A.R.E. and D.A.R.E. with
them?
o What are local funding
arrangements for D.A.R.E. and
other AOD programs? How do these
resources affect implementation?
A careful reading of these questions reveals that NIJ had
three primary objectives: (a) to secure information
about the administration of D.A.R.E., (b) to develop
estimates of the national prevalence of D.A.R.E. and
other AOD programs, and (c) to make comparisons between
D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs on a variety of issues. =20
RTI staff developed and conducted a comprehensive
survey of school district drug prevention coordinators
that addressed each of the above-mentioned objectives and
questions. We selected drug prevention coordinators as
respondents, as opposed to classroom teachers or police
officers, because we believed that drug prevention
coordinators were the school district staff members best
able to provide us with a broad perspective on all drug
prevention activities in the district, including both
D.A.R.E. and other AOD prevention programs.
This chapter presents the methodology and findings
for this survey. We should note that for this chapter
the results we display will be descriptive, as opposed to
explanatory, in nature. That is, our purpose is to
report what the school district drug prevention
coordinators have told us, and not attempt to explain why
they responded as they did. Although efforts to explain
our respondents' answer are feasible, we believe they
would ultimately prove unsatisfactory because our
explanatory variables (e.g., the school districts' racial
balance or percentage of youth in poverty) are very
limited, and any differences we find may be misleading.
The findings section first presents information we
received from districts with D.A.R.E., followed by
estimates of the numbers of districts with D.A.R.E. and
other AOD programs, and comparisons of D.A.R.E. with
other AOD programs. At the end of the findings section,
we also provide some general information about drug
policies in all the districts surveyed.
Methodology
Sample Design
The sample design for the school district drug
prevention coordinators' survey was a two-phased
stratified random sample. The two-phases of the sample
design was necessary to meet the multiple goals of this
survey. The goal of the first-phase sample was to
produce estimates by region, district size, socioeconomic
status (SES) categories, ethnicity categories, and
urbanicity. The goal of the second-phase sample was to
enable comparisons between districts with and without
D.A.R.E. A detailed discussion of each phase of the
sample design is discussed below.
Sampling frame. The first step in our sampling
design was to obtain a list of public school districts
nationwide. We obtained such a list from Quality
Educational Data (QED) Inc., of Denver, Colorado. The
QED file, which is updated every summer, lists all public
school districts nationwide and contains a wealth of
useful information for each school district. We used
this file as our sampling frame. Information that we
used from this file included the school district's
o SES (defined as the percentage of
children in the district below
poverty level),
o urbanicity (defined as urban,
suburban, or rural),
o ethnicity (defined as the
percentage of children in the
district who were black or
Hispanic), and
o district size (defined as the
number of students enrolled in
the district). =20
For each of the 14,715 districts on the QED file,
we created five new variables that we later used for
stratification and weighting purposes. First, we created
a region variable that was based on the jurisdictions of
D.A.R.E.'s five RTCs (see Chapter 3, Exhibit 3.1). Next,
to keep the total number of stratum cells within
reasonable bounds, we dichotomized urbanicity, SES,
ethnicity, and district size. We first collapsed the
urban and suburban categories on the QED file into one
category. We computed percentiles for minority status,
SES, and district size within each region-by-urbanicity
group. We then used the median of each variable to
define two categories (low/high) for each of the three
variables. The number and percentage of school districts
in the sampling frame in each of the strata are presented
in Appendix A, Exhibit A.1.
First-Phase Sampling. The goal of the first-phase
of our sampling design was to ensure that we selected a
nationally representative sample of school districts.=20
Additionally, we wanted to ensure that districts in each
region, urbanicity category, SES category, minority
status category, and district size category were
adequately sampled. Therefore, our first-phase sample
was a stratified random sample. =20
The first step in selecting our first-phase sample
was to define each strata. We initially constructed 10
region-by-urbanicity strata by crossing the 5 regional
strata with the 2 urbanicity strata. We then crossed
each of these 10 strata with 2 SES categories (resulting
in 20 strata). We then crossed each of those 20 strata
by minority status (resulting in 40 strata). Finally, we
crossed each of those 40 strata by district size
(resulting in 80 strata). The number of school districts
in the sampling frame in each of the 80 strata is
presented in Appendix A, Exhibit A.2.
The next step in our sampling design was to
determine how districts from each strata would be
selected for inclusion in the first-phase sample. We
assayed two methods of allocating the sample to strata.=20
In the first method, we assigned equal sample sizes
across strata (i.e., we sampled 15 districts from every
stratum regardless of whether the stratum in the sampling
frame contained 15 or 200 districts). This method would
have ensured good precision across strata. In the second
method, we assigned sample sizes proportional to the
frame size within each stratum. For example, if 5% of
the districts in the sampling frame were in a particular
stratum, proportional sampling would have ensured that 5%
of the first-phase sample would be allocated to that same
stratum. Unlike equal allocation, proportional
allocation yields approximately equal sampling weights,
reduces variance, and thus provides better precision for
overall survey estimates. =20
Because of its clear advantages, we chose
proportional sampling. Thus, we randomly selected a
proportional number of school districts within each of
the 80 strata. The first-phase sample consisted of 1,500
school districts. Exhibits displaying the sample
allocation to strata are provided in Appendix A, Exhibits
A.3 and A.4.
Second-Phase Sampling. The goal of the second-
phase of our sampling design was to ensure that the
second-phase sample included both D.A.R.E. and non-
D.A.R.E. school districts. To make this determination,
we asked State D.A.R.E. or DFSCA coordinators to classify
the 1,500 school districts in the first-phase sample as
either D.A.R.E. or non-D.A.R.E. districts (see Chapter
4). Because some State coordinators did not return this
information or only partially completed the information,
we created a third category of school districts with an
unknown D.A.R.E. status. State coordinators reported
that 43% of the sampled districts used D.A.R.E. and 40%
did not; D.A.R.E. status was unknown for 17% of the
districts. Exhibit A.5 in Appendix A displays the
responses of the State coordinators on the D.A.R.E.
status of the first-phase sample by region.
The next step in selecting our second-phase sample
was to determine the number of districts to be selected.=20
Calculations to determine the number of districts needed
in the second-phase sample were based first on the type
of analysis we planned to conduct and second on an
anticipated 80% response rate. Because we calculated
that 400 responding school districts were necessary to
achieve sufficient statistical power and precision, we
selected a second-phase sample of 500 school districts.
Finally, we used the classifications provided by
the State coordinators to select proportional numbers of
school districts with D.A.R.E., without D.A.R.E., and
with unknown D.A.R.E. status across the five regions.=20
Thus, we selected 215 school districts with D.A.R.E., 200
without D.A.R.E., and 85 with unknown D.A.R.E. status.=20
Exhibit A.6 in Appendix A displays the second-phase
sample by region and D.A.R.E. status.
Survey Estimation. All survey estimates were
computed using software developed at RTI specifically for
the analysis of surveys based on complex sample designs.=20
We computed analysis weights that took into account the
two-phase stratified sample design. Weighted data
provides a less biased estimate than unweighted data
because the weighted data more accurately represents the
true population. The weights varied across strata based
on region, ethnic composition, urbanicity, SES, and size
of the school district. Analysis weights were computed
as the product of the first-phase sample weight and the
second-phase sample weight. Sampling weights were also
adjusted for nonresponse. We performed quality checks on
the analysis weights to ensure that the sum of the
analysis weights coincides with the number of districts
in the frame. We also examined the variability of the
analyses weights and their impact on survey variances.
Instrument Design
RTI staff determined the contents of the school
district drug prevention coordinators' survey based on
the research issues raised in NIJ's solicitation,
discussions with NIJ personnel, a review of the
literature, and examination of the studies of drug
education programming previously conducted at RTI. We
used close-ended items whenever possible to minimize
ambiguity and burden. A few open-ended questions were
included to encourage respondents to provide detailed
information. =20
All drug prevention coordinators completed a set of
core items that were designed to provide background
information about the district and about the specific
drug prevention curricula used. Additionally,
coordinators in districts using D.A.R.E., alone or in
combination with other drug prevention curricula,
completed a set of items concerning the D.A.R.E. program
only. Coordinators in districts using other AOD
prevention programs, alone or in combination with
D.A.R.E., completed a set of items concerning other AOD
(i.e., non-D.A.R.E.) programs only. Therefore, school
districts
implementing D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs answered
both sets of items.
After submitting the data collection instrument to
our NIJ program manager for comment and discussion, we
formally pretested all data collection materials and
procedures. Both regional and State DFSCA coordinators
assisted in identifying pretest subjects. Seven school
district drug prevention coordinators (two in New York,
two in South Dakota, one in North Carolina, one in Rhode
Island, and one in South Carolina) completed a pretest
questionnaire in early April 1992.
We used the responses of pretest participants, as
well as the comments of our NIJ program manager and other
AOD prevention program experts, to make final decisions
on the data collection procedures and instruments. A
copy of the survey instrument and other data collection
materials for this component of the study can be found in
Appendix D.
Data Collection
On May 1, 1992, we mailed a cover letter,
questionnaire, and prepaid return envelope to school
district drug prevention coordinators in each of the 500
selected school districts. The cover letter included a
brief statement of study objectives, information on how
the data would be used, and confidentiality assurances.=20
Approximately 2 weeks after the initial mailing, we sent
postcards to coordinators who had not responded. The
postcard asked if the initial packet had been received,
reminded the coordinator of the importance of the study,
and offered the RTI toll-free number in case assistance
was needed. Upon request, we provided duplicate
mailouts.
Four packages were returned as undeliverable. Each
of these was followed up by telephone inquiry to
ascertain the correct address. We obtained correct
addresses for three of the four returned packages and
remailed the material. The remaining school district had
recently merged with another school district. Because
this merged district was already included in the sample,
the duplicate was dropped.
We began making follow-up telephone calls to
nonresponders approximately 2 weeks after the reminder
postcards were mailed. Follow-up phone calls were made
by trained RTI telephone interviewers between June 2 and
July 15, 1992. Interviewers encouraged coordinators to
complete and return their instruments as soon as
possible. Those coordinators who indicated to
interviewers that they would not otherwise complete the
instrument were asked to complete the survey over the
telephone. The survey instrument was exactly the same
for both telephone and mail administration. The final
response rate was 85.6%, which considerably surpassed our
expected response rate of 80%. The final sample
disposition is presented in Exhibit 5.1.
Exhibit 5.1 Final Sample Disposition
N %
Completed by phone 289 57.8
Completed by mail 139 27.8
Refused 8 1.6
No response 63 12.6
Duplicate 1 0.2
As indicated, we completed almost twice as many
interviews by phone as by mail. We attribute this to
several factors. First, phone surveys traditionally have
higher response rates than mail surveys. Second, the
questionnaires were not mailed until late in the school
year; therefore, coordinators may have had end-of-the-
year obligations that limited the amount of time they
could spend on additional duties. Third, the part of the
instrument that asked about each of the packaged drug
prevention curricula was imposing; we believe that having
the interviewers read these questions to the respondents
may have made answering them less burdensome. Because
the information gathered in this survey was not sensitive
in nature, we believe that data obtained via both methods
of administration are comparable.
Returned questionnaires were delivered to a
check-in station where they were logged in, coded,
manually edited, keyed, and key verified. We implemented
machine-editing procedures to verify and correct skip
patterns and logical inconsistencies. We recontacted a
few school district drug prevention coordinators to
resolve problematic responses, such as incomplete or
contradictory information.
Findings
Administration of D.A.R.E.
The first objective of this survey was to obtain
information about the administration of D.A.R.E. at the
local level. This section presents findings concerning
the implementation, administration, participation of
teachers and the community in the D.A.R.E. program,
integration and coordination of D.A.R.E. with other
school-based drug prevention efforts, problems with
D.A.R.E., and future plans for the use of D.A.R.E. Data
from survey items asked only of the districts with
D.A.R.E. are presented in this section. =20
Implementation. In the 1991-1992 school year,
D.A.R.E. was implemented in 51.8%, or 222, of the school
districts surveyed. Some 42% of all school districts
surveyed used the core curriculum, 17% used K-4 lessons,
11% implemented the junior high school curriculum, 3%
used the senior high school curriculum, and 3% used the
parent curriculum. =20
Of the 222 school districts with D.A.R.E., the
great majority (81%) implemented the core curriculum,
around 33% used the K-4 visitations, 22% used the junior
high school curriculum, 6% implemented the senior high
school curriculum, and 5% used the parent curriculum. We
further asked the respondents to indicate every grade in
which the D.A.R.E. curricula were used. Exhibit 5.2
displays the percentage of school districts with D.A.R.E.
implementing the program at each grade. Almost 70% of
the districts with D.A.R.E. implemented the curriculum in
5th-grade classes, and almost 60% used it in 6th-grade
classes. Thus, a substantial number of districts
implemented the core curriculum in both grades, which
probably reflects the different cutoff grades separating
elementary from junior high or middle schools in that
district.
Administration. One objective of NIJ's
solicitation was to ascertain what agencies usually
manage D.A.R.E. and have responsibility for various
aspects of the program at the local level. To address
these issues, we first asked coordinators to report all
agencies managing D.A.R.E. Around 81% of the districts
with D.A.R.E. reported that a single agency administered
the D.A.R.E. program, while 16.3% reported that two
agencies and 2.3% reported that three or more agencies
administered the program (Exhibit 5.3). Almost 34% of
the school districts with D.A.R.E. reported that the
county sheriff's department alone administered the
program, and about 34% reported city/town police
departments administered it.=20
We next asked coordinators to report whether law
enforcement or education was responsible for various
activities. Coordinators with D.A.R.E. most frequently
reported that law enforcement agencies were responsible
for selecting D.A.R.E. officers and determining classroom
activities (Exhibit 5.4). They reported that
responsibility for selecting schools to receive D.A.R.E.,
selecting classrooms to receive D.A.R.E., and assigning
extracurricular D.A.R.E. activities were performed by
education.
Participation of Teachers and Community. NIJ's
solicitation also requested an examination of the extent
of involvement of classroom teachers. About 84% of the
coordinators reported that classroom teachers were
actively involved in the program. We also asked
coordinators about classroom teachers' level of
participation during D.A.R.E. lessons. About 21%
reported a great deal of participation, 46% reported some
participation, 28% reported little participation, and 5%
reported no participation by the classroom teachers. =20
Exhibit 5.2 Use of D.A.R.E., by Grade
Note: Based on responses of coordinators in school
districts with D.A.R.E. (N=3D222).
Exhibit 5.3 Agencies Administering the D.A.R.E.
Program at the Local Level
Agencies (N=3D222) %
Single Agency:
Sheriff Department 33.5
City/Town Police Department 33.5
State Police/Highway Patrol 11.3
County Police Department 1.3
Other 1.8
Combinations of Two Agencies:
Sheriffs Department & City/
Town Police Department 8.6
Other Combinations of Two Agencies 7.7
Combinations of Three or More Agencies 2.3
Total 100.0
Exhibit 5.4 Agencies with Primary Responsibility for
Coordination of D.A.R.E. Activities (%)
=20
Extra-
Officer School Classroom
Classroom curricular
Selection Selection Selection
Activities Activities
Law Enforcement 93.6 28.1 19.6=20
66.8 37.9
Education 6.4 71.9 80.4 =20
33.2 62.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0=20
100.0 100.0
To determine the extent to which teachers reinforce
the D.A.R.E. lessons, we asked coordinators about
D.A.R.E.-related activities performed by classroom
teachers. Most of the school district drug prevention
coordinators (89%) reported that teachers remain in the
classroom during D.A.R.E. lessons. About 72% reported
that classroom teachers integrate the D.A.R.E. message
into other activities, 39% said that teachers collect
D.A.R.E. homework, and 15% reported that teachers assign
D.A.R.E. homework.
The NIJ solicitation also requested that we examine
the extent to which members of community groups (e.g.,
church or youth groups) participate in the D.A.R.E.
program. Indeed, recent research suggests that linking
school-based interventions with the larger community
strengthens their effectiveness (Pentz et al., 1989;
Perry & Tobler, 1992). Therefore, we asked the
prevention coordinators to specify members of the
community who were actively involved in D.A.R.E. About
51% of the coordinators said that parents were actively
involved, 22% indicated that civic groups were so
involved, 13% said that youth groups were so involved,
and 5% said that church groups were so involved.
Integration and Coordination. Another objective
of this study was to examine the extent of D.A.R.E.'s
integration and coordination with other school-based drug
prevention efforts. To address this issue, we first
asked coordinators to indicate the level at which
D.A.R.E. was integrated with other AOD programs. About
63% of the prevention coordinators reported D.A.R.E. was
very well integrated, 31% reported it was well
integrated, and 7% reported it was poorly integrated. To
determine whether D.A.R.E. was better integrated in some
types of school districts than in others, we examined the
differences in the percentages of coordinators reporting
that D.A.R.E. was very well integrated by minority
status, SES, urbanicity, and district size. No
statistically significant differences were found.=20
D.A.R.E. was equally well integrated with other AOD
programs across different types of school districts.
One type of mechanism for coordinating the D.A.R.E.
responsibilities of law enforcement with those of
education agencies are written agreements that solidify
commitment, define roles and duties, and establish sound
working relationships. We asked coordinators about the
existence of such agreements and found that approximately
44% of the coordinators reported that their district had
a written agreement. We asked those coordinators with
written agreements about the contents of these
agreements. The following components of the agreements
were mentioned by the accompanying number of
coordinators:
o the responsibilities of all parties (23
coordinators);
o time (21 coordinators);
o funding/fees (20 coordinators);
o scheduling (15 coordinators);
o curricula (10 coordinators);
o schools to be offered in (9 coordinators);
o grades used in (6 coordinators);
o general use of D.A.R.E. (6 coordinators);
o length of program (5 coordinators);
o school policies (4 coordinators);
o sequence of lessons (3 coordinators);
o materials (3 coordinators);=20
o graduation program (3 coordinators); and
o "don't know" (4 coordinators).
Problems. We asked school district drug prevention
coordinators to provide information concerning problems
with implementing and coordinating D.A.R.E., and to
suggest how the effectiveness of D.A.R.E. might be
improved.=20
We asked coordinators to indicate whether there
were any barriers to implementing D.A.R.E. and then to
specify these barriers. Only 26% of the school district
drug prevention coordinators with D.A.R.E. mentioned any
barrier to implementing the program. Some 16% of the
coordinators with D.A.R.E. mentioned inadequate funding
as a barrier to implementation, 13% mentioned too few
officers, and 11% mentioned scheduling difficulties
(Figure 5.5). The two most frequently mentioned barriers
were in areas over which the school system has little
control (funding and number of officers).
Exhibit 5.5 Problem Areas That Are Barriers to
Implementing D.A.R.E. in All Schools
Note: Based on responses of coordinators using D.A.R.E.
(N=3D222).
Next, in an open-ended question, we asked
coordinators to elaborate on any problems with the
coordination of D.A.R.E. The responses of those with
problems were
o lack of time (19 coordinators);
o insufficient funding/staff (12 coordinators);
o scheduling problems (9 coordinators);
o officers not good teachers (5 coordinators);
o difficulties getting program started (4
coordinators);
o inadequate officer/teacher interaction (4
coordinators);
o officer scheduling problems/absences (4
coordinators);
o other officer problems (4 coordinators); and
o lack of coordination between school and
police (3 coordinators).
Finally, we asked coordinators what, if any,
changes they thought would make D.A.R.E. more effective
in their district, and then to elaborate on these
changes. About one-third of the coordinators mentioned
that there was at least one change that they thought
would make D.A.R.E. more effective. The following
responses were the changes they mentioned:
o expand to other grade levels (26
coordinators);
o increase staff/officers (11 coordinators);
o increase parental participation (7
coordinators);
o increase funding (6 coordinators);
o increase community involvement (6
coordinators);
o increase teacher training and involvement (5
coordinators);
o improve quality/dependability officers (4
coordinators);
o increase integration with other curricula (4
coordinators);
o increase time spent on D.A.R.E. (3
coordinators);
o decrease time spent on D.A.R.E. (3
coordinators); =20
o increase publicity (2 coordinators);
o adapt curriculum to grade level (2
coordinators);
o change curricula (2 coordinators);
o teach officers to be teachers (2
coordinators);
o increase refresher training for officers (2
coordinators);
o include D.A.R.E. as part of student
assistance program (1 coordinator);
o increase D.A.R.E.'s availability in
rural/isolated areas (1 coordinator).
Future Use of D.A.R.E. To examine whether the
demand for D.A.R.E. is
going to increase or diminish over the next few years, we
asked coordinators about their future plans for D.A.R.E.=20
Some 43% of the coordinators with D.A.R.E. planned to
expand use of D.A.R.E. in the next 5 years, and 55%
planned to maintain the current level (only 2% planned to
decrease use). Of the 208 school districts without
D.A.R.E., 38% had not considered using D.A.R.E., 21%
planned to implement D.A.R.E. in the future, 20% were
undecided, 15% reported they definitely will not use
D.A.R.E., and 6% had discontinued use of D.A.R.E.
Further, to determine whether any particular type
of school district was more likely to expand use of
D.A.R.E. in the next 5 years, we examined the differences
in the percentages of districts planning to increase
their use of D.A.R.E. by minority status, SES, or
urbanicity. No statistically significant differences
were found. Plans for the expansion of D.A.R.E. were
fairly equal across different types of school districts.=20
National Prevalence Estimates of D.A.R.E. and Other AOD
Programs
The second objective of this survey was to develop
national estimates of the prevalence of D.A.R.E. and
other AOD programs. To accomplish this objective, we
asked coordinators to indicate all published drug
prevention curricula used by the school district in the
1991-1992 school year. Based on previous research and
discussions with school-based drug prevention curricula
experts, we provided a list of 13 published curricula
that we thought coordinators would mention most often.=20
In addition, we provided ample space for open-ended
responses concerning other published curricula. We
used this information in combination with the sample
stratification variables to develop estimates by
geographical area, ethnicity, SES, and urbanicity. We
also asked respondents to complete a series of questions
concerning grade levels and substances targeted, as well
as type of teachers for each of these curricula.=20
Based on the number of school districts in our
sample using the three most frequently mentioned
curricula, we estimated the number of school districts
nationwide using these curricula. These prevalence
estimates and other findings concerning the three most
frequently mentioned published drug prevention curricula
used in the 1991-1992 school year are presented below.
Prevalence. According to our estimates, the
published curricula used most often by our respondents in
the 1991-1992 school year were D.A.R.E., Quest, and
Here's Looking at You. Exhibit 5.6 presents the
estimated numbers and percentages of school districts
nationwide using these three curricula overall and by the
districts' region, urbanicity, SES, minority status, and
district size. Urban/suburban school districts were
significantly more likely than rural districts to use
D.A.R.E. (p<.01) and Here's Looking
Exhibit 5.6 Percentage and Estimated Number of School
Districts in the Nation Using Top Three
Packaged Curricula During the 1991-1992
School Year, by Minority Status, SES, and
Urbanicity of the School District
Here's Looking
D.A.R.E. QuestAt You
Characteristic1 % N % N %
N Total2
Total 51.8 7619 26.7 3925 =20
24.5 3603 14719
Minority Status
High 57.7 2384 25.0 1036 =20
19.1 790 4135
Low 49.1 5234 27.3 2889 =20
26.6 2813 10584
SES
High 53.8 5904 28.0 3078 =20
26.7 2930 10973
Low 45.8 1715 22.6 847 =20
18.0 673 3746
Urbanicity
Urban 60.5 3480 23.6 1358 =20
30.1 1730 5754
Rural 46.2 4139 28.6 2567 =20
20.9 1873 8965
District Size
Small 45.7 3648 23.6 1886 =20
22.4 1792 7987
Large 59.0 3971 30.3 2039 =20
26.9 1811 6732
Region
East 55.8 1760 24.2 762 =20
46.4 1462 3150
Southeast 56.8 553 29.1 283 =20
9.8 96 974
Midwest 59.9 2854 35.8 1705 =20
17.4 831 4762
Southwest 37.1 1257 12.4 420 =20
8.6 292 3384
West 48.8 1195 30.8 755 =20
37.7 922 2448
1Multiple curricula could be indicated by the same
respondent.
2The sum of the weights provides an estimate of the total
number of districts in the frame.=20
Similarly, the weight sum within a stratum estimates
the stratum count. Due to sampling
variability, stratum-level estimates will not coincide
exactly with the corresponding stratum
counts in Exhibit A.1 in Appendix A.
at You (HLY) (p<.05). Large school districts were
significantly more likely than small school districts to
use D.A.R.E. (p<.01). =20
Grade Levels Targeted. To determine grade levels
targeted by each of the three most frequently used
curricula, we asked coordinators to indicate which
curricula were used in the school district at each grade
level. Grade levels targeted by coordinators with
D.A.R.E. were presented in Exhibit 5.2. Around 46% of
the school districts with Quest targeted the program to
the elementary school level, 81% to the middle/junior
high school level, and 12% to the senior high school
level. Almost 89% of the school districts with HLY
targeted the program to the elementary school level, 55%
to the middle/junior high school level, and 35% to the
senior high school level. Coordinators reported that all
three curricula were more likely to target elementary or
middle/junior high school levels.
Substances Targeted. To determine whether the
three most frequently mentioned curricula differed in
substances targeted by the program, we asked the school
district drug prevention coordinators to indicate which
substances each of the prevention curricula targeted. We
found no significant differences in substances targeted
among D.A.R.E., Quest, and HLY (Exhibit 5.7). All three
of the packages were comprehensive in targeting all
substances.=20
Exhibit 5.7 Substances Targeted by, and Types of
Instructor of, the Three Most Frequently
Mentioned Alcohol and Drug Prevention
Programs (%)
Here's
Looking at
D.A.R.E. QuestYou
(N=3D222) (N=3D116)
(N=3D103)
Substances Targeted:
Tobacco 92.7 97.1 93.7
Alcohol 99.5 100.0 97.9
Marijuana 95.8 97.1 92.6
Cocaine/crack 92.7 91.3 88.4
Other drugs 92.7 89.4 86.3
Type of Instructor:
Teachers 22.1 92.2 94.6
School counselors 8.3 38.5 34.4
School nurses 3.9 7.8 18.3
Police officer 98.0 4.3 3.2
Mental health agency 1.5 7.8 2.1
Volunteers 3.4 5.2 6.4
Note: Multiple responses are possible, so percentages do
not add to 100%.
Type of Instructor. We also asked coordinators to
indicate who taught each of the prevention curricula. As
expected, almost all school district drug prevention
coordinators reported that police officers were
responsible for teaching the D.A.R.E. curricula.=20
Classroom teachers were primarily responsible for
teaching Quest and HLY (Exhibit 5.7). More than one-
fifth of the coordinators reported that classroom
teachers were also involved in teaching D.A.R.E. =20
Comparison of D.A.R.E. and Other AOD Programs
The final objective of this study was to make
comparisons between D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs on a
variety of issues. Comparison data are presented in this
section. Topics include funding, satisfaction with the
curricula, support for the curricula, and adaptations to
curricula. We asked respondents to report on other AOD
curricula in general because it would have been too
burdensome and time-consuming for them to answer each of
the questions for every curricula in use during the 1991-
1992 school year. =20
We first asked school district drug prevention
coordinators with D.A.R.E. (222 of the 429 respondents)
to answer a set of survey items concerning their D.A.R.E.
programs only. We asked all coordinators using other
(non-D.A.R.E.) AOD programs (406 of the 429 respondents)
to answer an identical set of items concerning their
other AOD curricula only. The respondents using both
D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs answered both sets of
items. Information gathered from these matched sets of
questions allowed a direct comparison of responses about
the D.A.R.E. curricula with responses concerning other
AOD curricula. Only 3% of the districts used only
D.A.R.E.; 46% used only other AOD curricula; and 49% used
both D.A.R.E. and other AOD curricula.
Funding. The first comparisons we examined were
comparisons of funding. We asked respondents to indicate
all sources of funding for the districts' D.A.R.E. and
other AOD programs (Exhibit 5.8). The most frequently
mentioned sources of funding for D.A.R.E. were law
enforcement agencies and DFSCA education funds. The most
frequently mentioned sources of funding for other AOD
programs were DFSCA education funds and school district
funds. D.A.R.E. programs were more likely than other AOD
programs to receive funding from city/county funds,
corporate donations, and individual donations.
Satisfaction with Curricula. Next, we compared
satisfaction ratings for each of the curricula. We asked
the school district drug prevention coordinators to rate
five program components as very satisfactory,
satisfactory, unsatisfactory or very unsatisfactory. The
five components were curriculum, teaching, administrative
requirements, student receptivity, and effects on
students. None of the respondents with D.A.R.E. rated
any of the five components as very unsatisfactory.=20
Approximately 1% of the respondents with other AOD
programs rated teaching, administrative requirements, or
effects on students as very unsatisfactory.
D.A.R.E. was much more likely than other AOD
programs to be viewed by the school district drug
prevention coordinators as very satisfactory on each of
the five components (Exhibit 5.9). Well over half of the
coordinators with D.A.R.E. rated each of the components
as very satisfactory. Between 23% and 35% of the
coordinators with other AOD programs rated each of the
components as very satisfactory. Students' receptivity
was the component with the highest percentage of
coordinators rating it as very satisfactory for both
D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs. =20
Exhibit 5.8 Sources of Funding for D.A.R.E. and Other
Alcohol and Drug Prevention Programs in the
1991-1992 School Year (%)
D.A.R.E. Programs Other
AOD Programs
Source of Funding (N=3D222)(N=3D406)
DFSCA Education Funds 47.565.2
DFSCA Governors' Funds 7.913.7
Other Federal Funds 4.810.5
State non-DFSCA Funds 6.413.3
City/County Funds 12.28.8
District Funds 25.153.4
Local Educational Area Funds 3.16.5
Law Enforcement Agencies 51.46.2
Community Agencies 16.619.0
Corporate Donations 15.35.3
Individual Donations 17.27.5
Exhibit 5.9 Components of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol
and Drug Prevention Programs Rated as Very
Satisfactory (%)
D.A.R.E. Program =20
Other AOD Programs
Component (N=3D222) (N=3D406)
Curriculum 67.5 34.2
Teaching 69.7 29.8
Administrative Requirements 55.7 23.1
Receptivity of Students 76.5 34.6
Effects on Students 63.2 22.8
To determine whether school districts with
particular characteristics were more likely to rate
program components as very satisfactory than other
districts, we examined ratings of each of the components
by these characteristics. Among coordinators with
D.A.R.E., those in high-percentage minority districts
were significantly more likely than those in low-
percentage minority districts to rate student receptivity
as very satisfactory (p<.05) (Exhibit 5.10). Among
coordinators with other AOD programs, those in urban
districts were significantly more likely (p<.05) than
those in rural districts to rate student receptivity and
effects on students as very satisfactory (Exhibit 5.11).=20
There were no significant differences in components rated
as very satisfactory between D.A.R.E. programs in low and
high SES districts or between other AOD programs in low
and high SES districts. Furthermore, there were no
significant differences in components rated as very
satisfactory between D.A.R.E. programs in small and large
districts or between other AOD programs in small and
large districts.
Support for Curricula. We also asked the school
district drug prevention coordinators to indicate how
supportive they perceived the community, school
personnel, students, parents, law enforcement, and civic
groups to be of D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs.=20
Response options for these questions were very
supportive, somewhat supportive, and not supportive.=20
None of the respondents with D.A.R.E. perceived students
or law enforcement as unsupportive of the program (data
not shown). The percentages of coordinators who
perceived any of the listed individuals or agencies as
unsupportive were very small for both D.A.R.E. and other
AOD programs.=20
Exhibit 5.10 Components of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol
and Drug Prevention Programs Rated as Very
Satisfactory, by Minority Status of School
District (%)
D.A.R.E. Program Other AOD
Program
High LowHighLow
Percentage Percentage=20
Percentage Percentage
Minority MinorityMinority =20
Minority
Component (N=3D69) (N=3D154)(N=3D109)=20
(N=3D297)
Curriculum 74.0 64.435.7 33.7
=20
Teaching 70.7 69.227.8 30.6
=20
Administrative =20
Requirements 51.2 57.818.8 24.8
=20
Receptivity of Students 84.7 72.735.6 34.3
=20
Effects on Students 65.3 62.218.5 24.4
Exhibit 5.11 Components of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol
and Drug Prevention Programs Rated as
Very Satisfactory, by Urbanicity of
School District (%)
D.A.R.E. Program Other AOD
Program
Urban RuralUrban=20
Rural
Component (N=3D99) (N=3D123)(N=3D156) =
=20
(N=3D250)
Curriculum 63.9 70.540.2 30.3
Teaching 69.1 70.235.8 25.9
Administrative Requirements 50.1 60.426.7 20.8
Receptivity of Students 78.6 74.742.2 29.7
Effects on Students 59.2 66.528.7 19.0
School district drug prevention coordinators
reported that each type of agency and individual was much
more likely to be very supportive of D.A.R.E. than of
other AOD programs. Coordinators with D.A.R.E. were most
likely to report law enforcement as being very supportive
of the D.A.R.E. program, followed by students and school
personnel (Exhibit 5.12). Coordinators with AOD programs
other than D.A.R.E. were most likely to report law
enforcement and school personnel as being very supportive
of other AOD programs. =20
Exhibit 5.12 Individuals, Groups, and Agencies Very
Supportive of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol
and Drug Prevention Programs (%)
D.A.R.E. Program Other AOD
Programs
(N=3D222) (N=3D406)
Community 73.8 46.6
School Personnel 82.8 65.1
Students 89.6 50.7
Parents 78.7 45.8
Law Enforcement 92.2 66.8
Civic Groups 61.7 46.8
To determine whether school districts with
particular characteristics were more likely to be very
supportive of D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs, we
examined support by each of these characteristics. Among
coordinators with D.A.R.E., those in high SES districts
were significantly more likely (p<.05) than those in low
SES districts to perceive the community and parents as
very supportive of D.A.R.E. (Exhibit 5.13). =20
Exhibit 5.13 Individuals, Groups, and Agencies Very
Supportive of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol
and Drug Prevention Programs, by SES of
School District (%)=20
D.A.R.E. Program Other AOD
Program
High SES Low SESHigh SES =20
Low SES
(N=3D173) (N=3D49)(N=3D305) =20
(N=3D101)
Community 78.3 58.046.7 46.4
School Personnel 84.9 75.966.1 62.5
Students 91.4 83.651.9 47.1
Parents 83.4 62.946.8 42.7
Law Enforcement 92.8 90.267.3 65.2
Civic Groups 64.6 50.448.1 42.9
Among coordinators with D.A.R.E., those in large
districts were significantly more likely (p<.05) than
those in small districts to perceive civic groups as very
supportive (Exhibit 5.14). Among coordinators with other
AOD programs, those in large districts were significantly
more likely than those in small districts to perceive law
enforcement (p<.01) and civic groups (p<.001) as very
supportive.
Exhibit 5.14 Individuals, Groups, and Agencies Very
Supportive of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol
and Drug Prevention Programs, by Size of
School District (%)=20
D.A.R.E. Program Other AOD
Program
Small LargeSmall Large
(N=3D234) (N=3D195)(N=3D216)=20
(N=3D190)
Community 65.7 78.540.7 49.4
School personnel 80.4 85.964.6 65.5
Students 87.9 92.251.2 49.5
Parents 73.9 83.246.1 44.7
Law enforcement 89.7 93.656.9 67.4
Civic groups 43.2 61.838.7 39.2
There were no significant differences in support
between D.A.R.E. programs in low- and high-percentage
minority districts or between other AOD programs in low-
and high-percentage minority districts. Furthermore,
there were no significant differences in support between
D.A.R.E. programs in urban and rural districts or between
other AOD programs in urban and rural districts.
Adaptations of Curricula. Some drug prevention
curricula, such as D.A.R.E., require instructors to
strictly adhere to the curricula and established
procedures. Other curricula allow instructors to adapt
the curricula to meet their particular needs. However,
little is known about how prevention curricula are
actually adapted. We asked the school district drug
prevention coordinators whether D.A.R.E. or other AOD
programs were adapted in any way as a result of gang
activity, drug availability, the racial/ethnic
composition of the district, student or community
poverty, urbanicity, or for some other reason. About 43%
of the coordinators with D.A.R.E. reported adapting
D.A.R.E. for at least one of these reasons, while about
54% of the coordinators with other AOD programs reported
adapting for one of these reasons.
Exhibit 5.15 presents the percentage adapting
D.A.R.E. and other AOD curricula as a result of the
above-mentioned issues. The most frequently mentioned
reasons for adapting both D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs
were drug availability and student/community poverty.
Exhibit 5.15 Adaptations of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol
and Drug Prevention Curricula to Meet
Specific Needs of District (%)=20
D.A.R.E. Curricula Other
AOD Curricula
Adaptation for: (N=3D222)(N=3D406)
Gang Activity 10.68.7
Drug Availability 23.433.2
Racial/Ethnic Composition 13.316.1
Student/Community Poverty 16.723.3
Inner-City Schools 1.32.2
Other 9.511.4
Respondents with D.A.R.E. were provided with
additional space to explain ways in which the curricula
were adapted. Adaptations mentioned by the coordinators
included:
o targeting particular drugs
prevalent in the area;
o making adaptations for the
physically and mentally
handicapped;
o adding more information on
violence prevention;
o discussing drug abuse in the home
environment;
o teaching students to be more
tolerant of others;
o discussing local drug arrests;
o involving high school students as
role models;
o communicating with families of
youth to gain familial support
and ensure attendance at
graduation;
o taking field trips; and
o omitting lessons.
General Drug Policies
In this final section of Chapter 5, we present
information from responses to questions that were
designed to examine general drug policies in the school
districts. All coordinators responded to these questions
regardless of whether they used D.A.R.E. or any other
drug prevention curricula. =20
Anti-Drug Policies. We first asked whether the
school district had a written anti-drug policy. We found
that 96% did have such a policy.
Student Assistance Programs. One type of drug
prevention program that many schools have adopted is the
student assistance program (SAP). Modeled after employee
assistance programs (EAPs) in businesses, SAPs conduct
such activities as screening for alcohol and drug
involvement, making referrals, and developing and
coordinating early intervention plans for youth with
problems that could lead to substance abuse. =20
Almost 55% of the school district drug prevention
coordinators reported that their districts had SAPs in
place during the 1991-1992 school year. Of the 237
districts with SAPs, 51% targeted these programs to the
elementary school level, 78% focused on the middle/junior
high school level, and 81% targeted the senior high
school level.
We asked the school district drug prevention
coordinators using SAPs to indicate what types of
individuals were trained to participate in these programs
(Exhibit 5.16). Almost 89% of the coordinators mentioned
that teachers had been trained, and nearly 75% mentioned
that principals and guidance counselors had been trained
to participate in SAPs.
We also asked the coordinators using SAPs to
indicate the types of individuals who actually
implemented the programs and how effective they were
(Exhibit 5.17). Coordinators most frequently mentioned
that teachers, principals, guidance counselors, and
students implemented SAPs. However, they perceived
guidance counselors, D.A.R.E. officers, and
district/school nurses as the most effective at
implementing these programs. Coordinators most
frequently mentioned that community professionals and
community volunteers were not effective.=20
Exhibit 5.16 Individuals Trained to Participate in
Student Assistance Programs
Individual/Agency (N=3D237) %
Teachers 88.6
Principals 74.9
Guidance Counselors 74.7
District/School Nurses 49.7
Community Professionals 42.5
Students 37.3
D.A.R.E. Officers* 36.6
Other School Staff 30.6
Community Volunteers 20.9
*Of the 237 school districts with SAPs, 138 also had
D.A.R.E.
Exhibit 5.17 Effectiveness in Implementing Student
Assistance Programs (%)
VerySomewhat Not
Individual/Agency N Effective
Effective Effective
Teachers 236 39.057.6 3.4
Principals 234 46.249.4 4.4
Guidance Counselors 224 60.433.1 6.5
District/School Nurses 176 51.140.6 8.3
Community Professionals 195 37.745.0 17.3
Students 222 29.461.5 9.1
D.A.R.E. Officers 138 60.232.6 7.2
Other School Staff 183 27.063.5 9.5
Community Volunteers 156 17.653.8 28.6
Summary
This chapter focused on the results of our
nationally representative, random sample of 500 school
districts. A total of 429 school district drug
prevention coordinators responded to the survey. Data
presented in this chapter were weighted to take into
account the complex sample design.
Over half of the school districts in the United
States used D.A.R.E. in the 1991-1992 school year.=20
Additionally, demand for the program is going to increase
over the next few years; two-fifths of those with the
program planned to expand its use and one-fifth of these
without the program plan to begin use. The two other
most frequently used packaged curricula were Quest and
Here's Looking at You, both used by about one-fourth of
the districts.
Only 3% of the districts used only D.A.R.E.; 46%
used only other AOD curricula; and 49% used both D.A.R.E.
and other AOD curricula. Most of the coordinators with
D.A.R.E. reported receiving funding for the program from
law enforcement and/or DFSCA funds. Most of the
coordinators with other AOD programs reported receiving
funding for these programs from DFSCA and/or district
funds. D.A.R.E. was more likely than other AOD programs
to be rated very satisfactory in terms of curriculum,
teaching, administrative requirements, student
receptivity, and effects on students. Furthermore,
coordinators were more likely to indicate that the
community, school personnel, students, parents, law
enforcement, and civic groups were very supportive of
D.A.R.E than of other AOD programs. Around two-fifths of
the coordinators with D.A.R.E. and over one-half the
coordinators with other AOD programs reported adapting
the program to meet their needs. The most common reasons
for adaptation for both D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs
were drug availability and student/community poverty.
Most of the D.A.R.E. programs were administered at
the local level by a single law enforcement agency (i.e.,
sheriff's department or city/town police department). In
most districts, coordinators reported that officer
selection and classroom activities were the
responsibility of the police, while school and classroom
selection were the responsibility of education.
Findings from this chapter and resulting
recommendations are discussed fully in Chapter 8.
CHAPTER 6
SITE VISITS
The final component of the implementation
assessment consisted of site visits to school districts.=20
We designed these visits to obtain a snapshot of the
organization and operations of D.A.R.E. and other school-
based drug prevention programs. The site visits also
gave us an opportunity to speak with the officers,
teachers, and students directly and to see the D.A.R.E.
program in action.=20
For the site visits, we selected four schools in
three school districts. Two of the school districts were
adjacent to one another in a northern inner-city
environment, with a large minority population and a
substantial drug problem. The third school district was
located in a rural area in the South; it also had a
substantial minority population but less of a drug
problem. The school in one urban school district had
D.A.R.E., and the school in the other urban district did
not have D.A.R.E. In the rural district, one school had
D.A.R.E. and one did not.
Because the school districts and schools were
limited in number and purposively, rather than randomly,
selected, the information gathered from these sites is
not representative of schools in general. We present
data gathered from this component of the assessment to
illustrate and complement findings from other components
of the implementation assessment. We recognize the need
to exercise caution in interpreting site visit findings
and encourage readers to use similar discretion.
For the site visit interviews and observations, we
developed site visit protocols that were based on issues
raised in the previous components of the implementation
assessment. The protocols were designed to elicit
general, open-ended, and free-flowing discussions. We
used protocols instead of structured surveys because we
believed the structured format would inhibit the
exploration of schools' individual characteristics.=20
Further, we expected respondents would provide us with a
wealth of information that a structured format might have
prevented. We often departed from the protocols to
follow up any line of inquiry that appeared of potential
interest. As a result, the reports from our sites are in
some ways dissimilar. Copies of the protocols can be
found in Appendix D. =20
Site visits were conducted by two teams. Each team
included at least one senior investigator with
considerable experience in conducting site visits. A
two-person team conducted a 2-day site visit in the urban
schools, and a four-person team conducted a 1-day site
visit in the rural schools. Two or more site visitors
jointly interviewed key individuals, and each interviewer
took notes to reduce the chances of missing key
information. When appropriate, we interviewed up to four
individuals at the same time.
Each team conducted interviews with a variety of
individuals, including
o the coordinator responsible for the
development and implementation of drug
prevention efforts in the school
district;
o individuals teaching drug prevention
curricula to students (including
D.A.R.E. officers at schools with
D.A.R.E.),
o their supervisors (if any), and
o teachers in whose classes D.A.R.E.
officers teach (at D.A.R.E. sites).
When available, we also interviewed others involved in
drug prevention program planning, delivery, or referral
(e.g., representatives of community advisory or drug
action groups). =20
In each of the two D.A.R.E. schools, the site visit
team monitored a D.A.R.E. lesson and the officer's
activities in the school outside the classroom. We also
observed a drug prevention lesson in both of the schools
without D.A.R.E. We note that both of the classroom
observations in the non-D.A.R.E. schools were conducted
in special education classes. The selection of classes
to be monitored was based on what teacher was teaching
drug prevention the day of our site visit and the
discretion of the school district drug prevention
coordinator.
This chapter contains two sections. In the first,
we discuss drug prevention programming in the urban
schools; and in the second, we describe drug prevention
programming in the rural schools. Within each section,
we present information about the D.A.R.E. school,
followed by information about the non-D.A.R.E. school.
Urban Schools
Urban School with D.A.R.E.
The school we selected received D.A.R.E. after
being on a waiting list for approximately 1 year; all
5th-grade classes and one 6th-grade class in the school
received D.A.R.E.
We interviewed three individuals involved in the
D.A.R.E. program:
o the police administrator in
charge of the local D.A.R.E.
program (an officer with many
years of experience who had
administered D.A.R.E. for
5 years);
o a D.A.R.E. officer (involved with
D.A.R.E. for 5 years and
currently teaching 16 classes a
week); =20
o the school district drug
prevention coordinator.=20
The following summarizes our discussions with these
respondents. =20
Administration. According to the police
administrator, the D.A.R.E. program in this city follows
the same procedures employed nationally. He stated that
the local police, State police, and Board of Education
work together to provide the D.A.R.E. program. He
further indicated that this coordination has ensured the
integrity of D.A.R.E.'s implementation, D.A.R.E.'s
consistency with drug education required by the State,
and smooth integration with other drug education
initiatives. =20
Implementation. Initial steps in the
implementation of the D.A.R.E. program, as reported by
the police administrator, are as follows. The local
police department conducts initial screening of candidate
officers for the D.A.R.E. program. Potential D.A.R.E.
officers are interviewed by the local police department,
and then by the State police. Successfully screened
candidates are sent for a 2-week training program offered
by the State police. After completing the training,
officers are assigned to particular schools or sets of
schools by the local police department. The D.A.R.E.
officer who was interviewed indicated that he is assigned
a general target area and allowed to select the schools
in that area in which he wishes to teach. He indicated
that he and other officers are provided with a list of
schools that have requested D.A.R.E. to guide their
selections. He further reported that no more than 20% of
the schools he selects can be private.
According to the police administrator, a limited
attempt is made to match officer and student
characteristics. For example, he stated that in the
Hispanic community, the local police department attempts
to provide D.A.R.E. officers who can speak Spanish.=20
Beyond this, however, he indicated that little matching
occurs. =20
The police administrator said that the D.A.R.E.
program is monitored by both the State and local police
departments. He reported that a staff member from the
State police visits each D.A.R.E. instructor during the
year to observe and assess teaching skills and students'
receptiveness to the program, as well as to solicit
feedback from classroom teachers. The administrator also
stated that he monitors classroom activities as part of
his supervisory responsibilities.
According to the police administrator, school
personnel are very supportive of the D.A.R.E. program, in
part because the program is free to the school. The
schools are, thus, able to use their drug prevention
resources for additional drug prevention purposes.
The police administrator indicated that some
teachers get involved in the D.A.R.E. program because of
personal interest, but that most do not. The D.A.R.E.
officer reported that although State policy requires
teachers to remain in the classroom during the lesson,
they assist him only in disciplinary matters. The drug
prevention coordinator indicated that although teachers
do not participate in teaching the lessons, they have
been very receptive both to the program and the officers.=20
The coordinator noted that teachers cannot be required to
allow D.A.R.E. into their classrooms, and the fact that
no teacher has refused D.A.R.E. indicates the degree of
acceptance that the program enjoys. When asked about
problems between regular teachers and D.A.R.E. officers,
the police administrator reported that although there are
some individuals who do not get along, it is not a
system-wide problem. The D.A.R.E. officer stated that
although principals are supportive of the program, he has
yet to see one in his classes, and that no other school
staff participate in the program.
The police administrator indicated that parental
involvement generally has taken the form of assistance
from the PTA in co-sponsoring D.A.R.E. graduation
ceremonies. However, he stated that the level of
parental involvement varies substantially from one school
to another. The D.A.R.E. officer reported that in his
experience parents generally do not show an active
interest in D.A.R.E.
According to the police administrator, the
investment of the community in the D.A.R.E. program is
limited. He further indicated that D.A.R.E. officers
have little time to seek community involvement: "The
reality is that the D.A.R.E. instructor has a full day
teaching classes; there isn't time to do anything else."=20
The D.A.R.E. officer also reported that community groups
have little participation in the program.
Funding. The police administrator reported that
when the D.A.R.E. program began in this city, much of the
funding came from the Federal Government (i.e., from BJA
through a grant to the State police). He reported that
support received from the State police is currently
limited to training and materials. Salaries of officers
and supervisors are paid by the local police department,
and limited contributions are provided by the community.=20
According to the police administrator, there is real
danger of D.A.R.E. becoming a victim of budget cuts
because of the current budget crisis; he indicated that
implementation has already been severely restricted
because of lack of resources.
Curriculum. We asked the police administrator
whether the D.A.R.E. curriculum was adapted to meet the
special needs of his area. He responded, "We teach
D.A.R.E. D.A.R.E. is D.A.R.E. Once you decide to use a
program that is administered throughout the country, then
you do not tailor it." When asked about addressing the
needs resulting from gang activity, he indicated that
officers incorporate their own street experiences and
information they received from the police academy into
the D.A.R.E. gang lessons. He reported that local gangs
and their behaviors are discussed. =20
The police administrator stated that local D.A.R.E.
advocates believe that classroom activity should be
supported by parental involvement. He, however, did not
express interest in the parent curriculum at this time.=20
The reasons he gave were that the program is still
experimental and has not been evaluated, the supply of
officers is already inadequate to meet the demand, and
the cost of the parent program would dramatically
increase overall costs (i.e., because the parent
curriculum is generally offered in the evening, officers
would be paid time-and-a-half). The police administrator
stated that "If more money was available, this (parent
curriculum) would certainly be an option the local
department would look into."
Problems and Improvements. The police
administrator stated, "One of our major problems is that
we have so few officers and so many schools." He
indicated that the department tries to "keep D.A.R.E.
moving through the schools" and to cover as many students
as possible. The administrator reported that although
this rotation policy maximizes the number of schools
reached within the department's limited resources, it
also creates problems (i.e., just about the time the
school becomes accustomed to D.A.R.E., the program is
discontinued and moved to another school). The
administrator reported that many school officials are
angry about this policy.
The police administrator also indicated the need
for more evaluation. He stated, "Evaluation is the only
way to find out what works and what doesn't. I don't
think we're ever going to find that D.A.R.E. solves the
drug problem in the United States, but that it is a first
step. Evaluation must be written into everything. It
has taken too long for evaluations to come about." He
said that he would at least like to have information on
how effective the program is in suburban, rural, and
inner-city areas. He asked, "If we find the program is
working in a certain area, that's great, but what can we
do in the other areas to enrich the program and diversify
it to meet those needs?" =20
The D.A.R.E. officer mentioned several problems
areas. First, he indicated that although one of his
schools is heavily Hispanic, it does not have D.A.R.E.
books in Spanish. Second, he stated that the program was
designed for the officer to stay in contact with the
school and that in his current situation, he is in and
out of the school with little chance for further contact
with the students. Finally, he reported the need for
greater recognition of graduates of the program.=20
"Something should be done to get the parents and
principals more involved so that students feel they have
really accomplished something that has meaning."
The only problem mentioned by the drug prevention
coordinator was the need for a bilingual officer.
Classroom Observation. We observed a fifth-grade
classroom of 25 students, composed of 6 Hispanics, 4
African Americans, and 15 Caucasians. Two of the
students spoke limited English and needed translations of
the D.A.R.E. lesson.=20
The D.A.R.E. instructor was a white male police
officer in his forties who was dressed in regulation
uniform. The officer presented himself to the class as a
friend. The officer's teaching style was very
straightforward and "streetwise," and he was both gruff
and engaging. He was very knowledgeable about the
material and taught the whole lesson without notes. The
interaction between officer and students was an easy,
bantering one.
The 40-minute lesson that we observed focused on
the media and how advertisement can be used to persuade
consumers and children to purchase and use different
products. The lesson began with a short introductory
lecture on the influences of advertising and the goals of
the media. The officer then asked students questions
about different products to show them how much they have
learned from the media. The officer gave examples of
different types of advertisements (e.g., "personal
testimony," "bandwagon") and also used ads from magazines
to illustrate his point. Most of the class period (30
minutes) was spent in interaction. =20
During the class, the students were rowdy but
attentive. They called out answers to the officer's
questions and felt free to make comments. The students
treated the officer with genuine respect. The interest
and interaction level in this particular lesson was high.=20
The classroom teacher was present during the
lesson, leaving only once to go to the principal's
office. The teacher sat at the back of the room grading
papers; however, he had a D.A.R.E. book and followed the
lesson as it progressed. Most of the teacher's input
occurred in the beginning of the class before the lesson
got started. The only other time the teacher spoke was
to maintain discipline in the classroom, and then he only
reprimanded talkers.
Once the lesson was completed, the officer left
immediately. There was no evidence of any outside
contact with students. =20
Urban School Without D.A.R.E.
We interviewed two individuals at the non-D.A.R.E.
school, the drug prevention coordinator for that school
district and the classroom teacher who taught the drug
prevention lesson that we observed. The following
summarizes the discussions with these individuals.
Administration. The drug prevention coordinator
reported that there is no specific drug prevention
program in place. She indicated that drug prevention
textbooks are used and, at times, individuals from
outside the school make presentations at drug prevention
assemblies. According to the coordinator, a teacher
might incorporate a drug prevention lesson into a reading
class or show a video. She stated, "We put together lots
of little things that add up to something you might call
a program, but we don't have a structured program." =20
Implementation. The coordinator indicated that
each student at the school receives drug education
information at least on a monthly basis. However, she
reported that lower grades receive less and in a more
loosely structured format. The teacher reported that he
makes sure his students receive some drug prevention
education every week. According to the coordinator,
classroom teachers do not have specific times set aside
for drug prevention, but rather fit it in when they can.=20
The seventh and eighth graders do use and follow a drug
prevention textbook and have regular discussions. =20
The coordinator indicated that teachers' support
for the drug prevention program depended on which teacher
you were talking about. She indicated that all teachers
think that drug prevention education is important, but
that some are far more committed than others to
incorporating drug prevention lessons into their
curriculum. The classroom teacher stated that most of
his fellow teachers support the school's drug prevention
efforts, but that some teachers just did not know how to
talk to students about issues like drugs and gangs. He
stated, "Some either don't know what to say or just don't
care enough." =20
The coordinator reported that law enforcement
personnel have been sporadically involved in the school's
drug prevention activities and have attended local school
council meetings and conducted in-service training with
teachers about drug awareness. She noted that 2 years
ago law enforcement officials came into the school to
work with students targeted as high risk. She stated
that "the success of that program depended upon whether
or not the student accepted the officer." =20
When we asked the coordinator about the involvement
of individuals from the community in the school's drug
prevention efforts, she responded that no person from the
community has been involved in implementing the school's
drug prevention program. She indicated that most of the
community has no idea about what the school is doing in
terms of drug prevention education. She stated, "I don't
think the community feels that it is their place to be
involved." =20
Funding. According to the drug prevention
coordinator, there were virtually no drug prevention
activities until the school began receiving money
specifically designated for drug prevention education
(DFSCA) about 3 or 4 years ago. She reported that the
school was currently in its third year of receiving DFSCA
funds and that the amount of funding had steadily
increased over those years. She noted, however, that
this funding cannot be counted on from year to year, and
it is difficult for the school to make long-term plans.=20
According to the coordinator, the lack of resources
prevents consistency in the school's drug prevention
program. =20
Curriculum. The drug prevention coordinator
indicated that although all drugs are covered by their
drug prevention efforts, alcohol is targeted. The
coordinator and the classroom teacher both reported that
alcohol is the most widely abused drug among children and
adults in their community. The teacher indicated that he
spends a great deal of time on this issue and that he
spends more time teaching students about self-esteem and
resisting peer pressure than teaching specifically about
drugs. The classroom teacher stated it is a mistake to
spend too much time educating students about the types of
drugs and their effects unless a strong foundation of
self-esteem has first been created.
When we asked whether the school drug prevention
program had been adapted to meet the needs of ethnic
minorities, the coordinator indicated that stereotypes
about who is on drugs and who is selling drugs are
reflected in the materials she has purchased; that is,
many of the pictures are of minorities. If anything, she
felt that white suburbs would have to work more with
adapting materials to fit their population. The
classroom teacher indicated that he was aware of the
cultural diversity in his school and addressed it on an
individual basis with students and their parents. The
teacher expressed frustration about the difficulty of
teaching drug prevention when many of the students live
in homes where the norm is to "drink heavily and abuse
family members." =20
Problems and Improvements. The drug prevention
coordinator said that in the future she would like to
purchase a packaged curriculum=FEpossibly D.A.R.E. She
indicated that she did not know very much about D.A.R.E.,
but would like information about how to get the program.=20
One negative factor she reported having heard about
D.A.R.E. is that there is a long waiting list for the
program. She stated, "When you first called and asked if
we had D.A.R.E., I got excited and thought that someone
was going to give us D.A.R.E.; I don't really know what
D.A.R.E. is, but I assume that because it is in other
schools, it is good."=20
The drug prevention coordinator also indicated that
she would like to increase the amount and consistency of
delivery of the drug prevention education program, and to
bring greater structure to. The coordinator and the
classroom teacher both reported that they want to have
the drug prevention program administered by one person
who would come in and take responsibility for the
program. =20
Classroom Observation. We observed a special
education class of 22 students. It was a remedial class
comprising 14 Hispanics, 6 African Americans, and 2
Caucasians. There were 12 girls and 10 boys. =20
The teacher was a white man in his forties, dressed
in a suit and tie. He encouraged the students and drew
on their strengths. He often called on students who
would not otherwise volunteer answers and helped them
formulate answers. When an answer was not exactly
correct, he encouraged the student to think further about
the question asked. The teacher carefully and adequately
answered students' questions.
The topic of the observed lesson concerned the
functioning of the lung and heart. This was a lesson
designed to provide students with background information
about the human body, before the impact of drugs on the
body's major organs were discussed. The teacher followed
the textbook closely. Because the students were slow
learners, he altered the lesson slightly by asking the
students to read sections aloud and then immediately
asking questions about the section just covered. Most
students appeared interested in the lesson. They
followed along in the textbook and answered questions
with sincerity. A few students consistently put their
hands up to answer questions, but most were quiet. There
were no discipline problems during the class. After
class, we asked the teacher whether he ever used group
discussions. He reported that this group of students was
too remedial to use a discussion format. =20
Rural Schools
Rural School with D.A.R.E.
The D.A.R.E. program in the rural district employed
four D.A.R.E. officers. We interviewed five individuals,
including:
o the police administrator in charge of the
D.A.R.E. program,
o a D.A.R.E. officer,
o the school district drug prevention
coordinator,
o the school guidance counselor, and
o the teacher in whose class the D.A.R.E.
officer taught.
The following summarizes our discussions with these
respondents.
Administration. The police administrator indicated
that the D.A.R.E. program was administered by the city
police department. He reported that this was the first
semester that D.A.R.E. had been offered in this
particular school. He stated that the agreement between
the school and police department is informal.
Implementation. The police administrator reported
that the initial steps in implementing the D.A.R.E.
program include selection of a D.A.R.E. officer by the
local police department, approval of the officer by the
State police, and training for the officer at a D.A.R.E.
training course.
The officer reported that there are no problems
coordinating D.A.R.E. activities. He stated that there
is "eagerness from all sides to make the program work."=20
According to the officer, some classroom teachers
participate in the lesson, but most do not. He further
indicated that much of the time students are just as
receptive without the teacher present.
The D.A.R.E. officer indicated that parents are
becoming more involved in the program. He stated that
they are very interested and supportive of D.A.R.E., and
that his attendance at nonclassroom school functions,
such as Friday night dances, has greatly improved his
relationships with parents. He reported that he hopes to
receive training on the D.A.R.E. parent curriculum as
soon as possible.
According to the officer and the police
administrator, there was little community involvement.=20
They attributed this to the program being new and hoped
that there would be more community involvement in the
coming semesters. However, the coordinator did report
that D.A.R.E. is well received by the "educated"
community. He indicated that churches in the community
have not been particularly receptive and simply do not
want to get involved. The coordinator and the guidance
counselor saw the lack of involvement by churches as a
loss to the program.
According to the school counselor, students'
attitudes toward police had changed considerably since
the D.A.R.E. lessons began. She stated that "students
now see the officer as a friend instead of someone to
avoid."
Funding. The police administrator reported that
the police department funds the salary of the D.A.R.E.
officer, while the school pays any costs for the
curriculum (i.e., books, materials). The school district
coordinator indicated that the school did not have the
funds to purchase D.A.R.E. T-shirts and related
paraphernalia. He further stated that the district is
seeking a State grant for additional supplies.
Curriculum. The guidance counselor reported that
D.A.R.E. classes are a "wonderful way of teaching
students to say no" and that the self-esteem modules are
particularly valuable and effective. According to the
district coordinator, D.A.R.E. complements all their
other drug prevention programs, but that unfortunately
there was little coordination between different
curricula.=20
The D.A.R.E. officer reported that he does not
target the curriculum to any particular substances and
does not adapt the curriculum to specific ethnic needs.=20
He indicated that he does teach the gang lesson (as do
most D.A.R.E. officers in the State), even though in this
community there is little gang activity.
Problems and Improvements. The guidance counselor
indicated that she would like the school to provide
D.A.R.E. in all classrooms in grades 5 through 7. The
guidance counselor and the classroom teacher indicated
the need for the school to offer D.A.R.E. or some other
drug prevention education at earlier grade levels.=20
According to the counselor, "Trying to teach drug
prevention education in high school is futile."
The classroom teacher indicated that D.A.R.E. and
other programs need to focus more on at-risk children.=20
She indicated that there are some 15- and 16-year-olds
still in the 6th grade. She reported that these students
usually have poor attendance records, are poorly
motivated, and are frequently in trouble. She stated
that current prevention programs, including D.A.R.E., are
not adequately meeting the needs of these students.=20
The district coordinator indicated that one problem
has been the lack of ongoing evaluations of D.A.R.E.
Classroom Observation. We observed a fifth-grade
class of 22 students, 12 boys and 10 girls. Twenty
students were African American, and two students were
Caucasian.
The D.A.R.E. officer was a white man in his
thirties who was dressed in regulation uniform. The
officer presented himself as a "big brother," someone
whom the students could seek out if they needed guidance
or assistance. The officer brought the D.A.R.E. mascot--
the D.A.R.E. bear--with him to class.
The lesson that we observed focused on alternatives
to drug use. The officer discussed how athletics could
be used as an alternative to drug involvement. He used
examples of well-known, drug-free athletes. The officer
encouraged students to ask questions. He also used a
"D.A.R.E. question box." In the previous week, students
had been asked to write questions for the officer and
place them in the box. During the lesson, he drew a
question from the box and answered that question. For
the remainder of the lesson, the officer took the
students outside to play games to illustrate alternatives
to drug use. He also involved the school's gym teacher
in supervising the games.
During the class, students were interested and
inquisitive. They seemed to feel free to ask the officer
questions. There were no disciplinary problems. The
classroom teacher remained present during most of the
lesson, sitting at the back of the room and grading
papers. =20
The officer seemed to spend a great deal of time in
the school. After the lesson was over, he talked to
students in the hallway. Indeed, almost all students
seemed to know him. When an emergency occurred (a
student fell and broke his arm) and the principal was not
present, the staff sought the officer's assistance. This
was not the first such occurrence, and we learned that
the school staff relied frequently upon the D.A.R.E.
officer to act as a sort of assistant principal.=20
Clearly, he was viewed as an integral--and important--
part of the school staff.
Rural School Without D.A.R.E.
We interviewed four individuals at the non-D.A.R.E.
school, including the school district drug prevention
coordinator (who was the same for both rural schools),
the supervisor of health services, and two members of a
local advisory board for substance abuse. The following
summarizes discussions with these individuals.
Administration. Coordination of the drug
prevention efforts in the observed non-D.A.R.E. school
and other such schools in the community rests with the
school district drug prevention coordinator. He
indicated that there are a variety of programs currently
available to schools but that implementation and
coordination are sporadic.
Implementation. According to the coordinator,
parents in this school are becoming more aware of the
drug problem and are beginning to ask what they can do to
get involved. He stated that many parents are realizing
that they cannot "send their kids to school to get
fixed," and so are starting to take responsibility for
their children's problems. He also indicated that school
personnel are becoming more involved.=20
Funding. According to the district coordinator,
the school receives most of its drug prevention funds
from DFSCA. He also indicated funds were provided by the
school board and a local university, as well as the
Indian Education Act. These latter resources, however,
could only be spent on programs delivered to Native
American children.
Curriculum. According to the coordinator, a
variety of curricula are available to teachers at this
school, but not all teachers use the same curriculum, and
some do not provide drug prevention education at all.=20
The coordinator reported that Here's Looking at You 2000
is one package available to teachers in this school.=20
However, he indicated that only about half the teachers
had been trained to teach this program.
The advisory board members informed us of a
community drug abuse treatment program currently in use
in this and other area schools that follows the "12-step"
model. This program offers intervention, education, and
prevention to youth who have been suspended for substance
use, as well as to their families. One board member
stated that suspended youth must attend this program
before returning to school.
The coordinator indicated that the SAP is just now
being implemented in this school.
The health supervisor reported that the school also
sponsors Red Ribbon week, a program sponsored by the
National Federation of Parents that invites youth and
community members to pledge their support for drug-free
lives by displaying red ribbons.
Problems and Improvements. All individuals
interviewed indicated the need for greater coordination
between the different types of drug prevention programs,
as well as assessments of drug prevention efforts. The
coordinator reported that he would like to have someone
responsible for the delivery of drug prevention programs
in the school and someone responsible for evaluation. He
said that "a lot of people are working very hard, but
have little idea of whether or not their efforts are
successful."
The coordinator indicated that time is also a major
problem in the delivery of drug prevention education. He
stated that preparing students for end of the year
testing takes up most of the classroom teachers' time and
allows them little time to teach drug prevention.
Classroom Observation. We observed a 5th grade
class of three girls and seven boys. This was a class
for exceptional children that included students with
emotional and behavioral problems. Five of the students
were Caucasian, three were African-American, and two were
Native American.
The instructor was an African-American woman in her
twenties. She used an approachable and upbeat teaching
style. She was careful to include all of the students in
the lesson.
Because this was a class for exceptional children,
the teacher tailored the drug lesson to the students.=20
The teacher drew her lesson from health textbooks used in
regular classes. The lesson lasted approximately 1 hour.=20
The teacher indicated that the length of the class and
how much time she spends on the drug lesson generally
depends both on her assessment of how much of the lesson
the students are absorbing and their interest level. She
indicated that drug prevention lessons are usually taught
two or three times a week.
The observed lesson was about learning how to make
healthy choices. Topics included why people smoke and
use drugs, how magazine advertisements promote smoking
and drinking, and the differences between drugs that are
helpful and harmful. The teacher covered a wide range of
concepts, including how self-esteem and peer pressure
contribute to drug use, the importance of reading warning
labels on medications, and techniques advertisements use
to glamorize drug use. The class format was primarily
question and answer, and the teacher encouraged each
student to participate. The teacher used a variety of
visual aids, including charts, examples of magazine ads,
and a collection of common medications that can be
inappropriately used.
For the most part, the students were very
attentive. Most were eager to be called on and to
participate in the class. The teacher encouraged
participation by all the students.
Summary
This chapter focused on site visits to four schools
in three school districts. Two of the schools were
located in one rural school district; one of these
schools had D.A.R.E. and one did not. The other two
schools were located in adjacent school districts in an
urban area; again, one school had D.A.R.E. and one did
not.
In both of the schools with D.A.R.E., limited
participation of teachers, parents, and the community
were reported. Both schools also mentioned having
inadequate resources for the program. Neither school
reported adapting the curriculum for any reason. In both
schools, the need for ongoing, long-term evaluations was
stressed.
Neither of the non-D.A.R.E. schools had a specific
drug prevention program. Both reported that
implementation and coordination was sporadic. Both
schools reported wanting one person who would be
responsible for administering the drug prevention program
in the school.
CHAPTER 7
D.A.R.E. OUTCOME ASSESSMENT
Project D.A.R.E. is a drug use prevention program
with curricula targeted at elementary, middle, and senior
high school students. The original core curriculum used
in elementary schools is the subject of this review (a
revised core curriculum will be implemented in September
1994). The junior and senior high school curricula are
not included in the review because they are more recent,
not as prevalent, and generally have not been evaluated.=20
Future evaluation efforts should focus on these
curricula, as well as on the cumulative effects of the
comprehensive program.
The purpose of the current review is to assess the
short-term effectiveness of the original D.A.R.E. core
curriculum by using meta-analytic techniques to
synthesize the evaluation findings of several studies.=20
We searched for all D.A.R.E. evaluations, both published
and unpublished, conducted over the past 10 years (i.e.,
since D.A.R.E. originated) and selected for further
review those studies that met specified methodological
criteria. To establish a comparable measure of
effectiveness across studies, we calculated effect sizes
for each study. In addition, to put D.A.R.E. in the
context of other school-based drug use prevention
programs, we compared the average magnitude of the effect
sizes for D.A.R.E. with those of other programs that
target youth of similar age.
This chapter covers six topics. First, we briefly
summarize the original D.A.R.E. core curriculum. Second,
we provide some general background on meta-analysis and
describe the methodological criteria used to select
evaluations for the review. Third, we identify the eight
studies that met the criteria and provide an overall
description of these studies. Fourth, we examine the
reported immediate effects of D.A.R.E., based on these
studies. Fifth, we compare the D.A.R.E. effect sizes
averaged across studies with the average effect sizes of
other drug use prevention programs. Finally, we discuss
several methodological considerations related to the
evaluations included in our review that are important to
interpretation of the results. Further discussion of the
results is included in Chapter 8 of this report.
The D.A.R.E. Core Curriculum
The D.A.R.E. core curriculum is offered to pupils
in the last year of elementary school, typically fifth or
sixth grade. The 17 lessons in the core curriculum are
usually offered once a week for 45 to 60 minutes. The
lessons focus on teaching pupils the skills they need in
order to recognize and resist social pressures to use
drugs. In addition to information about drugs, lessons
emphasize decisionmaking skills, building self-esteem,
and choosing healthy alternatives to drug use. Officers
use a variety of teaching methods, including lectures,
group discussions, question-and-answer sessions,
audiovisual materials, workbook exercises, and role-
plays.
Several aspects of the D.A.R.E. core curriculum
suggest that it should be successful as a drug use
prevention curriculum. First, the curriculum includes
elements of prevention strategies generally thought to be
effective, such as emphasis on peer resistance and social
competence skills (Botvin, 1990; Hansen, 1992). Interac-
tive programs have shown more promise than those using
more traditional teaching methods (Tobler, 1986, in
press, 1994), and at least some of D.A.R.E.'s teaching
strategies encourage role-playing and interactions among
pupils. Also, the core curriculum is offered to children
at the age when they are believed to be most receptive to
antidrug use messages, which is just before experimenta-
tion with drugs begins (BJA, 1988; Oetting & Bauvais,
1990). In addition, the program targets cigarettes,
alcohol, and marijuana--the "gateway drugs" that children
tend to experiment with first (Ellickson, Hays, & Bell,
1992; Kandel, 1975). Finally, the structured nature of
the curriculum and extensive training of the officers
helps ensure that the program is implemented as designed
(BJA, 1988).
Meta-Analysis Background and Study Selection Criteria
Meta-analysis is a methodology for integrating the
research findings of a body of studies (Bangert-Drowns,
1986; Cook et al., 1993). The purpose of meta-analysis
is to discover whether some pattern of results is
discernible in a set of studies pertaining to the same
research question (Bangert-Drowns, 1986; Glass, McGaw, &
Smith, 1981; Rosenthal, 1991). Meta-analysis differs
from a traditional narrative review of studies by
providing statistical techniques for summarizing the
research findings from the studies. By quantifying
outcomes across studies and making them comparable with
each other, meta-analysis provides an objective rather
than subjective basis for drawing conclusions about
patterns of study results.
Three basic steps are commonly followed in
conducting meta-analyses (Bangert-Drowns, 1986). First,
all relevant studies are collected, and some studies are
selected for inclusion according to a set of a priori
defined methodological criteria. Second, effect sizes
are calculated for each study. Effect sizes represent
the statistical outcomes of each study transformed to a
common metric. This transformation allows comparisons
across different scales of different outcome measures.=20
Third, effect sizes for the set of studies are averaged.=20
In addition, explanations for variability in effect sizes
across studies usually are tested. We followed these
three steps in conducting our assessment of the D.A.R.E.
core curriculum; we did not, however, examine possible
causes of differences in outcomes across the D.A.R.E.
studies (e.g., differences in D.A.R.E. outcomes by the
racial/ethnic composition of the study samples). The
relatively small number of D.A.R.E. studies precluded
this type of analysis.
In selecting studies, our review focused on
student-based, quantitative evaluations of D.A.R.E. that
measured program effects on drug use behavior and/or
other outcomes targeted by the D.A.R.E. core curriculum,
such as attitudes about drug use. Evaluations that
reported only subjective assessments or satisfaction
ratings are outside the scope of this review. We also
did not consider the results of parent, teacher,
administrator, or D.A.R.E. officer surveys, which
sometimes were conducted as part of the total evaluation
effort. (For information about the opinions of school
district drug prevention coordinators concerning
D.A.R.E., see Chapter 5.) It should be noted that there
are many possible D.A.R.E. outcomes of importance other
than the ones we examined in this meta-analysis, such as
improved school and police relations and greater trust in
law enforcement among youth.
We attempted to locate all the quantitative
evaluations of the original D.A.R.E. core curriculum
conducted to date through a survey of D.A.R.E.'s five
RTCs, telephone interviews with individuals known to be
involved with D.A.R.E., and computerized searches of the
published and unpublished literature using several data
bases. The computerized data bases included ERIC,
PsychINFO, and Dissertation Abstracts Online.=20
Through the combined sources, we identified 18
quantitative D.A.R.E. evaluations conducted in 12 States
and one Canadian province. The location and primary
reference for each evaluation are shown in Exhibit 7.1.=20
Several of the evaluations were reported in multiple
reports or papers; we generally used the final, most
complete report or the published paper for our review.
From the 18 studies, we selected studies to include
in our meta-analysis that met the following criteria:=20
(a) use of a control or comparison group; (b) pretest-
posttest design or posttest only with random assignment;
and (c) use of reliably operationalized quantitative
outcome measures. Quasi-experimental studies were
excluded if they did not control for preexisting
differences on measured outcomes with either change
scores or covariance adjusted means (Tobler, in press,
1994). In addition, to ensure the comparability of
results, we used only results based on immediate
posttest. There were an insufficient number of long-term
evaluation studies to adequately assess the longer-term
effects of the core curriculum.
We selected these criteria because they help to
ensure confidence in the study results by removing a
number of alternative explanations, other than true
D.A.R.E. impact, that could account for outcomes
observed. For example, the first criterion, a comparison
group made up of schools and/or subjects that did not
receive the curriculum, makes it possible to determine
whether changes in the D.A.R.E. youth are unique to them
or are shared by other youth. If youth receiving and not
receiving D.A.R.E. change on some outcome of interest,
then the cause is due to some other factor, such as
maturation, rather than to D.A.R.E. Pretest measures
(the second criterion) are neededExhibit 7.1 D.A.R.E. Evaluation Studi=
es
(N=3D18)
Location References
British Columbia* (BC) Walker, 1990
California-A Becker, Agopian, & Yeh, 1992
California-B DeJong, 1987
California-C Evaluation and Training
Institute, 1990
Colorado Dukes & Matthews, 1991
Hawaii* (HI) Manos, Kameoka, & Tanji, 1986
Illinois-A Kethineni, Leamy, & Guyon, 1991
Illinois-B Earle, Garner, & Phillips, 1987
Illinois-C* (IL) Ennett et al., 1994; Ringwalt,
Curtin, & Rosenbaum, 1990; Rosenbaum et
al., 1991, 1992
Indiana Aniskiewicz & Wysong, 1987,=20
1990
Kentucky-A* (KY-A) Clayton et al., 1991a, 1991b
Kentucky-B* (KY-B) Faine & Bohlander, 1988, 1989
Minnesota* (MN) McCormick & McCormick, 1992
North Carolina* (NC) Ringwalt, Ennett, & Holt, 1991
Pennsylvania Anonymous, 1987
South Carolina* (SC) Harmon, 1993
Tennessee Faine & Bohlander, 1989
Virginia McDonald, Towberman, & Hague,
1990, 1991
*Study selected for further review (with State
abbreviation).
for testing the assumption that the D.A.R.E. and
comparison groups are equivalent at the outset. In the
absence of random assignment, this assumption must be
tested. In addition, pretest measures provide a
benchmark for evaluating changes in outcome measures
after program implementation. Reliably operationalized
measures of the outcomes of interest (the third
criterion) are important for ensuring that the constructs
intended to be measured are the ones actually measured.=20
For example, for assessing outcomes related to knowledge,
attitudes, and skills, we considered multiple item scales
to be more reliable than single-item measures.
We also examined a number of other methodological
features, such as the correspondence between the unit of
assignment and unit of analysis, whether a panel design
was used, whether schools in the intervention and
comparison conditions were matched, and whether attrition
rates were reported and examined. Although these factors
were considered in assessing the overall methodological
rigor of the studies, no evaluations were eliminated on
the basis of these criteria.
Studies Selected
Eight of the original 18 evaluation studies met the
criteria for inclusion in the review. One additional
study met the methodological criteria but did not
administer the first posttest until 1 year after D.A.R.E.
implementation and so could not be included in the
analysis of immediate effects (Nyre & Rose, 1987; Nyre,
Rose, & Bolus, 1987). The eight evaluations are
indicated by an asterisk (*) in Exhibit 7.1.=20
Characteristics of the studies are summarized in Exhibit
7.2. A more complete description of each study is
provided in Appendix B.
Each of the evaluations represented a State or
local (e.g., city, school district) effort using either
the entire population of schools in a locale or a
convenience sample. The number of student subjects in
all studies was large; each study included at least 10
schools and approximately 500 to 2000 students in the
combined D.A.R.E. and control groups. Demographic
information about each sample, including gender,
race/ethnicity, SES, and metropolitan status, was not
consistently given across studies. Based on the
information available, the samples were about equally
divided between girls and boys; included white,
black/African American, Hispanic, and Asian-American
youth, with whites usually in the majority; and
represented urban, suburban, and rural areas.=20
Information was generally not given on the SES of the
sample.
Assignment of D.A.R.E. to intervention and control
groups was by school for all eight studies. In one
study, D.A.R.E. was also assigned by classroom in certain
schools (Manos et al., 1986). Because the control group
classrooms in that study were potentially contaminated by
their close proximity to D.A.R.E. classrooms, these
control classrooms were eliminated; only control schools
with no D.A.R.E. classes were included. Two of the
studies used a true experimental design in which schools
were randomly assigned to D.A.R.E. or control conditions;
a third study used random assignment for two-thirds of
the schools. The remaining five evaluations used a
nonequivalent control group quasi-experimental design.=20
For these, assignment was based on some other criterion;
if the criterion was stated, usually it was the
administrative convenience of either the school district
or law enforcement agency.=20
A fundamental consideration in reviewing the
studies was the equivalence of the D.A.R.E. and control
groups before the intervention. Because there were
relatively few sampling units across studies (ranging
from 11 to 63 schools, with under 40 schools in all
except one study), it is unlikely that equivalence
between groups was obtained without prior matching or
blocking of schools, even with randomization. Only half
the studies matched comparison schools on selected
demographic characteristics. The majority of studies
(75%), however, assessed the equivalency of the
comparison groups at pretest and made adjustments for
pretest differences on demographic characteristics. All
studies adjusted for pretest differences on outcome
measures.
Exhibit 7.2 Sample and Methodological Characteristics of the D.A.R.E.
Evaluations (N =3D 8)
School Subject Research =
Unit
of PretestScale
Study N N Design Matching =20
Analysis Equivalency1=20
Reliabilities Attrition
British Columbia 11 D=3D287 Quasi, Yes =
=20
Individual Yes Non.a.
C=3D176 x-sectional
Hawaii 26 D=3D1574 Quasi, No =
=20
Individual NoNo No
C=3D435 panel
Illinois-C 36 D=3D715 Exp./quasi, Yes =
School-=20
Yes YesYes2
C=3D608 panel =
based
Kentucky-A 31 D=3D1438 Exp., No =
=20
Individual Yes YesYes2
C=3D487 panel
Kentucky-B 16 D=3D451 Quasi, Yes =
=20
Individual Yes YesNo
C=3D332 panel
Minnesota 63 D=3D453 Quasi, No =
=20
Individual Yes YesYes3
C=3D490 panel
North Carolina 20 D=3D685 Exp., No =
School-=20
Yes YesYes2
C=3D585 panel =
based
South Carolina 11 D=3D295 Quasi, Yes =
=20
Individual Yes YesYes3
C=3D307, panel
1Pretest equivalency on demographic variables assessed and controlled if
necessary.
2Attrition rates reported and differential attrition across experimental
conditions
analyzed.
3Attrition rates reported only. All but one of the studies used a pan=
el
design that
matched subjects from pretest to posttest using a unique
identification code.
Outcome measures used in the studies were based on
responses to self-administered questionnaires. Seven of
the eight studies used measures that were standardized
scales or derived from existing measures; six studies
reported scale reliabilities (usually Cronbach's alpha)
that were generally high. Validity information, however,
was rarely reported, and none of the studies used either
a biochemical indicator or "bogus pipeline" technique to
validate self-reports of drug use. Informing youth that
their self-reports of drug use will be verified by a
biological specimen (e.g., saliva) or a purported lie
detector (i.e., bogus pipeline) is believed to enhance
the validity of their responses (Bauman & Dent, 1982).
As is unfortunately typical of school-based
evaluation studies, most (75%) of the D.A.R.E.
evaluations did not use a data analysis strategy
appropriate to the unit of assignment. Because schools,
not students, were assigned to D.A.R.E. and control
conditions, it would have been appropriate to analyze the
data by schools with subjects' data aggregated within
each school or to use an analysis strategy that accounts
for clustered data (Moskowitz, 1993; Murray & Hannan,
1990). Six of the studies ignored schools altogether and
analyzed individual subjects' data, thereby violating the
statistical assumption of independence of observations.=20
The result of ignoring schools as the unit of analysis is
a positive bias toward finding statistically significant
program effects (Murray & Hannan, 1990).
Five of the studies reported attrition rates, which
generally were small. None of the three studies that
analyzed attrition rates found that attrition differed
significantly across experimental and control conditions.=20
In addition, subjects absent from the posttest were not
more likely to be drug users or at risk for drug use.=20
Although attrition usually is greater among drug users
(Biglan & Ary, 1985), given the young age of the sample,
when dropping out of school is unlikely and drug use
prevalence is low, these results are not surprising.
D.A.R.E. Effect Sizes
To assess the impact of the original D.A.R.E. core
curriculum on youth drug use, as well as on other
outcomes targeted by the curriculum, we calculated effect
sizes. An effect size (ES) is defined as the difference
between the mean for the intervention group (MeanI) and
the mean for the control group (MeanC), standardized by
dividing by the pooled standard deviation (SD): [ES =3D
(MeanI - MeanC)/ SD] (Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Perry &
Tobler, 1992; Rosenthal, 1991). If means and standard
deviations are not available, effect sizes can be
calculated using formulae developed to convert other test
statistics (such as, t or F), as well as percentages, to
effect sizes (Perry & Tobler, 1992).
Effect sizes are expressed as standard deviation
units and may be positive or negative. A positive effect
size indicates an effect in the desired direction as a
result of the intervention. An effect size of 1, for
example, indicates that the intervention group performed
one standard deviation unit better than the control group
on some outcome of interest. Although there are no clear
conventions for defining "small," "medium," and "large"
effect sizes in the context of drug use prevention
programs, review of several meta-analyses of adolescent
drug use prevention programs (Bangert-Drowns, 1988;
Bruvold, 1993; Bruvold & Rundall, 1988; Tobler, 1986, in
press, 1992 ) suggests that effect sizes below .15
reflect a small effect; effect sizes between .15 and .30
indicate a modest effect; and effect sizes above .30
reflect stronger program effects.
For each of the eight D.A.R.E. studies, we
calculated effect sizes to quantify the magnitude of
D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness with respect to six outcomes
that reflect the aims of the D.A.R.E. curriculum. The
six outcomes were knowledge about drugs, attitudes about
drug use, social skills, self-esteem, attitude toward
police, and self-reported drug use. We calculated effect
sizes using the procedure appropriate for the summary
statistics reported. In all cases, we used statistics
reflecting covariance-adjusted means, with pretest values
as covariates, rather than unadjusted means so that any
differences between the comparison groups prior to the
intervention would not be reflected in the effect sizes
(Tobler, in press, 1994). Where possible, we used
statistics that also were adjusted for sample demographic
characteristics (six of eight studies).
Some studies did not include all six outcomes of
interest, and some outcomes were measured by more than
one indicator. When multiple indicators were used, such
as two measures of social skills, we calculated separate
effect sizes and then averaged them. This procedure
yielded one effect size per study for each type of
measured outcome. In the one study that reported only
that a measured outcome was not statistically significant
and did not provide any further statistics, we assigned a
value of zero to that effect size. To calculate effect
sizes for reported drug use, we considered only alcohol,
tobacco, and marijuana use; we averaged effect sizes
across these substances. In a supplementary analysis, we
also considered use of these substances separately. Use
of other drugs, such as cocaine, was measured by some
studies, but the prevalence of use was too small to
produce meaningful effects.
The unweighted effect sizes at immediate posttest
for each outcome for each study are shown in Exhibit 7.3.=20
Several of the effect sizes are .30 or higher, although
most are less than .20. The largest effect sizes are for
knowledge (that was only measured by three of the eight
studies) and social skills. The effect sizes for self-
esteem, attitudes about drug use, and attitude toward
police tend to be smaller. The smallest effect sizes are
for drug use, with none being greater than .11. The
higher effect sizes for knowledge compared with drug use
is consistent with other studies and supports the
conclusion that knowledge is easier to change than
behavior (Bangert-Drowns, 1988; Bruvold & Rundall, 1988;
Tobler, 1986).
Exhibit 7.3 Unweighted Effect Sizes at Immediate
Posttest Associated with Eight Evaluations
of D.A.R.E.
Attitudes =20
Attitude About Social Self-
Toward Drug Study Knowledge Drugs Skills =20
Esteem Police Use1
BC 0.68 0.00 -- -- --
0.02 -- 0.07 0.34 -- --
-- -- 0.03 0.15 0.15=20
0.12 0.0A -- 0.11 0.10 0.07 --
0.0B 0.58 0.19 0.30 0.14=20
0.27 -- 0.19 0.06 0.08 -0.03=20
0.05 -- -- 0.19 0.17 0.00 --
0.11 -- 0.23 0.19 0.06=20
0.08 0.10
1Limited to alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana.
In addition to calculating one effect size for each
outcome for each study, we calculated the weighted mean
effect size and 95% confidence interval for each type of
outcome across the eight studies. The weighted mean
provides a summary measure across the eight studies that
is useful for indicating D.A.R.E.'s general effectiveness
with respect to each outcome. The weighted mean provides
a less biased estimate than the simple unweighted mean
because estimates from larger samples are given more
weight. It is computed by weighting each effect size by
the inverse of its variance, which is a reflection of the
sample size (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). The effect size
estimates from larger studies are generally more precise
than those from smaller studies (Hedges & Olkin, 1985).
The 95% confidence interval provides an upper and
lower bound for the estimate; in 95% of samples drawn,
the estimate would fall within these bounds. To
calculate the 95% confidence interval, 1.96 multiplied by
the square root of one divided by the sum of the study
weights is added to or subtracted from the mean (Hedges &
Olkin, 1985).
The weighted mean effect size at immediate posttest
and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome are
depicted in Exhibit 7.4. The largest weighted mean
effect size is for knowledge about drugs (0.42), followed
by social skills (0.19), attitude toward police (0.13),
attitudes about drug use (0.11), self-esteem (0.06), and
drug use (0.06). The weighted mean effect sizes for
knowledge, social skills, attitude toward police,
attitudes about drug use, and self-esteem are
statistically significant. The statistical significance
of these D.A.R.E. effect sizes, however, should be
interpreted cautiously because the significance may be
positively influenced by the failure of most studies to
account for data Exhibit 7.4 Magnitude of D.A.R.E.'s Weighted Mean
Effect Size (and 95% Confidence
Interval), by Outcome Measures at Imme-
diate Posttest
clustered by school. The confidence interval for the
weighted mean effect size for drug use overlaps with
zero, meaning than it is not significantly different from
zero.
Because averaging alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana
use for the drug use effect size could obscure
substantial differences among substances, we calculated
D.A.R.E.'s weighted mean effect sizes separately for
alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use. None of the
individual effect sizes for any of the three substances
from any study is larger than 0.15. The mean immediate
effect size for alcohol use is 0.06 (95% CI: .00, .12);
for tobacco use, 0.08 (95% CI: .02, .14); and for
marijuana use, =FE0.01 (95% CI: =FE.09, .07). Only the mean
for tobacco use is statistically significant. =20
The range of effect sizes, both individually by
study and averaged across studies, suggests that D.A.R.E.
has been more effective at immediate posttest in
influencing some outcomes than others. The core
curriculum has been most effective in increasing
knowledge about drug use and in enhancing social skills.=20
Although some studies reported fairly large effect sizes
for attitudes about drugs and attitude toward police,
overall the studies show less D.A.R.E. success in
influencing these factors and self-esteem. Based on
these eight studies, the core curriculum has been least
effective at immediate posttest at influencing drug use
outcomes: alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use. The
small effect sizes for drug use and attitudes about drugs
and police reflect, at least in part, the low levels of
drug use by this age group and their already negative
attitudes about drugs and positive attitude toward
police.
Comparison of D.A.R.E.'s Effectiveness to Other
Drug Use Prevention Programs for Youth
To see how D.A.R.E. compares with other school-
based drug use prevention programs, we compared the
weighted mean D.A.R.E. effect sizes with weighted mean
effect sizes computed for similar programs. For
comparison, we used the effect sizes reported in Tobler's
recent meta-analysis of school-based drug use prevention
programs (Tobler, in press, 1994). To allow the most
appropriate comparisons with D.A.R.E. effect sizes, we
obtained Tobler's results for only those programs,
excluding D.A.R.E., aimed at fifth and sixth graders.=20
Although pupils in the comparison programs were in the
fifth and sixth grade, some sixth graders were in middle
school, whereas all D.A.R.E. sixth graders were in
elementary school. Like the D.A.R.E. studies, the
interventions analyzed by Tobler were implemented in
geographically diverse areas. Also similar to the
D.A.R.E. studies, demographic information was not
reported across all studies. The available data suggest
that the studies in Tobler's review represented both
white and minority populations and included urban,
suburban, and rural areas with urban areas predominating.=20
These programs are a subset of 25 from the 114 programs
included in Tobler's meta-analysis. The studies from
Tobler's meta-analysis are referenced in Exhibit 7.5 and
listed in Appendix C.
We selected Tobler's meta-analysis for comparison
because it is more similar to our review than other meta-
analyses of drug use prevention programs (Bangert-Drowns,
1988; Bruvold, 1993; Bruvold & Rundall, 1988; Tobler,
1986). Tobler's meta-analysis and ours used similar
processes and criteria to identify and select program
evaluations for examination and included both published
and unpublished studies. Like the D.A.R.E. criteria,
Tobler selected student-based quantitative evaluations
that included a control or comparison group and used a
pretest-posttest sign or posttest only with random
assignment. In addition, Tobler reported separate
weighted mean effect sizes for four categories of outcome
measures that are comparable to four of our outcome
measurements: knowledge, attitudes toward drugs, social
skills, and drug use. The meta-analyses differed,
however, in that Tobler excluded studies that did not
measure drug use and that included results from later
posttests. In addition, some of Tobler's programs
focused on a single drug rather than on multiple drugs as
in D.A.R.E. The collective impact of these Exhibit 7.5 Comparison Dru=
g Use
Prevention Programs
(N=3D25)
Noninteractive Programs
Study Location References
1, 2 Ontario Allison, Silver, & Dignam,
in press
3 Pennsylvania Dubois et al., 1989
4 Pacific Northwest Gilchrist et al., 1987
5 California Johnson et al., 1987
6 California Moskowitz et al., 1984;
Schaeffer et al., 1981
7 Michigan; Sarvela, 1984; Sarvela &
McClendon, 1987
Wisconsin
8 California Schaps et al., 1984
9 Not stated Schinke, Gilchrist, &
Snow, 1985
Interactive Programs
Study Location References
10, 11 Michigan Dielman et al., 1986;
Dielman et al., 1987;
Dielman=20
et al., 1989; Shope,
Dielman, & Leech, 1988
12 Ontario Flay et al., 1989; Flay et
al., 1983; Flay et al.,
1985
13 New England Gersick, Grady, & Snow,
1988
14-16 California Johnson et al., 1987
17 Massachusetts McAlister, 1983
18, 19 Washington Schinke et al., 1988
20 Not stated Schinke & Blythe, 1981
21 Washington Schinke & Gilchrist, 1983
22 Not stated Schinke et al., 1986
23 Not stated Schinke, Gilchrist, &
Snow, 1985
24, 25 Not stated Schinke et al., 1985
Note: Some programs were published in multiple publica-
tions. Some publications reported on more than
one type of program. See Appendix C for a listing
of these references.
differences should be minimal, however. Overall, the
D.A.R.E. and Tobler studies are highly comparable in
terms of program focus, study methodology, and target
audience. In assessing the magnitude of the effect sizes
reported for the Tobler studies, it should be noted that
the studies typically did not correct for the correlation
among students in the same school. As explained for the
D.A.R.E. studies, this may produce inflated effect sizes.=20
Because neither the D.A.R.E. nor Tobler studies generally
made adjustments for this interdependence of
observations, the net effect on the comparison of effect
sizes should be minimal.
The evaluation studies included in Tobler's meta-
analysis are classified into two broad categories based
on typical combinations of program content and program
process (process describes the teaching approach, or how
the content is delivered): noninteractive (N=3D9) and
interactive programs (N=3D16). =20
Noninteractive programs emphasize intrapersonal
factors and use more traditional teaching approaches.=20
Activities typically are designed to increase knowledge
about drugs, boost self-esteem, promote self-awareness,
increase problem-solving skills, and promote values
clarifications. These activities, in turn, are expected
to encourage youth to make a personal decision to abstain
from using drugs. Program content is usually introduced
by the teacher in a didactic manner, and participatory
activities often involve teacher-led discussions.
Interactive programs emphasize interpersonal
factors and use a participatory teaching approach.=20
Activities are designed to counter peer pressure to use
drugs through developing drug refusal skills, promoting
general social competencies, and correcting beliefs about
the prevalence of drug use among peers. Program process
emphasizes the interaction and exchange of ideas among
peers, and it encourages active participation of all
students in the classroom, particularly in small groups.
Consistent with other meta-analyses showing that
programs emphasizing social skills tend to be the most
effective at achieving their outcomes (Bangert-Drowns,
1988; Bruvold, 1993; Bruvold & Rundall, 1988; Tobler,
1986), Tobler's interactive programs produced larger
effect sizes in all four outcome measures than
noninteractive programs. Because D.A.R.E. has features
of both noninteractive and interactive programs, we
compared D.A.R.E. with both categories of programs.=20
The weighted mean effect sizes and 95% confidence
intervals by outcome for the D.A.R.E. studies and the two
types of comparison programs are shown in Exhibit 7.6.=20
To test whether the mean effect sizes differed
significantly between D.A.R.E. and the noninteractive
programs and between D.A.R.E. and the interactive
programs, we also calculated the 95% confidence interval
around the difference between the means. If the
confidence interval spans zero, this indicates that the
difference between the two effect size means is not
statistically significant. Conversely, if the confidence
interval does not include zero, then the means are
determined to be significantly different; that is, the
D.A.R.E. mean is significantly greater or less than the
mean for the comparison programs. The difference between
the weighted mean effect sizes for D.A.R.E. and both
noninteractive and interactive programs and 95%
confidence intervals are shown in Exhibit 7.7. In
addition, Exhibit 7.7 indicates whether the difference
favors D.A.R.E. or the comparison programs.
Exhibit 7.6 Weighted Mean Effect Size (and 95%
Confidence Interval), by Outcome for
D.A.R.E. and Other Drug Use Prevention
Programs
Exhibit 7.7 Difference Between Mean Effect Sizes (and
95% Confidence Interval), by Outcome, for
D.A.R.E. and Other Drug Use Prevention
Programs
__ __ =20
Favors __ __ Favors
Outcome |ESD-ESNI| 95% C.I. D.A.R.E. =20
|ESD-ESI| 95% C.I. D.A.R.E.
Knowledge 0.26 .10-.42* Yes =20
0.11 .00-.22 No
Attitudes 0.05 -.04-.14 Yes 0.22
.10-.34* No
Social
Skills 0.11 -.09-.31 Yes 0.57
.46-.68* No
Drug use1 0.02 -.11-.07 No 0.12
.05-.19* No
__ __
Note: ESD =3D weighted mean effect size for D.A.R.E.;
ESNI =3D weighted mean effect size for
__
noninteractive programs; ESI =3D weighted mean effect
size for interactive programs; || indicates
absolute value. Confidence intervals that include
zero are not statistically significant; * =3D
statistically significant.
1Includes alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana.
For knowledge about drugs, the mean immediate
effect size achieved by D.A.R.E. (0.42) is substantially
and statistically significantly higher than the mean
effect size for noninteractive programs (0.16). The
D.A.R.E. effect size is lower than that of interactive
programs (0.53), but the difference is not significant.
For attitudes about drugs, the mean immediate
effect size achieved by D.A.R.E. (0.11) is larger than
the mean achieved by noninteractive programs (0.06); the
difference is not statistically significant. The
D.A.R.E. effect size is significantly less than the mean
for interactive programs (0.33).
The same pattern is observed for skills. The mean
D.A.R.E. immediate effect size (0.19) is larger than for
noninteractive programs (0.08) but smaller than for
interactive programs (0.76). The difference in means
between D.A.R.E. and the noninteractive programs is not
statistically significant, whereas the D.A.R.E. mean is
significantly less than for interactive programs.
For drug use (alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana
averaged together), the mean immediate effect sizes
achieved by D.A.R.E. (0.06) and noninteractive programs
(0.08) are not significantly different. The D.A.R.E.
mean is significantly smaller than the mean for
interactive programs (0.18). Exhibit 7.8 shows a
comparison of effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals
separately for alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use.=20
Confidence intervals around the difference between the
mean effect sizes are shown in Exhibit 7.9. The D.A.R.E.
mean effect sizes for alcohol and marijuana are
significantly smaller than the effect sizes for
noninteractive programs, while the mean effect size for
tobacco isExhibit 7.8 Weighted Mean Effect Size, by Drug, for
D.A.R.E. and Other Drug Use Prevention
Programs
Exhibit 7.9 Difference Between Mean Effect Sizes (and
95% Confidence Interval), by Drug, for
D.A.R.E. and Other Drug Use=20
Prevention Programs
__ __ Favors =20
__ __ Favors
Drug |ESD-ESNI| 95% C.I. D.A.R.E. =20
|ESD-ESI| 95% C.I. D.A.R.E.
Alcohol 0.14 .05-.24* No 0.13
.05-.21* No
Tobacco 0.11 .02-.20* Yes 0.10
.03-.18* No
Marijuana 0.16 .04-.29* No 0.12
.01-.23* No
__ __
Note: ESD =3D weighted mean effect size for D.A.R.E.;
ESNI =3D weighted mean effect size for
__
noninteractive programs; ESI =3D weighted mean effect
size for interactive programs; || indicates
absolute value. Confidence intervals that include
zero are not statistically significant; * =3D
statistically significant.
significantly larger. The D.A.R.E. effect sizes for all
three substances are significantly smaller than the
comparable effect sizes for interactive programs.
A comparison of D.A.R.E. effect sizes with effect
sizes of noninteractive and interactive drug use
prevention programs for fifth and sixth graders reviewed
by Tobler suggests that D.A.R.E. has been more effective
in influencing knowledge, attitudes, and skills outcomes
than noninteractive programs, although only the knowledge
difference is statistically significant. D.A.R.E. has
been less effective, however, than interactive programs
across all outcome measures, most prominently for social
skills and drug use. The only difference in effect size
means between D.A.R.E. and interactive programs that was
not statistically significant was for knowledge. For
drug use, the average effect size for interactive
programs was three times greater than the average
D.A.R.E. effect size; for social skills, four times
greater than D.A.R.E.; and for attitudes, three times
greater. These findings suggest that greater
effectiveness is possible with school-based drug use
prevention programs for fifth- and sixth-grade pupils
than is achieved by the original D.A.R.E. core
curriculum.
Methodological Considerations
Several methodological considerations relating to
the evaluations included in our review and to the
approach we used in conducting our review bear on the
interpretation of the results.
Fundamental considerations are whether the D.A.R.E.
evaluations selected for review are methodologically
strong and are sufficient in number. As is appropriate
for meta-analysis, we used stated and objective criteria
to select D.A.R.E. evaluations for review. Because the
evaluations we selected had a comparison group,
administered both pretests and posttests, used
quantifiable outcome measures, and made statistical
adjustments for pretest differences on outcome measures,
we can be reasonably confident in their findings.
Eight evaluations were included in the review; this
is not a large number compared with the vast number of
sites where D.A.R.E. has been implemented. It far
exceeds, however, the number of evaluations of any other
widely available drug use prevention program. Most
prevention programs developed and evaluated by
researchers have been much less widely implemented, and
have received less scrutiny, than D.A.R.E. More
important, however, when considering the adequacy of the
number of studies, are the uniformity of D.A.R.E.'s
curriculum content and method of delivery across
implementation sites, and the consistent results found
across geographically heterogeneous studies. This
uniformity and consistency suggest that a sufficient
number of evaluations were identified for assessment of
the original core curriculum's immediate effects. Even
so, we would have preferred a full set of eight effect
sizes for each outcome.
The immediate effect sizes for the D.A.R.E. studies
may have been attenuated compared with the comparison
drug use prevention programs because the control groups
were not pure "no treatment" groups. As documented by
Tobler (1986, in press, 1994), effect sizes are lower
when the control group receives some sort of drug
education. Information generally was lacking from the
D.A.R.E. evaluations on alternative interventions
received by the control groups, but it is likely that
most control groups received some drug education because
the studies occurred after the passage of the 1986 DFSCA.=20
However, approximately half (54%) of the comparison
programs used for Tobler's study also were conducted
between 1986 and 1990, suggesting that they also may
suffer from the same effect. Nevertheless, the lower
effect sizes of the D.A.R.E. programs compared with the
interactive programs in Tobler's study could be due in
part to the likelihood that the control groups for the
D.A.R.E. studies received a stronger intervention than
did the control groups in the studies reviewed by Tobler.
Most of the drug use prevention programs evaluated
by Tobler are smaller-scale university research-based
evaluation studies, while D.A.R.E. is a widely available
curriculum. In both cases, however, the interventions
were implemented by service providers and the evaluations
were conducted by researchers. Even so, the intensity of
efforts devoted to interventions conducted for evaluation
research may be greater, the implementation conditions
more optimal, and the possibility for scrutiny and
control greater than would be the case for a program that
is widely disseminated. Some diminished effectiveness
may be inevitable once programs are implemented under
real-world conditions. This could be an important factor
in explaining some of the differences in effect sizes
between D.A.R.E. and the comparison programs.
Differences in the studies selected for our
D.A.R.E. review and selected by Tobler could also
contribute to the relative differences in effect sizes
between these programs. The differences include the
exclusion of studies by Tobler that did not evaluate drug
use behavior and the inclusion of outcomes from later
posttests. In addition, some sixth graders in the
programs reviewed by Tobler were in middle rather than
elementary school, and some programs focused on a single
drug, such as tobacco, rather than multiple drugs as is
the case with D.A.R.E. It is possible that these
differences could decrease, increase, or not change the
relative differences in effect sizes. For example,
differences might have been less if programs focused on a
single substance were not included in Tobler's meta-
analysis. It is possible that single substance programs
have greater impact on use of that substance than generic
drug education programs, although study of this
possibility is limited and findings are mixed (Tobler,
1994). On the other hand, differences might have been
greater had Tobler excluded results from posttests beyond
immediate follow-up because curriculum effects tend to
decay rather than increase with time (Ellickson, Bell, &
McGuigan, 1993; Murray, Pirie, Luepker, & Pallonen,
1989). The limited number of programs precluded
assessment of these possibilities, as well as whether
program effects differ, and in what direction, for sixth
graders in elementary versus middle school.
Finally, it is possible that our results might have
differed if there had been sufficient numbers of D.A.R.E.
evaluations and studies in Tobler's analysis to analyze
effect sizes while controlling the effects of other
factors. In addition to the differences between the
D.A.R.E. and Tobler studies described above, it is
possible that other factors may have varied across the
intervention programs and associated evaluation studies
that contributed to the observed differences in effect
sizes. For example, substantial variation in
characteristics of the students (e.g., in
race/ethnicity), features of the interventions (e.g.,
variations in program intensity), and features of the
research design (e.g., experimental versus quasi-
experimental design) could have contributed to the
differences in program effects. In other words, some of
the differences in effect sizes observed between the
D.A.R.E. studies and Tobler's studies could have been due
to other factors than the type of program.=20
Unfortunately, these possibilities could not be tested
because of the small number of studies. Further testing
is warranted when larger samples of D.A.R.E. and
comparison studies are available.
Summary
From a pool of 18 quantitative D.A.R.E. evaluation
studies identified by this review, eight met specified
methodological criteria and were selected for further
review. Each of these eight evaluations had a control
group, administered both pretests and posttests, used
quantifiable outcome measures, and made statistical
adjustments for pretest differences on outcome measures.=20
Effect sizes for these studies at immediate posttest,
both individually by study and averaged across studies,
showed that the original D.A.R.E. core curriculum had
strong and statistically significant effects on knowledge
about drugs. The curriculum also had a positive and
significant impact on social skills. The core curriculum
had smaller, although statistically significant, effects
on attitudes about drug use, attitude toward the police,
and self-esteem. The curriculum had limited immediate
effects on use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana.=20
Although the effect on tobacco use was small, it was
statistically significant.
Weighted mean effect sizes were used to compare
D.A.R.E. with other school-based drug use prevention
programs targeted at same-age youth. The original
D.A.R.E. core curriculum compared favorably with
noninteractive drug use prevention programs, which
emphasize intrapersonal factors and use more traditional
teaching methods. The original core curriculum compared
less favorably, however, with interactive drug use
prevention programs. Interactive drug use prevention
programs, which emphasize interpersonal skills and an
interactive teaching style, have been shown to be the
most successful drug use prevention programs (Tobler, in
press, 1994).
Several methodological considerations should be
noted in interpreting the results of this review. These
include the number of methodologically rigorous D.A.R.E.
studies in our review; the purity of the control groups
in the D.A.R.E. evaluations compared with those in the
comparison programs; and the relative impacts of
commercial programs such as D.A.R.E. and smaller scale
research-based interventions; and the small number of
D.A.R.E. and comparison studies available for assessing
other potential explanations for differences in program
effectiveness.
The findings of the D.A.R.E. outcome assessment are
discussed fully in Chapter 8.
CHAPTER 8
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In preceding chapters, we presented data acquired
from our implementation and outcome assessments of
D.A.R.E. Information about D.A.R.E.'s operations,
prevalence, and effectiveness was collected from a
variety of sources. Given the complex nature of the
D.A.R.E. organization, it is not surprising that the
findings are voluminous. Nor is it surprising that
although some findings attest to the strengths and
robustness of D.A.R.E., others indicate limitations.=20
This final chapter presents a discussion of these
findings. In the course of this discussion, we highlight
the key findings and, where appropriate, make
recommendations for programmatic changes and additional
research. =20
This chapter is organized into three sections.=20
Highlights from the implementation assessment are
presented in the first section, followed by key findings
from the outcome assessment. To facilitate a review of
the study's many and sometimes disparate findings, our
discussion is organized by some of the questions that
guided these study components. In the final section, we
attempt to synthesize the most important findings and
present overall conclusions derived from the study.
Implementation Assessment
As discussed in Chapter 1, we conducted an
implementation assessment of D.A.R.E. that had two
primary objectives. These were, first, to conduct an
assessment of the organizational structure and operation
of representative D.A.R.E. programs nationwide to learn
what factors contribute to the effective implementation
of D.A.R.E. programs nationwide and, second, to determine
how D.A.R.E. is tailored to meet the needs of specific
populations.
To address these issues, we collected data from
sources at all levels of the multi-layered D.A.R.E.
institution. We presented information concerning
operations at the national and regional level of D.A.R.E.
in Chapter 3, State-level operations in Chapter 4, and
local-level operations in Chapters 5 and 6. We obtained
information from interviews with Glenn Levant of D.A.R.E.
America and with coordinators and/or educational advisors
from each of the five Regional Training Centers (RTCs), a
review of available BJA documents, a survey of the State
D.A.R.E. coordinators, a survey of a nationally
representative sample of school district drug prevention
coordinators, and site visits to four purposively
selected schools (two with D.A.R.E. and two without).
How extensively is D.A.R.E. implemented nationwide, and
how does D.A.R.E.'s
prevalence compare with that of other curricula?
One of the most important findings of this study
was the extraordinary prevalence of D.A.R.E. In the
1991-1992 school year, 44 of the 50 States had State
coordinators fortheir D.A.R.E. programs. Based on our sample of school
districts, we estimate that over half the districts in
the country implemented at least one of the D.A.R.E.
curricula in one or more of their schools. In
comparison, the two other most prevalent prevention
programs, Quest and Here's Looking at You (HLY), were
used in at least one school in about 27% and 24% of the
districts, respectively.
Another important finding is that the demand for
D.A.R.E. over the next 5 years is going to increase
substantially. Over 40% of the districts with D.A.R.E.
planned to expand its use. Of those districts without
D.A.R.E., 21% expressed the intention to institute it,
and 20% reported that they were as yet undecided about
using D.A.R.E.
Slightly over half of all school districts
implemented D.A.R.E.'s core curriculum, which is targeted
at 5th- and 6th-grade pupils; around 17% implemented the
K-4 curriculum, 11% the junior high school curriculum,
and 3% the senior high curriculum. Around 12% of the
school districts used Quest at the elementary level, 22%
at the middle/junior high school level, and 3% at the
senior high school level. Around 22% of the school
districts used HLY at the elementary level, 14% at the
middle/junior high school level, and 9% at the senior
high level. =20
Does the extent of D.A.R.E. implementation vary by
demographic
characteristics of school districts, such as geographic
region, urbanicity, SES,
and minority status? How does D.A.R.E. compare with
other curricula in this
regard?
The Midwest region had the highest percentage of
districts using D.A.R.E. (59.9%) , followed by the
Southeast (56.8%), East (55.8%), West (48.8%), and
Southwest (37.1%). Use of Quest was highest in the
Midwest region (35.8%) and use of HLY was highest in the
East (46.4%). Use of all three prevention programs was
lowest in the Southwest region. The lower rates of
program use in the Southwest can probably be largely
attributed to its rural nature, and thus the greater
difficulties in fielding D.A.R.E. officers to
geographically dispersed schools.
There were no statistically significant differences
in the use of D.A.R.E., Quest, or HLY by either the
minority status or SES of the school districts.=20
Urban/suburban school districts were, however,
significantly more likely to use D.A.R.E. and HLY than
rural districts. Further, large districts were
significantly more likely than small districts to use
D.A.R.E. We suspect that these findings may be
attributed to the relatively greater resources available
to urban and large law enforcement agencies. In the case
of D.A.R.E., these agencies may be at greater liberty to
free up their officers' time to teach D.A.R.E.
It is difficult to determine what adjustments might
make D.A.R.E. more accessible to rural and small school
districts. We believe that ways of improving access to
D.A.R.E. in rural and small districts should be examined.=20
For example, methods for distributing DFSCA funds to
favor rural and small school districts instead of
distribution solely on a per capita basis could be
explored. =20
How well integrated is D.A.R.E. with other drug use
prevention programs
offered in schools?
Neither D.A.R.E. nor any other drug prevention
program can or should stand alone in a school district;
instead, such programs should be integrated into a
comprehensive curriculum that is developmentally
appropriate and implemented at every grade level.=20
Indeed, all school districts receiving DFSCA funds must
implement a comprehensive K-12 drug prevention program.=20
Even were a school district to implement all four of
D.A.R.E.'s student curricula, additional drug prevention
programming would still be required in the grades to
which D.A.R.E. was not directed. Our survey showed that
only 2% of the school districts used only D.A.R.E. and no
other drug prevention program. Almost two-thirds of the
school district coordinators with D.A.R.E. reported that
the program was "very well" integrated with other
prevention programs.
How does D.A.R.E. compare with other alcohol and other
drug (AOD) programs
in terms of support and satisfaction for the programs?
The school district drug prevention coordinators
indicated that support for D.A.R.E. is very strong not
only among students and school staff=FEwhose support the
coordinators rated as very high=FEbut also among parents
and the community. These ratings were also markedly
higher than those for other AOD programs.=20
The responses of the coordinators also indicated
the high regard in which the D.A.R.E. curricula are held.=20
Two-thirds of the school district coordinators with
D.A.R.E. rated the curricula, as well as how it is
taught, as "very satisfactory"; over three-quarters gave
the same rating to how students receive it. This
endorsement is all the more vivid when contrasted with
coordinators' ratings of other AOD prevention programs;
only one-third of coordinators with other AOD programs
rated these programs as highly. =20
A close examination of these findings reveals that
coordinators in districts with a high percentage of
minority students were more likely to rate students'
receptivity to D.A.R.E. as very high than those in
districts serving predominantly white students. This
finding is not confounded by the district's urbanicity or
SES because comparisons between coordinators from these
pairs of districts (i.e., by high and low SES and by
rural and urban/surburban) were not statistically
significant. =20
Of even greater importance are the satisfaction
ratings that the prevention coordinators gave to
D.A.R.E.'s effects on students. Almost two-thirds of the
coordinators with D.A.R.E. indicated that they were very
satisfied with D.A.R.E.'s effects; less than one-quarter
of those with other AOD programs reported that they were
very satisfied with the effects of these AOD programs.=20
Are D.A.R.E. and other drug prevention programs adapted
to a community's
particular needs?
D.A.R.E. is distinguished by the integrity and
consistency with which its curricula are administered.=20
During their training, D.A.R.E. officers are instructed
not to deviate in any substantive fashion from the
curriculum. The D.A.R.E. core curriculum allows only one
modification--a gang activity lesson that can be added in
schools where gangs are perceived to be a problem.
Over two-fifths of the coordinators with D.A.R.E.
and over half of the coordinators with other AOD programs
reported that the curriculum had been adapted at least to
some degree, however modest. The most frequently
mentioned reason for adaptation of both D.A.R.E. and
other AOD programs was drug availability at their
schools. Coordinators with D.A.R.E. provided some hints
as to the types of topics introduced, which included
discussing specific locally prevalent drugs, drug abuse
at home, and local drug arrests. During the site visit
to the urban school district, we learned that some police
officers incorporate their own street experiences into
their lessons. The second and third most frequently
mentioned reasons for adaptation for D.A.R.E. and other
AOD programs were student/community poverty and
racial/ethnic composition.
Although we recognize that some tailoring of
D.A.R.E. to the needs of a particular audience may be
appropriate, we encourage fidelity to the curricula and
careful monitoring of officer presentation. We strongly
suggest that current procedures of notifying the D.A.R.E.
America RTC Advisory Board curriculum committee of
limitations in the curricula and of substantive
modifications of the curricula originating from that
agency be continued. Allowing officers to modify the
program at will would quickly result in disintegration of
the curriculum and the program.
To what extent are classroom teachers and other community
members or
agencies involved in D.A.R.E.?
The original core curriculum, which was in use when
the survey was conducted, encouraged classroom teachers
to remain in the classroom and to communicate D.A.R.E.'s
objectives to students. However, teachers played little
active part in the actual instruction. Teachers and
D.A.R.E. officers together teach the junior and senior
high curricula; at the senior high level, they are even
trained together. According to the drug prevention
coordinators, teachers in almost 90% of the districts
remained in the classroom during D.A.R.E. lessons, and in
84% teachers were reported as "actively involved" in
D.A.R.E. The revised core curriculum encourages
classroom teachers to take a more active role.
D.A.R.E. officers already are expected to meet for
an hour or so with the classroom teachers in a brief,
structured orientation and discussion. To the extent
that time and resources permit, we encourage the
co-training of teachers and officers at every curricular
level because we believe that such training would enhance
effective communication and coordination between the two.=20
=20
One of D.A.R.E.'s strengths is the active
involvement of individuals in D.A.R.E., both within and
outside of the school. Half of the prevention
coordinators reported that school staff, other than
classroom teachers, were actively involved in D.A.R.E.,
and almost one-quarter reported that civic groups were
actively involved. This level of involvement surely
makes a major contribution to the high level of
enthusiasm that D.A.R.E. generates. We note that only a
relatively few coordinators reported that "youth groups"
were involved in D.A.R.E. We recommend increasing the
involvement of both youth and church groups as a way to
reinforce D.A.R.E.'s message and to help establish
anti-drug use norms throughout the school and community.=20
About half of the coordinators reported that
parents were actively involved in D.A.R.E. Our site
visits, however, suggested that parents tend to be rather
detached. D.A.R.E.'s efforts to reach out to parents
through the parent curriculum are commendable and, we
hope, will prove successful. Many such efforts in the
past have proved futile because the parents who are most
in need of educational intervention are also the most
difficult to reach and most resistant to attending
meetings. One additional method to involve parents more
directly in D.A.R.E. is to assign specific parent-child
homework exercises that, at the very least, will open
vital lines of communication between parent and child
concerning drug use. A second method that could
supplement the D.A.R.E. parent curriculum would be to
develop a freestanding, 1-hour video. This video could
be used to provide an introduction to D.A.R.E. and a
synopsis of the D.A.R.E. curriculum, as to well as
provide information about how to effectively reinforce
D.A.R.E.'s message. It might, for instance, include
advice about how to talk to youth about drugs and stress
the importance of serving as a model for a drug-free
life. We, thus, recommend that D.A.R.E. consider and
weigh the relative merits of a variety of strategies
designed to reach parents who may not respond to the
D.A.R.E. parent curriculum.
What role, if any, do D.A.R.E. officers have in treatment
referral for students
who already have substance abuse problems?
An additional role that D.A.R.E. officers can
undertake is to serve as members of student assistance
program (SAP) teams. Of the school districts that had
both SAPs and D.A.R.E., 37% had D.A.R.E. officers who had
been trained to participate in the district's SAP. Most
of the coordinators rated D.A.R.E. officers as highly as
they did guidance counselors (and much higher than
teachers) in effectiveness in implementing SAPs. We
recommend that D.A.R.E. officers become familiar with
SAPs in their schools and, when feasible, become involved
in these programs. We also recommend that the D.A.R.E.
America RTC Advisory Board establish procedures for
officers to follow when their work with SAPs comes in
conflict with their duties as a police officer, so that
the confidentiality of youth and their parents who have
drug problems may be maintained.
How is D.A.R.E. managed at the national, regional, and
State level, and what
are the major responsibilities of the governing bodies?
At the national level, all D.A.R.E. operations are
overseen by D.A.R.E. America, a nonprofit organization
that bears ultimate responsibility for promoting,
monitoring, and overseeing the program. In this
capacity, D.A.R.E. America is assisted by a number of
regional and State organizations. These include five
RTCs that constitute the D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory
Board and make recommendations to D.A.R.E. America
concerning the accreditation of State-level training
centers and monitor the fidelity with which the D.A.R.E.
curriculum is taught at the local level. Educational
specialists representing the RTCs, together with staff
from the Los Angeles United School District (LAUSD) and
assisted by a Scientific Advisory Committee, also make
recommendations to D.A.R.E. America concerning
modifications to the various D.A.R.E. curricula.
State-level D.A.R.E. entities include chartered
nonprofit D.A.R.E. organizations designed to support the
program in that State; such organizations currently exist
in over one-third of the States, and it is expected that
they will be chartered in all 50. In those States that
currently lack such an organization, there is typically a
State employee designated as a D.A.R.E. coordinator. In
addition, 42 States currently have developed State
Training Centers (STCs), the purpose of which is to
conduct training for prospective D.A.R.E. officers.
Updating and improving curricular materials and
teaching strategies is a difficult task. We commend
D.A.R.E. America for convening a Scientific Advisory
Committee, and for choosing Dr. Kleber as committee
chair. It is our understanding that the committee's
charge is an expansive one and includes reviewing current
and ongoing D.A.R.E. evaluations, and integrating
relevant findings from other evaluations of school-based
drug prevention programs. We recognize the constraints
that D.A.R.E. faces in updating the curricula, given the
considerable costs required to retrain D.A.R.E. officers
appropriately. Hence, it is probably not feasible to
make substantive changes to the curricula more frequently
than once every 5 years, at a minimum.
Another source of expertise that should be tapped
as input for curricular changes is the U.S. Department of
Education. Various D.A.R.E. materials encourage the
establishment of strong ties between D.A.R.E. and
education at both the State and local levels. At the
national level, an educational consultant from each of
the five RTCs make suggestions concerning the curricula.=20
However, it is our understanding that this group lacks
representation from a national-level education agency.=20
We thus recommend thatthe D.A.R.E. America request an appropriate member of=
the
U.S. Department of Education to serve as an ex officio
member, who should represent the department's extensive
drug prevention program. Such an individual would be
able to provide D.A.R.E. America with guidance as to how
effectively to integrate D.A.R.E. into the Department of
Education's comprehensive, K-12 drug prevention strategy.=20
Furthermore, the inclusion of a U.S. Department of
Education staff member seems particularly appropriate as
long as D.A.R.E. continues to be mentioned as a specific
line item on the DFSCA budget. =20
State coordinators informed us that over one-third
of the States had policy advisory boards (PABs), a
proportion that may have increased in the 2 years since
our survey. Because PABs can be instrumental in
developing and maintaining communications and positive
relationships among the various agencies involved in
D.A.R.E., we recommend that all States establish such
boards.
The great majority of the PABs comprise
representatives of both State and local law enforcement
and education. Other key individuals from the community
who have a stake in the success of D.A.R.E. or who could
provide different and valuable perspectives on D.A.R.E.
were less well represented. These include parents,
members of community-based organizations, citizens-at-
large, members of associations of educators, and business
representatives. The latter could be particularly
helpful in securing resources for D.A.R.E. We thus
recommend that State-level PABs systematically examine
their representation and seek ways to reach out to new
and potentially useful constituencies by expanding their
membership.
Because of the unique partnership between D.A.R.E.
and education, it is critical that State-level D.A.R.E.
operations have strong ties to education at the State
level. Around one-third of the State D.A.R.E.
coordinators reported a great deal of communication with
the State Department of Education, and another 50%
reported having at least some communication. We also
note that one State D.A.R.E. coordinator was affiliated
with a State Department of Education, and that three PABs
were chaired by staff members from State or local
education departments. The need to improve communication
with their State's education departments was mentioned by
several State D.A.R.E. coordinators.
One way to improve communication between D.A.R.E.
and education is for State D.A.R.E. programs to retain
educational consultants to act as liaisons. Two-thirds
of the State coordinators reported employing such a
consultant, and almost all of the States without
educational consultants considered acquiring a full-time
educational consultant to be priority. We recommend that
all State D.A.R.E. programs secure educational
consultants.
In a few States, the State D.A.R.E. programs
employed their own educational consultants. In most
States, however, educational consultants were employed by
education departments. We believe the liaison between
law enforcement and education will be most effective if
the consultants are based in the State Departments of
Education. Ideally, to ensure a maximum level of
coordination both with the State Departments of Education
as a whole and with their drug-free schools program in
particular, these consultants should be members of the
departments' alcohol and drug prevention offices.=20
Certainly, regardless of whether the education
consultants are employed by education or directly by the
State D.A.R.E. program, they should seek all appropriate
means to establish meaningful affiliations with State-
level educational agencies. By the same token, education
agencies should be apprised of=FEand take seriously=FEtheir
responsibility to include D.A.R.E. representatives in
planning statewide drug prevention activities. To be
truly effective, education and law enforcement need to
work together in a partnership at the national and State
levels as well as at the local level.
Educational consultants' roles may vary, but
besides providing a "bridge" between the two
organizations, the consultants should help ensure that
D.A.R.E.'s multiple curricula fit into a comprehensive,
developmentally appropriate drug prevention program.=20
Several coordinators mentioned that consultants could
assist with program evaluation and with monitoring
officer performance in the classroom. It may be
appropriate to consider expanding the roles of
educational consultants further, perhaps to provide
assistance in these areas. =20
How is D.A.R.E. managed at the local level?
At the local level, the majority of the D.A.R.E.
programs were managed by a single law enforcement agency,
primarily the sheriff's or city/town police department.=20
Officer selection and classroom activities was most
frequently mentioned as the responsibility of the police
department, selection of D.A.R.E. classrooms was the
responsibility of the school administration and staff,
and responsibility for selection of D.A.R.E. schools was
shared by the police department, school administration
and staff, and the school superintendent.=20
In a number of places throughout this report, we
have mentioned that D.A.R.E. is a collaborative venture
between a local school district and a law enforcement
agency, and we have emphasized the importance of
developing a positive relationship between the two from
the outset. One way to foster this relationship at the
local level is with written agreements that clearly state
the roles and responsibilities of each. Less than half
of the drug prevention coordinators mentioned that their
districts had such an agreement. We recognize that some
of the coordinators responding to our survey may simply
not have known that a written agreement existed,
particularly if they were new in their position and the
agreement had been written before they were employed. We
recommend that the law enforcement agencies without such
agreements secure them. Furthermore, we recommend that
the agreements be reviewed with school administration/
staff at least every other year. This biennial review
would ensure that all parties are aware of their
responsibilities and could also serve as forums to
discuss issues relating to D.A.R.E.'s implementation and
to develop additional ways in which the D.A.R.E. officer
can serve the schools. They could also provide
opportunities for the school district to recognize the
officer's contribution.
Another way to engender a positive collaboration
between law enforcement and education is by developing
close liaisons between the D.A.R.E. officer and classroom
teacher. Such liaisons have obvious benefits, including
providing a role model for new officers, sharing the
burden of difficult classes or difficult students, and
increasing the likelihood that the teacher will reinforce
the D.A.R.E. message in other areas of instruction. We
learned from the drug prevention coordinators' survey
that classroom teachers in almost three-quarters of the
school districts with D.A.R.E. now integrate the D.A.R.E.
message into their other activities in the classroom, so
that the program has a strong foundation in this area on
which to build. We thus recommend that D.A.R.E. officers
spend more time consulting with classroom teachers, both
formally at the beginning of the semester and informally
as the semester progresses. Topics for conversation
should include both the content of the D.A.R.E.
curriculum and how teachers can effectively articulate an
anti-drug message.
What funding mechanisms are at the national/regional,
State, and local levels?
At the national/regional level, funding is received
primarily from BJA. The RTC coordinators mentioned the
need to find permanent funding sources that will
supplement Federal support and make D.A.R.E. less
vulnerable to the vicissitudes of such funding. One
solution to this issue is to establish or strengthen
reliance on State or local support, particularly the
latter. =20
The majority of State D.A.R.E. programs receive
funding from BJA grants; around one-fourth of the States
received funding from governors' grants, grants from
other State agencies, and legislative funds. Four States
reported that they received no funding for their State-
level operations, and around one-third mentioned that
maintaining and increasing their funding or locating new
funding sources were among the most significant issues
facing them. If they are to discharge multiple
responsibilities for developing and managing their
D.A.R.E. programs successfully, the States must have
sufficient support. We recommend that the D.A.R.E.
America RTC Advisory Board explore further the various
sources of support used by the State programs, and how
these have been obtained, and then provide technical
assistance to those States that currently operate with
either no funding or whose funding is precariously low.=20
D.A.R.E. America could perhaps play a role in assisting
the development and maintenance of the STCs by providing
modest grant programs to assist States. =20
At the local level, the cost of assigning a police
officer to deliver D.A.R.E. is assumed by the local city
or county law enforcement agency, and thus, ultimately,
by the community. Only a small minority of prevention
coordinators (one in six) indicated that program costs
were a barrier to implementation. D.A.R.E. America
assumes the costs of program curriculum materials. The
coordinators also informed us that primary support for
D.A.R.E. came from law enforcement, but that DFSCA funds
also played a major role in supporting D.A.R.E., as did
(to a lesser extent) school district funds. We note that
non-D.A.R.E. drug prevention programs appear much more
dependent on DFSCA funds than does D.A.R.E. Given
projected cuts in the DFSCA budget, which we understand
may amount to as much as 25% in the near future,
D.A.R.E.'s relative lack of reliance on DFSCA funds will
prove beneficial. We also note that D.A.R.E. is
relatively less dependent on local funds than are non-
D.A.R.E. programs, which also decreases D.A.R.E.'s
vulnerability to cuts as competing demands increase ever
tighter budgets.
How adequately does D.A.R.E. training meet the needs of
an expanding and changing program?
As noted earlier, the core curriculum has recently
been revised, and the new version is currently being
implemented. Because of D.A.R.E.'s magnitude, curricular
changes are far-reaching and, thus, expensive and time-
consuming to implement. Therefore, modifications to any
of the D.A.R.E. curricula must necessarily be weighed
against the substantial costs associated with updating
and distributing material, as well as retraining D.A.R.E.
officers. Nevertheless, modifications to the curricula
will need to be made periodically if D.A.R.E. is to
remain on the "cutting edge" of drug prevention
programming.=20
To reduce the burden on D.A.R.E. of keeping
officers up-to-date with modifications to the curriculum,
the RTCs should explore novel means to provide officers
with curriculum and teaching updates and to provide
formal in-service training on a periodic basis. One in-
service training method that should be considered is the
use of the Law Enforcement Television Network (LETN).=20
Because a substantial and growing number of police and
sheriffs' departments are linked to this network, it
could be an effective and cost-efficient means of
providing high-quality in-service programming to D.A.R.E.
officers around the country. Ideally, such a system
should be interactive to allow for discussions between
officers and trainers. Another less costly and more
accessible method that could be explored is the use of
videotaped programs to explain and demonstrate changes to
curricula and teaching methods. Still another
alternative is to use an on-line computer billboard to
distribute the latest D.A.R.E. information. This method
could be made available at very low cost to all police
departments with computers and modems. We learned from
the January 1992 D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board
minutes that such a system was being developed by
D.A.R.E. America and indeed may now be in place.
In-service training should clearly not be
restricted to teaching D.A.R.E. officers how to implement
modifications to existing curricula. Such training could
also serve to increase the competence of newly minted
officers over their first semester. Regardless of how
powerful and effective the initial 80-hour introduction
to D.A.R.E. is, D.A.R.E. officers are bound to forget
some of what they have been taught when, 3 months later,
they are teaching one of the final D.A.R.E. lessons for
the first time. One potentially useful device would be
to develop and distribute taped versions of an expert
D.A.R.E. officer delivering the curriculum to real
classrooms, which new officers could be encouraged to
review immediately prior to the first time they teach the
lesson. Such tapes could serve several purposes: to
reinforce the content of what should be taught, to model
how the lesson should be taught, and to teach classroom
management techniques. Each videotape might highlight
dealing with a special problem (e.g., how to generate a
discussion when students tend to be silent; how to draw
out a shy or largely silent child; and how to respond
when a child discloses drug use by a peer, friend, or
family member). Each of these tapes should be relatively
short (or they will not be viewed) but could be followed
by a summary of the key points the officer should keep in
mind in teaching the next lesson. The tapes would also
help ensure that a primary goal of D.A.R.E. be reached--
that lessons be taught uniformly.
Another training issue confronting the RTCs is the
development and maintenance of STCs. As D.A.R.E.
continues to grow=FEand our study has demonstrated that
demand for D.A.R.E. shows no signs of abatement=FEthe RTCs
will become increasingly challenged to meet the training
and monitoring needs of their constituent States. The
development and maintenance of STCs is critical because
the RTCs cannot assume the multiple burdens of training,
mentoring, and monitoring D.A.R.E. officers, as well as
assisting local law enforcement in developing and
maintaining effective ties with school districts. RTC
coordinators indicated that training and monitoring
officers already strain the capacities of the RTCs. We
recommend that sufficient funding be appropriated to
establish and/or maintain an STC in every State. =20
D.A.R.E. officers are not the only D.A.R.E. staff
in need of ongoing training and technical assistance;
several RTC coordinators indicated that many of the State
D.A.R.E. coordinators have a similar need. RTC
coordinators also indicated that State coordinators need
support in developing lines of communication and
authority with local-level law enforcement agencies and
school districts, many of which have been operating with
a fair degree of autonomy or have been used to dealing
directly with the RTCs. It might be helpful if the RTCs
brought together their constituent State coordinators at
least yearly to discover and discuss common needs and
concerns and provide technical assistance to the
coordinators as a group as appropriate. However, the
need will still exist for resources to support individual
consultation between the RTCs and their respective State
coordinators.
As we mentioned earlier, the demand for D.A.R.E. in
school districts that currently lack the program is
likely to be exacerbated by the lack of available
D.A.R.E. officers. Fully 60% of the school districts
indicated that they want either to begin or increase
their use of D.A.R.E. Some of the RTC staff indicated
training may not be able to keep up with the demand for
D.A.R.E. Almost 15% of the drug prevention coordinators
identified lack of sufficient officers as a barrier to
implementing D.A.R.E. This problem was illustrated in
the urban D.A.R.E. school district we visited, where lack
of available officers led to dissatisfaction on the part
of school officials as officers were moved from one
school to another to accommodate demand. Clearly, those
communities in which D.A.R.E. is a high priority but
which lack sufficient D.A.R.E. instructors should provide
greater support to their law enforcement agencies to
recruit and train additional officers. Further, the
surprisingly high prevalence of the relatively new junior
and high school D.A.R.E. curricula suggests that each
community should examine the extent of the perceived need
for each D.A.R.E. curriculum and develop a long-range
plan to identify and fund additional officers as
necessary.
Any substantive curricular changes affecting what,
and especially how, D.A.R.E. officers teach, should be
accompanied by a determined effort to ensure that these
changes are fully reflected in officer behavior in the
classroom. The RTC coordinators clearly stressed the
need for increasing officer monitoring in the field as
well. Monitoring officers, however, is only part of the
task. Adequate resources should also be made available
to allow mentors to work closely with officers whose
performance needs improvement.
Outcome Assessment
The D.A.R.E. outcome assessment, described in
Chapter 7, had four primary objectives. These were
(a) to identify prior studies of D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness
as a drug use prevention program, (b) to assess the
quality and adequacy of the methodologies of these
studies, (c) to summarize D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness based
on this research, and (d) to compare D.A.R.E.'s
effectiveness with that of other school-based drug use
prevention programs.
We focused our assessment on the original D.A.R.E.
core curriculum, which is the heart of the D.A.R.E.
program. We did not include the junior high school,
senior high school, and other D.A.R.E. curricula in the
outcome assessment because they are more recent, not as
prevalent, and generally have yet to be evaluated.=20
Future evaluation efforts should focus on these
curricula, as well as on the revised core curriculum
implemented in September 1994.
Questions that guided the outcome assessment are
discussed in this section.
What were the scope, reliability, and technical quality
of the D.A.R.E.
assessments?
A number of States and smaller localities have been
actively involved in assessing the D.A.R.E. core
curriculum since 1983, when the program was initiated in
Los Angeles. By using multiple sources to identify
studies, we obtained reports of 18 outcome studies in
twelve States and one Canadian province. These studies
collected data from students concerning D.A.R.E.'s
effectiveness in influencing outcomes the curriculum
seeks to change.
We defined a set of methodological criteria to use
in assessing the quality and adequacy of the study
methodologies. The criteria, based on review of the
evaluation methodology literature, were (a) that the
study compared students who received D.A.R.E. to students
in a control or comparison group who did not receive
D.A.R.E.; (b) that outcomes of interest, such as drug
use, were measured both before D.A.R.E. was implemented
and after the program ended; (c) that measures of the
outcomes were constructed so as to ensure reasonable
certainty that they were measured accurately; and
(d) that in the absence of random assignment, the
analysis strategy adjusted for any initial differences on
outcome variables between D.A.R.E. and comparison
students.
Half of the 18 studies met these methodological
criteria; however, one study was not considered further
because the children were tested 1 year later rather than
immediately after the program. That 50% of the studies
were of this technical quality suggests that a high level
of effort has been invested in carefully evaluating
D.A.R.E. Because these studies avoid many of the
problems that commonly undermine evaluation studies,
reasonable confidence can be placed in their findings.=20
Some of the studies exceeded our criteria, for example,
by randomly assigning D.A.R.E. to schools, by analyzing
attrition effects, by statistically adjusting differences
in students' background characteristics, or by using an
analysis strategy appropriate to the research design. We
recommend that these features be incorporated into future
studies.
In assessing the findings of the eight
methodologically rigorous D.A.R.E. studies, it should be
noted that the studies are not a national sample of
representatively selected sites. It is reassuring,
however, that the findings tended to be consistent across
studies, indicating that the conclusions they suggest
about the effectiveness of the D.A.R.E. core curriculum
are reliable.
What gaps in the D.A.R.E. assessments merit attention?
Our review of studies suggested several
methodological issues that should be addressed directly
and critically by future studies. These include the
complete and careful reporting of the research design and
results, contamination of the comparison group, the
appropriateness of the analysis strategy, and the control
and analysis of attrition.
Although most of the studies we reviewed documented
the research procedures and methods, some did not provide
sufficient detail. Thorough documentation is needed for
assessing and interpreting the results; information was
most often lacking in the description of the study
sample. In addition to the exact sample sizes of the
D.A.R.E. and comparison groups, sociodemographic
information such as whether recipients live in urban,
suburban, or rural areas, their racial/ethnic
composition, and their SES, should all be reported. This
information is needed for assessing the degree to which
study results may be generalized. It also can be used to
test whether D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness varies by
characteristics of the sample. For example, is D.A.R.E.
equally effective among inner-city, suburban, and rural
students and among white, African American, and Hispanic
students? Almost none of the studies we reviewed made
these sorts of assessments. Sociodemographic information
also is relevant when making comparisons between studies
(as we did between D.A.R.E. and other school-based drug
use prevention programs) in order to assess the
similarity of the recipients of programs being compared.
An issue related to the completeness of reporting
is the need for reports of research to be accessible to
all those interested in D.A.R.E., including sponsors,
educators, parents, police officers, other researchers,
and concerned citizens. Most of the studies we
identified were not reported in the published literature,
and therefore are not easily accessible. It is vitally
important that reports be made quickly and widely
available. As we have suggested earlier, we recommend
that a library of D.A.R.E. evaluation reports and
associated summaries of key findings be maintained by the
D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board. The extensive
communication channels between local, state, and national
D.A.R.E. entities should facilitate the prompt
identification and dissemination of evaluation studies.
One of the most important methodological issues
raised by our review is the potential contamination of
the control group by exposure to D.A.R.E. or to other
drug use prevention programs. Although none of the
comparison groups in the methodologically rigorous
D.A.R.E. studies was exposed to D.A.R.E. between pretest
and immediate posttest, contamination was an issue for
some studies conducting longer-term evaluations. This
contributed to our inability to evaluate D.A.R.E.'s
effectiveness beyond immediate posttest. Ironically,
contamination is particularly problematic for D.A.R.E.
evaluations because of the rapid dissemination of the
program and because of the various curricula now
prevalent for students at different grade levels. It is
increasingly possible, for example, for a control group
not receiving the D.A.R.E. core curriculum to receive the
junior high school curriculum, effectively reducing its
utility as a control group.
A larger, but more subtle comparison group problem
is that the prevalence of school-based drug use
prevention programs in general makes it virtually
impossible to find a true "no treatment" control group.=20
Hence, when comparing D.A.R.E. to another drug education
program, effectiveness is determined on a comparative
rather than an absolute basis. For example, a finding of
little difference in effectiveness may indicate that both
programs are effective rather than that D.A.R.E. is of
limited effectiveness or both programs are ineffective.=20
None of the studies we reviewed indicated whether the
control group received any drug use prevention
programming, much less provided information about it.=20
Future studies should describe any prevention
interventions being delivered to the comparison group and
discuss the implications for the results.
An increasingly recognized methodological concern
in the evaluation of school-based interventions is the
importance of following an analysis strategy that is
appropriate to the study design (Moskowitz, 1993; Murray
& Hannan, 1990). Only two of the methodologically
rigorous studies addressed this issue in the statistical
analyses. When D.A.R.E. is assigned by schools, which is
usually the case, or by classrooms rather than by
individuals, the analysis strategy must take into account
the correlations among students in the same school or
classroom. This requires performing analyses at the
aggregate level (e.g., through comparison of school or
classroom means) or by statistically correcting for
within-school or within-classroom correlations. Analyses
that do not account for the correlations among subjects
tend to underestimate the variability in outcomes across
schools and therefore overstate the statistical
significance of treatment effects (i.e., the difference
between the D.A.R.E. and control schools). Because
statistical significance is often used as an indicator of
effectiveness, this can artificially inflate the effects
and thus unfairly bias interpretation of the results.
Related to this issue is the need for sufficiently
large samples to provide adequate statistical power for
detecting significant differences between D.A.R.E. and
comparison groups. Most of the D.A.R.E. studies reviewed
had large numbers of students. However, because the
sample of interest, as described above, usually revolves
around schools as opposed to students, it is important
that sample size determinations in future studies be
based on analysis of the number of schools needed in
treatment and control conditions.
The final methodological issue raised by our review
of studies concerns the careful control and analysis of
study attrition. Attrition can affect both the external
and internal validity of the study. Attrition rates were
usually reported in the D.A.R.E. studies selected for
review. However, data on demographic and pretest
differences in drug use and other predictor measures
between those who remained in and those who dropped out
of the study were less frequently reported. Attrition
analyses can reveal whether subjects who were lost to
follow-up disproportionately represent drug users or
those at risk of drug use. When this is the case, it
compromises the external validity of the study by
limiting the population to which the study results may be
generalized. When differential attrition occurs by
experimental condition, for example, such that a larger
proportion of drug users is lost from the intervention
than the control group, the internal validity of the
study is undermined. That is, the extent to which either
positive or negative outcomes can be attributed to the
intervention is limited.
We recommend that all future D.A.R.E. evaluations
not only meet, but also exceed each of the methodological
criteria used for our review by addressing these
methodological issues. Specifically, in addition to
meeting the criteria used for this review, we recommend
that studies report sample demographics, draw a sample
with sufficient statistical power to detect differences
in outcomes, use an analysis strategy appropriate to the
way D.A.R.E. is assigned, minimize attrition, and analyze
differential attrition across treatment groups. In
addition, we strongly recommend the use of an
experimental research design, in which schools are
randomly assigned to either D.A.R.E. or control
conditions. It is probably insufficient to assign
classrooms at random within schools, because the
activities of D.A.R.E. officers outside the classroom may
affect (or "contaminate") other classes. Although there
frequently are difficulties inherent in using an
experimental design, results from experimental studies
always will be subject to fewer questions about validity
than those of quasi-experimental studies. A small set of
the D.A.R.E. evaluations studies we reviewed used an
experimental study design and incorporated other
methodological features into the design. This level of
rigor is needed if future D.A.R.E. evaluation research is
to contribute further to knowledge about D.A.R.E.'s
effectiveness.
What overall assessment of D.A.R.E. do the study findings
suggest?
As described in Chapter 7, we used meta-analytic
techniques to synthesize and assess the findings of eight
methodologically rigorous studies of the original
D.A.R.E. core curriculum. Our approach required
calculating individual study effect sizes for drug use
and other outcomes targeted by the core curriculum and
then averaging effect sizes across studies. Effect sizes
facilitate comparing and summarizing results across
studies because they transform the results of the
studies, which may have been derived from a wide variety
of statistical tests, to a common metric. Hence, in
terms of statistical output, the results of one study are
comparable with those of another study. Furthermore,
effect sizes are a more useful indicator of effectiveness
than comparing whether results are statistically
significant from one study to another. This is because
statistical significance can be influenced by such
factors as sample size and analysis strategy, making
comparisons problematic.
The magnitude of the effect sizes, when considered
both within each study and averaged across studies,
indicated that D.A.R.E. was most effective at immediate
posttest in increasing knowledge about drug use and in
enhancing social skills. The average effect sizes
reported for these outcomes were statistically
significant and larger than for other outcomes. It is
consistent with other meta-analyses for the largest
effect sizes to be associated with knowledge change,
supporting the general observation that knowledge is more
amenable to change than attitudes or behavior. Averaged
across studies, D.A.R.E. also had statistically
significant effects on attitudes about drugs, attitude
toward the police, and self-esteem. The effect sizes
were smaller, however, than for knowledge and social
skills, indicating fewer meaningful changes in these
areas.
The smallest immediate effect sizes were for drug
use (alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana separately and
averaged together), and except for tobacco use, none was
statistically significant. In interpreting the small
magnitude of D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness with respect to
drug use behavior, it is important to note that the
immediate effect sizes may reflect, at least in part, the
relatively low frequency of drug use by the elementary
school pupils targeted by the original core curriculum.=20
The effect sizes probably also reflect the short time
interval from pretest to immediate posttest for behavior
change to occur. D.A.R.E. was more effective at
influencing factors believed to mediate drug use. It is
most noteworthy that D.A.R.E. had positive effects on
social skills because it is widely believed that children
with greater social competencies are more able to resist
social pressures to use drugs. Long-term impact of
D.A.R.E., therefore, may result from D.A.R.E.'s immediate
impact on social skills. As described earlier, few
longer-term longitudinal studies have been conducted, and
some have been compromised by contamination of the
control group. However, based on two experimental
studies for which reliable information 1 and 2 years
after implementation is available, there is no evidence
that D.A.R.E.'s effects are activated when subjects are
older (Clayton et al., 1991b; Ennett et al., 1994). Most
long-term evaluations of drug use prevention programs
have shown that curriculum effects decay rather than
appear or increase with time (Ellickson et al., 1993;
Murray et al., 1989).
Future D.A.R.E. evaluation studies should continue
to assess drug use, attitudes about drug use, social
skills, and attitude toward police. Drug use indicators
should include tobacco (cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco), alcohol (particularly beer, wine, and wine
coolers), and marijuana. In addition, use of inhalants
and any other drugs that are locally prevalent should be
monitored. It is also important to continue to measure
outcomes targeted by the D.A.R.E. curriculum, such as
social skills, that are believed to indirectly influence
drug use. This requires linking outcome measures to
specific objectives addressed by the various lessons of
the curriculum. These data are needed for measuring a
variety of potentially important program effects other
than drug use behavior, and for testing assumptions about
the means by which the D.A.R.E. curriculum influences
drug use.=20
For maximal usefulness, we further recommend that
effect sizes be routinely reported with the study results
to facilitate comparison both to the results of this
meta-analysis and those of future studies. As
demonstrated by this meta-analysis, effect sizes can be
readily calculated from a variety of statistical tests,
so this should not place an undue burden on researchers.
When the results of future D.A.R.E. evaluation
studies become available, they should be carefully
studied and compared with the results of the studies
reviewed here. As we recommended earlier, the D.A.R.E.
America RTC Advisory Board could coordinate periodic
reviews of the evaluations. It is likely that ongoing
review of evaluation results will suggest areas where the
curriculum might need modification.
How well does D.A.R.E. address drug involvement by youth
in general?
The effect sizes discussed above indicate the
extent to which the original D.A.R.E. core curriculum
influenced drug use by youth and other outcomes at
immediate posttest. To put the D.A.R.E. results in
context, we compared D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness with that
of other school-based drug use prevention programs to
determine whether D.A.R.E. had greater, smaller, or
similar effects. Hence, we compared the average D.A.R.E.
effect sizes for drug use, knowledge, attitudes, and
skills to average effect sizes calculated for other
methodologically strong school-based drug use prevention
programs. We restricted the comparison programs to those
for upper elementary school pupils to make the
comparisons most meaningful.
We compared D.A.R.E. to two broad categories of
prevention programs, namely "interactive" and
"noninteractive" programs (Tobler, in press, 1994).=20
These two program categories cover most types of current
school-based prevention efforts described in Chapter 2.=20
Interactive programs generally are the same as the social
competence programs described in that chapter. These
programs represent the most recent advances in drug use
prevention strategies, and emphasize social competencies
and interactive teaching methods. Noninteractive
programs generally include knowledge and affective
programs, also described in Chapter 2. These programs
represent earlier approaches to drug education that
emphasize changing knowledge and attitudes about drug use
through more traditional learning styles. Interestingly,
D.A.R.E. shares similarities with both noninteractive and
interactive programs. The original core curriculum was
developed when prevention efforts were in transition
between noninteractive programs (knowledge and affective
education programs) and the emergence of interactive
programs (these emphasizing social influence).
Average D.A.R.E. immediate effect sizes were
greater, except for drug use, than the comparable average
effect sizes for noninteractive programs. The D.A.R.E.
effect sizes were smaller, however, than the effect sizes
for interactive programs. For drug use, the average
effect size for interactive programs was three times
greater than the average D.A.R.E. effect size; for social
skills, four times greater than for D.A.R.E.; and for
attitudes, three times greater.
Interactive programs have been shown to be the most
promising drug use prevention programs; noninteractive
programs generally have been shown to be less effective
(Botvin, 1990; Bruvold, 1993; Bruvold & Rundall, 1988;
Tobler, 1986, in press, 1994). Because D.A.R.E. shares
features of both interactive and noninteractive programs,
it is perhaps not surprising that the effect sizes we
reported should fall somewhere between.
In Chapter 7, we described several methodological
reasons that could help account for the differences in
effect sizes between the D.A.R.E. studies and the
interactive comparison programs. These included the
possibility that the control groups in the D.A.R.E.
studies were exposed to some sort of alternative drug
education programs, whereas the control groups for the
various interactive studies were not. Another possibil-
ity is that because the interactive programs were
primarily university research-based evaluation studies,
the evaluations--and programs themselves--may have been
more stringently implemented and more closely monitored.=20
Under these conditions, greater effectiveness might be
expected than in real-world conditions, such as those
surrounding D.A.R.E. Other possibilities include factors
that may have varied across the intervention programs and
associated evaluation studies that contributed to the
observed differences in effect sizes. For example,
substantial variation in characteristics of the studients
(e.g., in race/ethnicity), features of the interventions
(e.g., variations in program intensity), and features of
the research design (e.g., experimental versus quasi-
experimental design) could have contributed to
differences in program effects. Such possibilities could
not be tested because of the small number of studies.=20
Further testing is warranted when larger samples of
D.A.R.E. and comparison studies are available.
It is also important to consider substantive
reasons that could account for the differences. Possible
explanations include the content of the original core
curriculum, the use of law enforcement officers as
instructors, and the more didactic approach of the
instruction. Consideration of each of these explanations
suggests areas for future research and possibly for
programmatic change.
As we have indicated, D.A.R.E.'s curriculum content
has similarities with both noninteractive and interactive
programs, although it has more of an intrapersonal focus
than most interactive programs and, conversely, more of a
skills focus than most noninteractive programs. Perhaps
greater emphasis in the D.A.R.E. core curriculum on
social influences, and less emphasis on affective
factors, might result in effect sizes nearer to those
reported from interactive programs. However, it is
difficult to speculate on the effect of altering the
D.A.R.E. curriculum by adding or subtracting particular
lessons. Most evaluations of school-based prevention
programs have assessed the effectiveness of overall
programs rather than of the various program components or
combinations of components. Future research in this area
might suggest particular curriculum changes.
D.A.R.E. instruction offers another possible area
of explanation for D.A.R.E.'s relatively poorer
performance compared with interactive programs. Although
instruction by police officers is the sine qua non of the
D.A.R.E. curriculum, their effectiveness may be less than
other possible program providers. For example, despite
the extensive D.A.R.E. training received by law
enforcement officers, they may not be as well equipped to
lead the curriculum as classroom teachers are. No
studies have been reported in which the D.A.R.E.
curriculum was offered by anyone other than a police
officer; examination of the results from such a study
might suggest whether police officers are as effective as
other possible instructors.
Regardless of the leader, however, the generally
more traditional teaching style used by D.A.R.E. has not
been shown to be as effective as an interactive teaching
mode (Tobler, 1986, in press, 1994). Traditional
didactic approaches that involve teachers delivering
information, with little response from students, are
increasingly recognized as undesirable. More effective
are strategies that engage students in a dialogue with
the teacher; more effective still are cooperative or
participatory learning approaches in which the teacher
serves as a facilitator or catalyst to generate
discussions and other interactions among students.=20
Although some D.A.R.E. activities encourage pupil
interaction, the original core curriculum relies heavily
on the officer as expert and makes frequent use of
lectures and question-answer sessions between the officer
and pupils. In fact, it is in teaching style, not
curriculum content, that D.A.R.E. differs most from the
interactive programs examined by Tobler. In the revised
D.A.R.E. core curriculum, there is greater emphasis on
such cooperative learning experiences. We recommend that
the D.A.R.E. training programs urge officers to employ
more interactive methods and provide specific guidance on
how they can do so.
What are the intended and unintended consequences of
D.A.R.E.'s approach to
drug abuse prevention?
None of the studies we reviewed examined
consequences of the D.A.R.E. program, either intended or
unintended, other than those related directly to the
curriculum. However, a number of consequences can be
envisioned. These include effects related to other
behaviors than drug use (e.g., effects on violent and
delinquent behavior). More likely, perhaps, may be
consequences related to the relationship that develops
between the D.A.R.E. officers and students, which may in
turn have positive consequences for police and community
relations in general. Research indicates that the
effects on police officers through their exposure to
students and the problems they face may also be
substantial and beneficial (D.A.R.E. Southeast Regional
Training Center, 1992). It is possible, in fact, that
some of D.A.R.E.'s most important effects are related to
the relations between students and police officers. The
studies we reviewed provided little insight into these
areas. This suggests the importance of research to
explore other consequences related to D.A.R.E.'s approach
to drug use prevention.
Conclusion
As might be expected of an institution as large as
D.A.R.E., our implementation and outcome assessments
present an array of findings and raise a number of issues
deserving of consideration by the D.A.R.E. organization
and all those concerned with this program. Perhaps most
prominently, the findings show a program that has been
extremely successful at placing drug education in our
Nation's schools. Indeed, D.A.R.E. is now implemented in
the majority of school districts in the country and is
expected to grow substantially in coming years. At the
same time, however, as our findings confirm D.A.R.E.'s
prevalence and popularity, they also suggest that the
original D.A.R.E. core curriculum has not been as
successful in accomplishing its mission to prevent drug
use among fifth and sixth graders as have interactive
programs. Review of the rigorous evaluations of the
original core curriculum, the heart of D.A.R.E., showed
that D.A.R.E. had only limited immediate effects on
students' drug use. Although the curriculum was more
successful in influencing other outcomes, such as social
skills, more work is needed to make D.A.R.E. more
effective as a drug use prevention program.
Given D.A.R.E.'s strengths, the task of increasing
the effectiveness of the core curriculum is feasible.=20
D.A.R.E. has achieved its accomplishments to date through
building a complex and solid organizational structure
that reaches from local to national levels, by forging
close partnerships between education and law enforcement,
and by winning substantial community support for the
program. In no other program of this magnitude have
school districts welcomed into the classroom outsiders
who lack traditional educational credentials to replace
teachers as instructors of a major curriculum. These
resources, as well as the dedication of the D.A.R.E.
officers in the classroom, should enable D.A.R.E. to move
forward more effectively to meet the challenges of drug
use prevention. In this final section of our assessment,
we briefly recapitulate our major findings and
recommendations.
=20
D.A.R.E. 's prevalence. D.A.R.E. is now
implemented in over half the school districts in the
country and is expected to grow substantially in the
coming years. Because it is least prevalent in small and
rural school districts, we believe that ways for these
school districts to increase access to D.A.R.E. should be
examined.
=20
D.A.R.E. 's organization. D.A.R.E. is at once
both hierarchical and community-based. Although it is
carefully controlled, monitored, and overseen at the
national, regional, and State levels, it is also very
much a grass-roots movement, dependent on local
initiatives to form partnerships and secure support. At
the State level and above, we suggest that sufficient
resources be made available to support this burgeoning
organization to ensure adequate authority, communication,
technical assistance, and oversight. At the local level,
we believe that alternative sources of support should be
explored so that D.A.R.E. can be freed as much as
possible from dependence on public funds. =20
=20
D.A.R.E. 's partnership with education. Law
enforcement's relationship with education is the
cornerstone of D.A.R.E. We believe that at all levels a
variety of mechanisms could be instituted to strengthen
this critical partnership. This includes improving
methods for co-teaching D.A.R.E. at the local level, as
well as increasing where possible the already
multifaceted involvement of D.A.R.E. officers in school
life. We also suggest ensuring adequate representation
on advisory boards by staff of departments of education
at the State and national levels.
=20
Popular support for D.A.R.E. Anecdotal evidence
of grass-roots support for D.A.R.E. is abundant and is
fully confirmed in our study. School-based drug
prevention coordinators tended to rate school staff's
attitudes toward D.A.R.E. as well as those of students,
the parents, and the community as very supportive. The
D.A.R.E. curriculum and students' receptivity to the
program, and perhaps most important, D.A.R.E.'s effects
on students were rated as very satisfactory. This
persuasive evidence suggests that whatever modifications
and enhancements may be made to the D.A.R.E. curriculum
and how the program is taught, D.A.R.E.'s organization
and structure at the local level is sound and should be
preserved.
=20
The original D.A.R.E. core curricula. Drug
prevention coordinators' endorsements of D.A.R.E.'s
positive effects on students are generally not supported
by the results of the methodologically sound short-term
evaluations of the original D.A.R.E. core curriculum we
summarized. As indicated earlier, D.A.R.E. demonstrated
somewhat greater effects than those of didactic
school-based drug prevention methods that are based on
affective approaches, but considerably fewer effects than
those of interactive methods that use social influence
approaches.
Because D.A.R.E. already incorporates many
interactive features, we believe that appropriate
modifications can be made both to the core curriculum and
to the way D.A.R.E. is taught that are well within the
context of the institution as a whole. These
modifications should be made periodically (perhaps every
2 years), as refinements are suggested by evaluations of
drug prevention programs in general, and of D.A.R.E. inparticular. We comm=
end
D.A.R.E. for convening a
Scientific Advisory Committee that comprises drug
prevention specialists who will review relevant drug
prevention research findings and make recommendations
concerning improvements to the curricula.=20
In conclusion, D.A.R.E. represents an institution
that is unique in the area of drug use prevention: a
partnership between law enforcement and education that
has the substantial support of children, parents, and the
community at large. Not unexpectedly, along with this
highly visible profile come high expectations. Our
report demonstrates D.A.R.E.'s success in meeting many of
these expectations, as well as challenges that lie ahead.=20
Key to the continued growth of D.A.R.E. will be careful
monitoring of the effectiveness of the various curricula,
coupled with the willingness to make and assess
modifications that could enhance effectiveness. D.A.R.E.
has already demonstrated its responsiveness to change by
the introduction of new curricula, revisions to the core
curriculum, and expanded roles for D.A.R.E. officers.=20
Equally important to D.A.R.E.'s viability will be its
continued coordination of the roles and responsibilities
of the many D.A.R.E. players. In both of these efforts,
we recommend that D.A.R.E. seek to strengthen its
partnerships with individuals and institutions outside
its bounds. The advice, support, and perspectives of
those who are not part of the D.A.R.E. structure but who
are equally committed to drug use prevention will enhance
the vitality and integrity of the program. We believe
these efforts will result in a program that maintains its
unique identity and place in drug education, while
meeting more effectively the challenge of reducing drug
use among youth.
APPENDIX A
SAMPLING FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT DRUG
PREVENTION COORDINATORS SURVEY
Exhibit A.1 Number of School Districts in Sampling Frame,
by Region, Urbanicity, SES, Minority Status,
and District Size
Stratification Variables N%
Minority Status
High 4,02327.3
Low 10,692 72.7
14,715100.0
SES
High 10,79473.4
Low 3,921 26.6
14,715100.0
Urbanicity
Urban/suburban 5,22635.5
Rural 9,489 64.5
14,715100.0
District size
Small 7,34749.9
Large 7,368 50.1
14,715100.0
Region
East 3,15221.4
Southeast 9636.5
Midwest 4,75932.4
Southwest 3,41923.2
West 2,422 16.5
14,715100.0
Exhibit A.2 Number of School Districts in Each Stratum for the Samplin=
g
Frame
=
=20
Region
East Southeast =
=20
MidwestSouthwest West
Minor-
ity District Urban/ Urban/ =
=20
Urban/ Urban/=20
Urban/
SES Status Size Suburban Rural Suburban Rural =
=20
Suburban Rural Suburban
Rural Suburban Rural
High High Small 90 95 6 20 =
117=20
154 14
105 27 80
Large 119 248 10 33 =
172=20
422 50
279 56 246
Low Small 509 438 63 229 =
479=20
858 276
817 281 419
Large 473 333 73 277 =
464=20
781 240
742 292 407
Low High Small 75 22 21 92 =
63=20
94 4298=20
60 39
Large 157 90 21 45 =
160=20
169 92
191 77 72
Low Small 152 194 15 35 =
191=20
422 56
298 70 231
Large 78 79 2 21 =
55=20
158 11
108 17 48
Exhibit A.3 First-Phase Sample Allocation by Region,
Urbanicity, SES, Minority Status, and
District Size
Stratification Variables N%
Minority Status
High 41027.3
Low 1,090 72.7
1,500100.0
SES
High 1,10173.4
Low 399 26.6
1,500100.0
Urbanicity
Urban/suburban 53435.6
Rural 966 64.4
1,500100.0
District Size
Small 75050.0
Large 750 50.0
1,500100.0
Region
East 32121.4
Southeast 1006.7
Midwest 48532.3
Southwest 34623.1
West 248 16.5
1,500100.0
Exhibit A.4 First-Phase Sample Allocation, by Each Stratum
=
=20
Region
East Southeast =
=20
MidwestSouthwest West
Minor-
ity District Urban/ Urban/ =
=20
Urban/ Urban/=20
Urban/
SES Status Size Suburban Rural Suburban Rural =
=20
Suburban Rural Suburban
Rural Suburban Rural
High High Small 9 10 2 2 =
12=20
16 211=20
3 8
Large 12 25 2 3 =
18=20
43 528=20
6 25
Low Small 52 45 6 23 =
49=20
87 2783=20
29 43
Large 48 34 7 28 =
47=20
80 2476=20
30 41
Low High Small 8 2 2 9 =
=20
6 10 410=20
6 4
Large 16 9 2 5 =
16=20
17 819=20
8 7
Low Small 15 20 2 4 =
19=20
43 630=20
7 24
Large 8 8 1 2 =
=20
6 16 211=20
2 5
Exhibit A.5 First-Phase Sample, by Region and D.A.R.E.
Status1
East Southeast Midwest Southwest=20
West Total
N % N % N % N %N%
N %
D.A.R.E. 180 56.0 46 51.7 182 37.5 124 35.3=20
114 44.9646 43.0
No 138 43.0 43 48.3 174 35.9 144 41.0=20
95 37.4594 40.0
D.A.R.E.
Unknown 3 1.0 0 0.0 129 26.6 83 23.7=20
45 17.7260 17.0
D.A.R.E.
Status
Total 321 100.0 89 100.0 485 100.0 351 100.0=20
254 100.01500 100.0
1Based on data provided by State D.A.R.E. coordinators.
Exhibit A.6 Second-Phase Sample Allocation, by Region
and D.A.R.E. Status1
East Southeast Midwest Southwest=20
West Total
N % N % N % N %N%
N %
D.A.R.E. 60 56.0 15 50.0 61 37.7 41 35.3=20
38 44.7215 43.0
No D.A.R.E. 46 43.0 15 50.0 59 36.4 48 41.4=20
32 37.6200 40.0
Unknow 1 1.0 0 0.0 42 25.9 27 23.8=20
15 17.7 85 17.0
D.A.R.E.
Status
Total 107 100.0 30 100.0 162 100.0 116 100.0=20
85 100.0500 100.0
1Based on data provided by State D.A.R.E. coordinators.
Appendix B
Individual Study Descriptions
Brief descriptions of the eight methodologically rigorous studies
selected for the meta-analysis are given below in
alphabetical order by the location of the study. The
research design, sample size and characteristics, and
results for drug use knowledge, attitudes about drug use,
social skills, self-esteem, attitude toward police, and
drug use behavior are reported. Additional information
and greater detail about the study methodologies and
results are available in the reports or papers issued by
each study.
1.British Columbia
The British Columbia evaluation of D.A.R.E. (Walker, 1990) used a
quasi-experimental design in which seven schools were
assigned to receive D.A.R.E. and four schools with
similar demographic characteristics were selected for the
comparison condition. The study administered an
anonymous pretest and immediate posttest; assessed
pretest equivalence on some demographic variables and all
outcome variables; and controlled for pretest values on
outcome variables by analyzing change scores at the
aggregate level. The sample included 463 fifth-, sixth-,
and seventh-grade pupils. No information was given on
the ethnic composition of the sample.
The results showed that D.A.R.E. had a statistically significant
effect on subjects' knowledge about drugs. D.A.R.E. did
not have a statistically significant effect on attitudes
about drug use or on drug use behavior (use of tobacco,
beer, pop, marijuana, acid, valium, wine, aspirin,
uppers, downers, heroin, crack, liquor, candy, glue, and
PCP).
2. Hawaii
The Hawaii evaluation of D.A.R.E. (Manos, Kameoka, & Tanji, 1986)
used a quasi-experimental research design in which 23
schools were assigned to either D.A.R.E. or comparison
conditions. In three other schools, some classrooms were
assigned to D.A.R.E. and other classrooms to the
comparison condition; data from these comparison
classrooms were not included in our analysis. The study
administered a pretest and immediate posttest; matched
subjects from pretest to posttest; used some measures
that were standardized scales or derived from existing
measures; and controlled for pretest values on outcome
variables. The sample included 2,009 fifth-grade pupils
(not including the pupils in comparison classrooms in the
D.A.R.E. schools). No information was given on the
ethnic composition of the sample. Attrition was not
analyzed but was approximately 6%.
The results showed that D.A.R.E. had a statistically significant
effect in the desired direction on one social skills
indicator (choices in a risk situation). D.A.R.E. did
not have statistically significant effects on another
social skills indicator (assertiveness) or on subjects'
attitudes about drug use.
3. Illinois-C
The Illinois-C evaluation of D.A.R.E. (Ennett, Rosenbaum,
Flewelling, Bieler, Ringwalt, & Bailey, 1994) used both
an experimental and quasi-experimental design: 12 pairs
of schools serving urban and suburban areas were randomly
assigned to D.A.R.E. and control conditions, while 6
pairs serving rural areas were assigned using a nonrandom
procedure. The study matched schools on metropolitan
status, ethnic composition, number of students with
English proficiency, and percentage of pupils from low-
income families; administered a pretest and three
posttests (immediately, 1 year, and 2 years after
implementation); matched subjects from pretest to
posttest; used measures that were standardized scales or
derived from existing measures; controlled for pretest
values on outcome variables and initial nonequivalence
between the comparison groups; adjusted for school
effects with a nested cohort strategy; and assessed
attrition. The sample included 1,323 subjects who were
fifth and sixth graders at pretest; 54% were white, 22%
were African American, 9% Hispanic, and 15% were American
Indian, Asian American, or "other." The attrition rate
over the three posttests was 26% and did not differ
across experimental conditions.
The results showed that D.A.R.E. had statistically significant
effects in the desired direction on subjects' self-
esteem, attitude toward police, and increased use of
cigarettes at immediate posttest. D.A.R.E. did not have
statistically significant effects on subjects' attitudes
about drugs (general attitude toward drugs, attitude
toward use of specific drugs, perceived benefits of
cigarette use and alcohol use; perceived costs of
cigarette use and alcohol use; perceived media influence
on smoking and beer drinking); social skills
(assertiveness and peer refusal skills); or on other drug
use behavior (initiation of alcohol, cigarettes, or heavy
drinking; increased use of alcohol or heavy drinking; or
quitting alcohol).
4. Kentucky-A
The Kentucky-A evaluation of D.A.R.E. (Clayton, Cattarello, Day,
& Walden, 1991a; Clayton, Cattarello, & Walden, 1991b)
used an experimental design employing random assignment
of 31 schools to either D.A.R.E. or control conditions.=20
The study administered a pretest and three posttests
(immediately, 1 year, and 2 years after implementation);
matched subjects from pretest to posttest; used measures
that were standardized scales or derived from existing
measures; controlled for pretest values on outcome
variables and initial nonequivalence between the
comparison groups; and assessed attrition. The sample
included 1,925 subjects who were sixth graders at
pretest; 76% were white and 21% were African American.=20
The attrition rate over the three posttests was
approximately 21% and did not differ across experimental
conditions.
The results showed that, at immediate posttest, D.A.R.E. had
statistically significant effects in the desired
direction on some indicators of subjects' attitudes about
drugs (general attitudes about drugs and negative
attitudes about alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana).=20
D.A.R.E. did not have statistically significant effects
at immediate posttest on other indicators of subjects'
attitudes about drug use (positive attitudes about
alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana), social skills, self-
esteem, or drug use behavior (use of alcohol, cigarettes,
and marijuana).
5. Kentucky-B
The Kentucky-B evaluation of D.A.R.E. (Faine & Bohlander 1988,
1989) used a quasi-experimental research design in which
16 schools, stratified by school type (rural, inner-city,
suburban, and parochial), were randomly selected among
schools assigned to receive D.A.R.E. immediately or at a
later semester (a delayed intervention comparison group).=20
The study administered a pretest and two posttests
(immediately and one year after implementation); matched
subjects from pretest to posttest; used measures that
were standardized scales or derived from existing
measures; and controlled for pretest values on outcome
variables and type of school. The sample in the first
year included 783 fifth-grade pupils; sample demographic
characteristics were not given. Attrition information
was not given. By year 2, all the comparison groups had
received the D.A.R.E. program.
The immediate posttest results showed that D.A.R.E. had
statistically significant effects in the desired
direction on subjects' knowledge about drugs, attitudes
about drug use, social skills, self-esteem, and attitude
toward police.
6. Minnesota
The Minnesota evaluation of D.A.R.E. (McCormick & McCormick,
1992) used a quasi-experimental research design in which
D.A.R.E. was implemented by semester in 63 schools;
random samples of D.A.R.E. participants and pupils who
would receive D.A.R.E. in the next semester (a delayed
intervention comparison group) were drawn. The study
administered a pretest and immediate posttest; matched
subjects from pretest to posttest; used measures that
were standardized scales or derived from existing
measures; assessed pretest equivalence on selected
demographic variables; and controlled for pretest values
on outcome variables. The sample included 943 fifth
graders; 62% of the D.A.R.E. group participants were
white; 18% Asian Americans, 12% African American, and 7%
Native American or Hispanic (demographic information on
the comparison group was not given). The attrition rate
was 9%.
The results showed that D.A.R.E. had a statistically significant
effect in the desired direction on subjects' knowledge
about drugs. D.A.R.E. did not have statistically
significant effects on subjects' attitudes about drug
use, social skills, self-esteem, or attitude toward
police.
7. North Carolina
The North Carolina evaluation of D.A.R.E. (Ringwalt, Ennett, &
Holt, 1991) used an experimental research design
employing random assignment of 20 schools to either
D.A.R.E. or control conditions. The study administered a
pretest and immediate posttest; matched subjects from
pretest to posttest; used measures that were standardized
scales or derived from existing measures; controlled for
pretest values on outcome variables and initial
nonequivalence between the comparison groups; adjusted
for school effects; and assessed attrition. The sample
included 1,270 fifth- and sixth-grade students; 50% were
African American, 40% were white, and 10% were American
Indian, Asian American, or Hispanic. The attrition rate
was 9% and did not differ across experimental conditions.
The results showed that D.A.R.E. had statistically significant
effects in the desired direction on subjects' attitudes
about drugs (general attitude toward drugs, attitude
toward use of specific drugs, perceived peer attitude
toward drug use, perceived costs of using alcohol and
cigarettes, and perceptions of the media portrayal of
beer drinking and cigarette smoking) and social skills
(assertiveness). D.A.R.E. did not have statistically
significant effects on subjects' drug use behavior
(alcohol, cigarettes, or inhalant use).
8. South Carolina
The South Carolina evaluation of D.A.R.E. (Harmon, 1993) used a
quasi-experimental research design in which five schools
were assigned to receive D.A.R.E. and six schools matched
on demographic characteristics were selected for the
comparison condition. The study administered a pretest
and immediate posttest; matched subjects from pretest to
posttest; used measures that were standardized scales or
derived from existing measures; controlled for pretest
values on outcome variables and initial nonequivalence
between the comparison groups; and assessed attrition.=20
The sample included 602 fifth-grade pupils. The
attrition rate was 13.5% in the D.A.R.E. group and 16.3%
in the comparison groups.
The results showed that D.A.R.E. had statistically significant
effects in the desired direction on subjects' attitudes
about drugs, social skills (assertiveness), and
initiation of alcohol use in the past year. D.A.R.E. did
not have statistically significant effects on subjects'
self-esteem, attitude toward police, or other drug use
behavior indicators (previous year tobacco and marijuana
use, and previous month cigarette, alcohol, and marijuana
use).
Appendix C
Bibliography of Comparison Program Evaluations
Allison, K., Silver, G., & Dignam, C. (in press).=20
Effects on students of teacher training in use of a
drug education curriculum. Journal of Drug
Education.
Dielman, T., Shope, J., Butchart, A., & Campanelli, P.=20
(1986). Prevention of adolescent alcohol misuse:=20
An elementary school program. Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 11, 259-281.
Dielman, T., Shope, J., Campanelli, P., & Butchart, A.=20
(1987). Elementary school-based prevention of
adolescent alcohol misuse. Pediatrician:=20
International Journal of Child and Adolescent
Health, 14, 70-76.
Dielman, T., Shope, J., Leech, S., & Butchart, A.=20
(1989). Differential effectiveness of an
elementary school-based alcohol misuse prevention
program. Journal of School Health, 59, 255-262.
Dubois, R., Hostelter, M., Tosti-Vasey, J., & Swisher. J.=20
(1989). Program report and evaluation: 1988-1989
school year. Unpublished report. Philadelphia,
PA: Corporate Alliance for Drug Education. =20
Flay, B., Koepke, D., Thomson, S., Santi, S., Best, J., &
Brown, S. (1989). Six-year follow-up of the first
Waterloo school smoking prevention trial. American
Journal of Public Health, 79, 1371-1376.
Flay, B., Ryan, K., Best, J., Brown, K., Kersell, M.,
d'Avernas, J., & Zanna, M. (1983). Cigarette
smoking: Why young people do it and ways of
preventing it. In P. McGrath & P. Firestone
(Eds.), Pediatric and adolescent behavioral
medicine (pp. 132-183). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Flay, B., Ryan, K., Best, J., Brown, K., Kersell, M.,
d'Avernas, J., & Zanna, M. (1985). Are social
psychological smoking prevention programs
effective? The Waterloo study. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 8, 37-59.
Gersick, K., Grady, K., & Snow, D. (1988). Social-
cognitive development with sixth graders and its
initial impact on substance use. Journal of Drug
Education, 18, 55-70.
Gilchrist, L., Schinke, S., Trimble, J., & Cvetkovich, G.=20
(1987). Skills enhancement to prevent substance
abuse among American Indian adolescents.=20
International Journal of the Addictions, 22, 869-
879.
Johnson, C., Graham, J., Hansen, W., Flay, B., McGuigan,
K., & Gee, M. (1987). Project Smart after three
years: An assessment of sixth-grade and multiple-
grade implementations. Unpublished report.=20
Pasadena, CA: University of Southern California-
Institute for Prevention Research.
McAlister, A. (1983, May). Approaches to primary
prevention. Presented at the National Academy of
Science/National Research Council Conference on
Alcohol and Public Policy, Washington DC. =20
Moskowitz, J., Malvin, J., Schaeffer, G., & Schaps, E.=20
(1984). Evaluation of an affective development
teacher training program. Journal of Primary
Prevention, 4, 150-162.
Sarvela, P. (1984). Early adolescent substance use in
rural northern Michigan and northeastern Wisconsin.=20
Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(01),
2000A. (University Microfilms No. 8422327).
Sarvela, P., & McClendon, E. (1987). An impact
evaluation of a rural youth drug education program.=20
Journal of Drug Education, 17, 213-231.
Schaeffer, G., Moskowitz, J., Malvin, J., & Schaps, E.=20
(1981). The effects of a classroom management
teacher training program on first-grade students:=20
One year follow-up. Unpublished report. Napa, CA:=20
The Napa Project Pacific Institute for Research.=20
Schaps, E., Moskowitz, J., Condon, J., & Malvin, J.=20
(1984). A process and outcome evaluation of an
affective teacher training primary prevention
program. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education,
29, 35-64.
Schinke, S., Bebel, M., Orlandi, M., & Botvin, G.=20
(1988). Prevention strategies for vulnerable
pupils: School social work practices to prevent
substance abuse. Urban Education, 22, 510-519.
Schinke, S.P., & Blythe, B.J. (1981). Cognitive-
behavioral prevention of children's smoking. Child
Behavior Therapy, 3, 25-42.
Schinke, S., & Gilchrist, L. (1983). Primary prevention
of tobacco smoking. Journal of School Health, 53,
416-419.
Schinke, S., Gilchrist, L., Schilling, R., Snow, W., &
Bobo, J. (1986). Skills methods to prevent
smoking. Health Education Quarterly, 13, 23-27.
Schinke, S., Gilchrist, L., & Snow, W. (1985). Skills
interventions to prevent cigarette smoking among
adolescents. American Journal of Public Health,
75, 665-667.
Schinke, S., Gilchrist, L., Snow, W., & Schilling, R.=20
(1985). Skills-building methods to prevent smoking
by adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health Care,
6, 439-444.
Shope, J., Dielman, T., & Leech, S. (1988, November).=20
An elementary school-based alcohol misuse preven-
tion program: Two year follow-up evaluation.=20
Presented at the American Public Health Association
Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.REFERENCES
Aniskiewicz, R.E., & Wysong, E.E. (1987). Project
D.A.R.E. evaluation report: Kokomo schools,
spring, 1987. Unpublished report. Kokomo, IA:=20
Indiana University.
Aniskiewicz, R., & Wysong, E. (1990). Evaluating
D.A.R.E.: Drug education and the multiple meanings
of success. Policy Studies Review, 9, 727-747.
Anonymous. (1987). Project D.A.R.E. evaluation, spring,
1987. Unpublished paper. Pittsburgh, PA.
Bangert-Drowns, R.L. (1986). Review of developments in
meta-analytic method. Psychological Bulletin, 99,
388-399.
Bangert-Drowns, R.L. (1988). The effects of school-
based substance abuse education: A meta-analysis.=20
Journal of Drug Education, 18, 243-264.
Bauman, K.E., & Dent, C.W. (1982). Influence of an
objective measure on the self-reports of behavior.=20
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 623-628.
Becker, H.R., Agopian, M.W., & Yeh, S. (1992). Impact
evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education
(D.A.R.E.). Journal of Drug Education, 22, 283-
291.
Biglan, A., & Ary, D.V. (1985). Methodological issues
in research on smoking prevention. In: C.S. Bell
& R. Battjes (Eds.), Prevention research:=20
Deterring drug abuse among children and adolescents
(pp. 170-195). Rockville, MD: National Institute
on Drug Abuse.
Botvin, G.J. (1990). Substance abuse prevention:=20
Theory, practice, and effectiveness. In M. Tonry &
J.Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs and crime (pp. 461-519).=20
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bruvold, W.H. (1993). A meta-analysis of adolescent
smoking prevention programs. American Journal of
Public Health, 83, 872-880.
Bruvold, W.H., & Rundall, T.G. (1988). A meta-analysis
and theoretical review of school based tobacco and
alcohol intervention programs. Psychological
Health, 2, 53-78.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1988). Implementing
Project D.A.R.E.: Drug Abuse Resistance Education.=20
Washington, DC: Author.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1991a). An introduction
to D.A.R.E.: Drug Abuse Resistance Education (BJA
Program Brief, NCJ 129862). Washington, DC:=20
Author.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1991b). Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)
training center policies and procedures.=20
Washington, DC: Author.
Clayton, R.R., Cattarello, A., Day, L.E., & Walden, K.P.=20
(1991a). Persuasive communication and drug
prevention: An evaluation of the D.A.R.E. program.=20
In L. Donoher, H. Sypher, & W. Bukoski (Eds.),
Persuasive communication and drug abuse prevention
(pp. 295-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Clayton, R.R., Cattarello, A., & Walden, P. (1991b).=20
Sensation seeking as a potential mediating variable
for school-based prevention intervention: A two-
year follow-up of D.A.R.E. Health Communication,
3, 229-239.
Cook, D.J., Guyatt, G.H., Ryan, G., Clifton, J., Willas,
A., Mcllroy, W., & Oxman, A.D. (1993). Should
unpublished data be included in meta-analyses?=20
Journal of the American Medical Association, 269,
2749-2753.
D.A.R.E. Southeast Regional Training Center. (1992). An
Investigation of DARE Officer and DARE Mentor
Behavioral Change: Final report. Raleigh, NC:=20
Author.
DeJong, W. (1987). A short-term evaluation of Project
D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education):=20
Preliminary indicators of effectiveness. Journal
of Drug Education, 17, 279-294.
Dukes, R., & Matthews, S. (1991). Evaluation of the
Colorado Springs citywide D.A.R.E. program:=20
Interim report. Unpublished report. Colorado
Springs, CO: University of Colorado, Center for
Social Science Research. =20
Earle, R.B., Garner, J., & Phillips, N. (1987).=20
Evaluation of the Illinois state police pilot
D.A.R.E. program. Unpublished report.=20
Springfield, IL: A.H. Training and Development
Systems, Inc.
Ellickson, P.L., Bell, R.M., & McGuigan, K. (1993).=20
Preventing adolescent drug use: long-term results
of a junior high school program. American Journal
of Public Health, 83, 856-861.
Ellickson, P.L., Hays, R.D., & Bell, R.M. (1992).=20
Stepping through the drug use sequence: Longitudi-
nal scalogram analysis of initiation and regular
use. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 441-451.
Ennett, S.T., Rosenbaum, D.P., Flewelling, R.L., Bieler,
G.S., Ringwalt, C.R., & Bailey, S.L. (1994).=20
Long-term evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance
Education. Addictive Behaviors, 19, 113-125.
Evaluation and Training Institute. (1990). D.A.R.E.
evaluation report for 1985-1989. Unpublished
report. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Faine, J.R., & Bohlander, E. (1988). Drug Abuse
Resistance Education: An assessment of the 1987-88
Kentucky state police D.A.R.E. program.=20
Unpublished report. Bowling Green, KY: Western
Kentucky University, Social Research Laboratory.
Faine, J.R., & Bohlander, E. (1989). D.A.R.E. in
Kentucky schools 1988-89. Unpublished report.=20
Bowling Green, KY: Western Kentucky University,
Social Research Laboratory.
Flay, B.R. (1985). Psychosocial approaches to smoking
prevention: A review of findings. Health
Psychology, 4, 449-488.
Glass, G., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. (1981). Meta-analysis
in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Hansen, W.B. (1992). School-based substance abuse
prevention: A review of the state of the art in
curriculum, 1980-1990. Health Education Research,
7, 403-430.
Hansen, W.B., Johnson, C., Flay, B., Graham, J., & Sobel,
J. (1988). Affective and Social Influences
approaches to the prevention of multiple substance
use among seventh grade students: Results from
project Smart. Preventive Medicine, 17, 135-144.
Harmon, M.A. (1993). Reducing the risk of drug
involvement among early adolescents. An evaluation
of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.).=20
Evaluation Review, 17, 221-239.
Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods
for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press. =20
Kandel, D. (1975). Stages in adolescent involvement in
drug use. Science, 190, 912-914.
Kethineni, S., Leamy, D.A., & Guyon, L. (1991).=20
Evaluation of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education
program in Illinois: Preliminary report.=20
Unpublished report. Normal, IL: Illinois State
University, Department of Criminal Justice
Sciences. =20
Manos, M.J., Kameoka, K.Y., & Tanji, J.H. (1986).=20
Evaluation of Honolulu police department's Drug
Abuse Resistance Education program. Unpublished
report. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii-Manoa,
School of Social Work, Youth Development and
Research Center.
McCormick, F.C., & McCormick, E.R. (1992). An
evaluation of the third year drug abuse resistance
education (D.A.R.E.) program in Saint Paul.=20
Unpublished report. Saint Paul, MN: Educational
Operations Concepts, Inc. =20
McDonald, R.M., Towberman, D.B., & Hague, J.L. (1990).=20
Volume II: 1989 impact assessment of Drug Abuse
Resistance Education in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Unpublished report. Richmond, VA:=20
Virginia Commonwealth University, Institute for
Research in Justice and Risk Administration. =20
McDonald, R.M., Towberman, D.B., & Hague, J.L. (1991).=20
Volume III: 1990 Assessment of Drug Abuse
Resistance Education in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Unpublished report. Richmond, VA:=20
Virginia Commonwealth University, Institute for
Research in Justice and Risk Administration.
Moskowitz, J. (1989). The primary prevention of alcohol
problems: A critical review of the research
literature. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50,
54-88.
Moskowitz, J.M. (1993). Why reports of outcome
evaluations are often biased or uninterpretable.=20
Evaluation and Program Planning, 16, 1-9.
Moskowitz, J., Malvin, J., Schaeffer, G., & Schaps, E.=20
(1983). Evaluation of a junior high school primary
prevention program. Addictive Behaviors, 8, 393-
401.
Murray, D.M., & Hannan, P.J. (1990). Planning for the
appropriate analysis in school-based drug use
prevention studies. (1990). Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 58, 458-468.
Murray, D.M., Pirie, P., Luepker, R.V., & Pallonen, U.
(1989). Five- and six-year follow-up results from
four seventh-grade smoking prevention strategies.=20
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 207-218.
Nyre, G.F., & Rose, C. (1987). Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (D.A.R.E.) longitudinal evaluation annual
report, January 1987. Unpublished report. Los
Angeles, CA: Evaluation and Training Institute. =20
Nyre, G.F., Rose, C., & Bolus, R.E. (1987). Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) longitudinal
evaluation annual report, August, 1987.=20
Unpublished report. Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation
and Training Institute. =20
Oetting, E.R., & Bauvais, F. (1990). Adolescent drug
use: Findings of national and local surveys.=20
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58,
385-394.
Pentz, M.A., & Trebow, E. (1988). Implementation issues
in drug abuse prevention research: In C.
Leukefeld, & W. Bukoski (Eds.), Drug prevention
intervention research methodological issues.=20
Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Perry, P.D., & Tobler, N.S. (1992). Manual for effect
size calculation: Formula used in the meta-
analysis of adolescent drug prevention programs
(Appendix 3, Meta-Analysis of Adolescent Drug
Prevention Programs: Final Report). Rockville,
MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Ringwalt, C., Curtin, T.R., & Rosenbaum, D.P. (1990). A
first-year evaluation of D.A.R.E. in Illinois.=20
Unpublished report. Research Triangle Park, NC:=20
Research Triangle Institute.
Ringwalt, C., Ennett, S.T., & Holt, K.D. (1991). An
outcome evaluation of project D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse
Resistance Education). Health Education Research:=20
Theory and Practice, 6, 327-337.
Rosenbaum, D.P., Ringwalt, C., Curtin, R.T., Wilkinson,
D., Davis, B., & Taranowski. (1991). Second year
evaluation of D.A.R.E. in Illinois. Unpublished
report. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois,
Center for Research in Law and Justice.
Rosenbaum, D.P., Flewelling, R.L., Bailey, S.L.,
Faggiani, D., & Ringwalt, C. (1992). Third year
evaluation of D.A.R.E. in Illinois. Unpublished
report. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois,
Center for Research in Law and Justice.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for
social research. Applied Social Research Methods
Series. Vol 6). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Rundall, T.G. & Bruvold, W.H. (1988). Meta-analysis of
school-based smoking and alsochol use prevention
programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 317-334.=20
=20
Thorne, J.M., Holley, J.A., Wine, J., Hayward, B.J., &
Ringwalt, C.L. (1991). A study of the Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act: Report on State and
local programs (U.S. Department of Education
Contract LC88028001). Research Triangle Park, NC:=20
Research Triangle Institute.
Tobler, N.S. (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, 537-567.
Tobler, N.S. (1994). Meta-analysis of adolescent drug
prevention programs. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, State University of New York at
Albany.
Tobler, N.S. (in press). Meta-analytic issues for
prevention intervention research. In L. Seitz & L.
Collins (Eds.), Advances in data analysis for
prevention intervention research. Rockville, MD:=20
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
University of Michigan. (1994, January 31). Drug use
rises among American teen-agers, as fewer see
dangers and as peer norms begin to change.=20
Cigarette smoking among teens also begins to
increase [press release on Monitoring the Future
Study]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan,
News and Information Service.
Walker, S. (1990). The Victoria police department Drug
Abuse Resistance Education programme (D.A.R.E.)
programme evaluation report #2 (1990). Unpublished
report. Victoria, BC: The Ministry of the
Solicitor-General, Federal Government of Canada.
************************************************************
William T. Browning
Internet/Bulletin Board Coordinator
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
1600 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850
(301) 251-5507
FAX (301) 251-5212
wbrownin@ncjrs.aspensys.com
************************************************************