reducing the risk of drug involvement among - sage publications

http://erx.sagepub.comEvaluation Review

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9301700206 1993; 17; 221 Eval Rev

Michele Alicia Harmon Education (DARE

Adolescents: An Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Reducing the Risk of Drug Involvement Among Early

http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/221 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Evaluation Review Additional services and information for

http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://erx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/17/2/221SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 14 articles hosted on the Citations

distribution.© 1993 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized

at SAGE Publications on September 10, 2007 http://erx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://erx.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://erx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/17/2/221

http://erx.sagepub.com

221

REDUCING THE RISK OF

DRUG INVOLVEMENT AMONG

EARLY ADOLESCENTS

An Evaluation of Drug AbuseResistance Education (DARE)

MICHELE ALICIA HARMONUniversity of Maryland

This article examines the effectiveness of the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) programin Charleston County, South Carolina by comparing 341 fifth-grade DARE students to 367non-DARE students. Significant differences were found in the predicted direction for alcoholuse in the last year, belief in prosocial norms, association with drug-using peers, positive peerassociation, attitudes against substance use, and assertiveness. No differences were found oncigarette, tobacco, or marijuana use in the last year, frequency of any drug use in the past month,attitudes about police, coping strategies, attachment and commitment to school, rebelliousbehavior, and self-esteem.

The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program in Charles-ton County, South Carolina. Specific aims of the program include the statedDARE objectives-increasing self-esteem, assertiveness, coping skills, anddecreasing positive attitudes toward drugs, actual drug use, and association

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This research was supported in part by a grant from the Office of Edu-cational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, and the Center for Researchon Effective SchoolingforDisadvantaged Students atJohns Hopkins Umversity. Partial supportwas also provided by the Charleston County School Distnct In South Carolina. I would hke tothank the following people for their technical support and assistance: the Charleston CountySchool District staff (especially Candice Bates), the Charleston County DARE officers., and LoisHybl and Gary Gottfredson at Johns Hopkins University. I am also grateful for commentsprovided by Denise Gottfredson on earlier drafts of this article.

EVALUATION REVIEW, Vol. 17 No 2, April 1993 221-239@ 1993 Sage Publications, Inc




222

with drug-using peers. The study also examines the program’s effectivenessfor reducing other known risk factors associated with adolescent drug usesuch as social integration, commitment and attachment to school, and rebel-lious behavior.

Much of what is known about adolescent drug use is a result of the annualHigh School Senior Survey conducted by the Institute for Social Research atthe University of Michigan (Johnston 1973). Data from a recent report ex-amining drug use (Johnston, Bachman, and O’Malley 1991) show 90% ofU.S. seniors reported drinking alcohol at some time in their lives, 64% saidthey had smoked cigarettes, 41% reported smoking marijuana, and 18% hadtaken stimulants.

High school survey data from Charleston show similar prevalence rates.For example, 77% of Charleston County seniors said they had drunk alcoholat some point in their lives, 47% had smoked cigarettes, and 31 % reportedsmoking marijuana (South Carolina Department of Education and SouthCarolina Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse 1990).

Efforts to combat the drug problem have led to a variety of strategies overthe past two decades. The three most widely used attempts to control druguse are supply reduction, treatment, and prevention.

Supply reduction efforts by law enforcement agencies to decrease produc-tion, importation, distribution, and retail sales of street drugs appears inef-fective in reducing the drug problem. Increased arrests and imprisonment,given our crowded penal institutions, and the ready replacement of suppliersand dealers mitigates the actions of legal authorities.

Similar to supply reduction, millions of dollars are spent every year ontreatment as a means of curtailing drug use. Much like supply reductionstrategies, treatment also shows little promise for eliminating drug use,particularly among adolescents (Polich et al. 1984; Stein and Davis 1982).Some feel adolescent drug problems stem from youth &dquo;life problems,&dquo; notphysiological dependence (Bennett 1983). This implies adolescent drugabusers are treated for the wrong problem. Subsequently, traditional drugtreatment programs are often ineffective in treating adolescent clients (Sellsand Simpson 1979).

Prevention holds more promise for controlling adolescent drug use thansupply reduction or treatment. Reasons for promise include the timing ofprevention programs and their focus on &dquo;gateway&dquo; substances-alcohol,tobacco, and marijuana. National data show youths initiating alcohol use asearly as age 11 and marijuana and other illicit drugs at age 12 (Elliot andHuizinga 1984). Because drug use often begins at such an early age, preven-tion programs must target youths before they come in contact with drugs.




223

Currently, many drug prevention programs (such as DARE) target youthswhile they are still in elementary school.

Targeting gateway substances is important because early use of suchsubstances often follows a logical progression to experimentation with otherdrugs (Hamburg, Braemer, and Jahnke 1975; Kandel 1978; Richards 1980).

Prevention efforts have not always been as promising, however. Researchclearly demonstrates the &dquo;first generation&dquo; of drug prevention programs suchas information dissemination (stating facts about drugs), affective education(clarifying values and/or increasing self-esteem), and alternative activities todrug use have little or no impact on deterring adolescent drug use (Berberinet al. 1976; Hanson 1980; Kinder, Pape, and Walfish 1980; Schaps et al.1981 ). In fact, some of these programs are associated with an increase in druguse (Gordon and McAlister 1982; Swisher and Hoffman 1975).

The &dquo;second generation&dquo; of drug prevention efforts has proven moreeffective in reducing adolescent drug use. This generation includes programsthat focus on increasing general personal and social skills such as problemsolving, decision making, coping, resisting peer pressure, and assertivenessthrough skill acquisition (Botvin and Dusenbury 1987; Schinke and Gilchrist1985; Hansen et al. 1988; Telch et al. 1982).

DARE (DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION)

DARE is a drug abuse prevention program that focuses on teachingstudents skills for recognizing and resisting social pressures to use drugs.DARE lessons also focus on the development of self-esteem, coping, asser-tiveness, communications skills, risk assessment and decision-making skills,and the identification of positive alternatives to drug use.

Taught by a uniformed police officer, the program consists of 17 lessonsoffered once a week for 45 to 50 minutes. The DARE curriculum can be

taught only by police officers who attend an intensive two-week, 80-hourtraining. The DARE program calls for a wide range of teaching activitiesincluding question and answer sessions, group discussion, role play, andworkbook exercises.

The DARE curriculum was created by Dr. Ruth Rich, a curriculumspecialist with the Los Angeles Unified School District, from a second-generation curriculum known as Project SMART (Self-Management andResistance Training) (Hansen et al. 1988).DARE is one of, if not the most, widespread drug prevention programs in

the United States. In 1989, over 3 million children in 80,000 classrooms were




224

exposed to DARE (&dquo;Project DARE&dquo; 1990). Currently, there are DAREprograms in every state in the United States and some counties have man-dated DARE as part of the school health curriculum. It has also been

implemented in several other countries including Canada, England, Aus-tralia, and New Zealand. In addition, it has been adopted by many reservationschools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and by the worldwidenetwork of U.S. Defense Department schools for children of military person-nel. There is a Spanish version and a Braille translation of the student work-book. Efforts are also under way to develop strategies for teaching DARE tohearing-impaired and other special-needs students.

PRIOR DARE EVALUATIONS

Several DARE evaluations have been conducted over the past 9 years.Some show positive results, some show negative results, and most have seri-ous methodological flaws. Recent DARE evaluations demonstrate an im-provement in methodology over earlier studies. Initially, most of the DAREstudies concluded that DARE was a &dquo;success.&dquo; For these evaluations, successoften meant students responded that they liked the DARE program. Stillothers claimed success if teachers and students rated DARE as &dquo;useful&dquo; or&dquo;valuable.&dquo; For the most part, success is based on the finding that studentsare more able to generate &dquo;appropriate&dquo; responses to a widely used 19-itemquestionnaire about drug facts and attitudes after the DARE program thanbefore. In these last instances, almost all had no control group.

Many DARE studies contain such severe methodology problems that theresults should be questioned. Methodological flaws contained in the evalua-tions include one or more of the following problems: (1) no control group,(2) small sample size, (3) posttest only, (4) poorly operationalized measures,(5) low alpha levels for scales (< .50), (6) no statistical tests performed, and(7) pretreatment differences not taken into account. Despite the lack of meth-odological rigor among most of these studies, three used rigorous methodol-ogy and should be mentioned because they have corrected many of the citedweaknesses.

The three studies are similar with respect to their evaluation designs butdifferent in terms of their results. All three evaluations used adequate samplesizes and employed both pre- and posttest measures. They also randomlyassigned schools to receive the DARE program or serve as controls.

Controlling on pretreatment differences, the dependent variable at Time 1

(pretest), and school type, Ringwalt, Ennett, and Holt ( 1991 ) in North Caro-lina reported significant differences in the expected direction for general




225

attitudes toward drugs, attitudes toward specific drugs (beer, wine coolers,wine, cigarettes, and inhalants), perceptions of peers’ attitudes toward druguse, assertiveness, recognizing media influences to use drugs, and the costsassociated with drug use. However, no statistically significant effects werefound for self-reported drug use, future intentions to use drugs, perceivedbenefits of drug use (alcohol and cigarettes), or self-esteem.

In Frankfort, Kentucky, Faine and Bohlander (1988) compared DARE tocontrol students and found significant differences favoring the DARE stu-dents on all outcome measures, which include self-esteem, attitudes towardthe police, knowledge of drugs, attitudes toward drugs, perceived externallocus of control, and peer resistance scores.

The third DARE study worth mentioning took place in Lexington, Ken-tucky (Clayton, Cattarello, Day, and Walden 1991 ). The authors used analy-sis of variance to compare the treatment and control group outcomes. How-

ever, they only controlled on race despite other pretreatment differences.Statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groupwere found for general drug attitudes, negative attitudes toward specificdrugs (cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana), and peer relationships (interpretedas DARE students self-reporting more popularity among their peers). Differ-ences were not observed for self-esteem, peer pressure resistance, or self-

reported drug use.A 2-year follow-up study (Clayton, Cattarello, and Walden 1991 ) exam-

ined the same cohort of sixth-grade students using two follow-up question-naires ( year apart) after the initial posttest. The only statistically significantdifference occurred at the first follow-up for last-year marijuana use. Unfor-tunately, this finding occurred in the opposite direction than that expected.Significantly more marijuana use was reported by the DARE students thannon-DARE students. Otherwise, no significant effects were found at anyother time for any other drug type.

The only common outcome measures of the three studies mentioned aredrug attitudes, self-esteem, and peer resistance (assertiveness). Inconsistentresults were reported with respect to self-esteem and peer resistance (asser-tiveness) but the three evaluations agree that those in the DARE group hadsignificantly less positive attitudes toward drug use compared to the controlgroup.

Although some long-term studies have been attempted, the only one dem-onstrating adequate methodology is the Lexington, Kentucky study (Clayton,Cattarello, and Walden 1991 ) and the results do not warrant program success.

In short, studies of the DARE program have produced mixed results andDARE evaluations up to this point are inconclusive. Further replications are




226

necessary in order to make more confident conclusions about the effects ofthe DARE program.

DARE COMPARED TO MOSTPROMISING PREVENTION APPROACH

Several aspects of the DARE program make it a likely candidate for suc-cess. First, the program is offered to students just before the age when theyare likely to experiment with drugs. Second, although there is little researchon the effectiveness of law enforcement personnel as classroom instructors,uniformed police officers serve as teachers of the DARE curriculum in hopesof increasing favorable attitudes toward the law and law enforcement per-sonnel. Third, the DARE program seeks to prevent the use of &dquo;gatewaydrugs&dquo; (i.e., alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana), thereby decreasing theprobability of subsequent heavier, more serious, drug use. Fourth, the DAREprogram draws on several aspects of effective drug prevention efforts fromthe second generation such as the development and practice of life skills(coping, assertiveness, and decision making).

Although DARE shows promise as a drug prevention strategy, moreevaluation efforts need to take place before forming an overall conclusionabout the program. This is especially important considering the fact thatmillions of government dollars are spent on this one particular drug preven-tion program every year and its dissemination continues to spread rapidlythroughout the United States.

METHODS

RESEARCH DESIGN

The current study used a nonequivalent control group quasi-experimentaldesign (Campbell and Stanley 1963) to determine if participating in theDARE program had any effect on the measured outcome variables comparedto a similar group that did not receive the prorgram.

The 17-week DARE program took place during the fall and spring se-mesters of the 1989-1990 school year. A student self-report questionnaire wasused to measure the outcome variables and all pre- and posttests were ad-ministered approximately 20 weeks apart.

The survey administration was conducted by the school alcohol and drugcontact person. The administration was conducted in such a way as to




227

preserve the confidentiality of the students. All students were assignedidentification numbers prior to the time of the pretest. The identificationnumber was used to link the pre- and posttest questionnaire responses. Aquestionnaire was distributed in an envelope with the student’s name in thetop right-hand comer. Each name was printed on a removable label that thestudents tore off and threw away. The administrator read the cover page ofthe survey informing the students there was a number on the survey bookletthat may be used to match their responses with questions asked later. Theadministrator also informed the students they had the right not to answer anyor all of the questions.

Response rates for the sample were high. The average pretest responserate was 93.5% for the DARE students and 93.7% for the comparison stu-dents. An average of 90% of the DARE students and 86.4% of the comparisonstudents completed the posttest. The pre- and posttest (combined) responserates were similar for both groups; 86.5% (295) of the treatment and 83.7%(307) of the comparison students completed both surveys.

Analysis of variance procedures were employed to examine the differ-ences between the DARE and non-DARE students at the time of the pretest.Controlling for any pretreatment differences between the two groups and themeasured dependent variable on the pretest, analysis of covariance was usedto detect significant differences at the time of the posttest.

SAMPLE

From 11 elementary schools in Charleston County, South Carolina, 708fifth-grade students participated in the present study. Students came from fiveschools receiving the DARE program and six that did not. Of the 708 studentsinvolved in the study, 341 received the treatment (DARE), and 367 servedas comparison students. The students came from schools representing a crosssection of those found in the Charleston County School District. Threeschools were urban, six suburban, and two rural.

Each of the DARE schools was paired with a comparison school based onthe following characteristics: number of students, percentage of studentsreceiving free or reduced lunch, percentage white, percentage male, percent-age never retained, and percentage meeting BSAP (Basic Skills AssessmentProgram) reading and math standards (see Table 1 ).

MEASURES

The You and Your School Questionnaire (Gottfredson 1989) was used tomeasure DARE objectives and other factors associated with later drug use.




228

(t)

750

o0Nc0M?ftIQ.

E00*c:0

«IWceQa-0(t)0Ir.!!.rd0co

LftI.c6.....

La-im11

v , Q)

S ICD E

8 ~£ EU <-

8 2m m

? 75T c0) Cco 0

OD Nm d

E co

cm 0°fi $’C N

~ ~

W £

cr ©

~ 2Q <0

~ ~

i !v 2

~ ~0 -o8 ~6% 1z N~ nfC *6% .%

i ’a2 CO mm’o %EE ’3~

Q) 0!~~ vH .~~~ co~-5~ ~: 0) ~CD c)- Ey 9ufl8 -C -0< - (D LZ8 ~~s cc$ .0cm 0 10 cc *-0 C ci8-gOEf§g

~a~°oc~~C’3~vio00 co 0CD CM tmm --a- o i CO 0 co

ui 0) a-= 0fl~fiy&dquo;~~y«c~u~5<cE’cO(o~ctso c E E o~n r- N o cn ~ ,~ ~0 c 4) 0 - - ro o 2-a E= 0ir 10 0 0 - cc = COCO CD 4) .0 cc$ a) E .- c CL:3 (D -.- a) E 7,0U) C 00)M.H MM P~ e2 E? cis 0) a) E- U) 0Q ~ C1m ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ 7 rii~flj©j9#8iw ma ~ ~a gLU co < a) 0 CnD (L < z 8a t V7 L t ~ U O0 co co co a~.

Ef0 L U ’U N .~ ~ =




229

The questionnaire consists of 10 scales and four sets of individual ques-tions designed to measure the dependent variables. The 10 scales used in thestudy are (1) Belief in Prosocial Norms (14 items; alpha = .76), (2) SocialIntegration (15 items; alpha = .85), (3) Commitment to School (9 items; al-pha = .67), (4) Rebellious Behavior (14 items; alpha = .82), (5) Peer DrugModeling (8 items; alpha = .77), (6) Attitudes Against Substance Use (12items; alpha = .66), (7) Attachment to School (8 items; alpha = .75), (8)Self-Esteem (15 items; alpha = .84), (9) Assertiveness (8 items; alpha = .58),and (10) Positive Peer Modeling (16 items; alpha = .69). Sets of individualvariables include questions on attitudes about police (2 items), copingstrategies (3 items), and drug use in the last year (4 items) and last month (3items).’

Each scale was calculated so that a high score indicates a high level of thefactor. For all scales, the items were recoded so that the responses were inthe same direction and averaged.

RESULTS

PRETREATMENT DIFFERENCES FOR

DARE AND NON-DARE STUDENTS

Comparisons were made between the DARE and non-DARE groups toassess initial equivalence on the demographic and outcome variables. Statis-tically significant pretreatment differences were found for two of the threedemographic measures. The DARE group had significantly more femalestudents (p < .05) and more white students (p < .01) than the comparisongroup. The data indicate males made up 45% of the DARE group and 54%

of the comparison group, whereas white students made up 59% of the DARE

group and 44% of the comparison group. No significant differences werefound for the third demographic variable, the respondent’s average age. Themean age for both groups of students was 10.3 years.

Table 2 shows means and standard deviations for all outcome measures

at the time of the pre- and posttest. Three outcome measures were shown tobe significantly different (p < .05) for DARE and non-DARE students at thetime of the pretest. Before the DARE program began, a higher percentage ofthe DARE students reported smoking cigarettes in the last year. The DAREgroup was also found to be less attached to school and believe less in

prosocial norms than the comparison group.




230

JBc5’0

U)c00

.cD-E0C)’0

casWceaa

IfI)9)

:JM0

d20

E0

.200

Mc0

0as

0C’0as

c

aw-0

cas0cas0

2TS

0fI)0o.’0

c0ia

NwJm

H




231

6%W(D8zC!~...asQ»CDUEcm 0.5.s1;)::::J :3

-X 0<D <DmLw rra.;...c.9 as6%,

-

-f/)~’ EL=0’0cis

T5.~ .

~H --m

8§ &horbar; ~ ~ ~oc 2 > m N -asa. °- -s ~ 591 c LO q q>- O

° ° °

~ae ~ v v v2 ä) V Q.. Q.. Q..o .0 a) a) a)

.~ ë5 m ~ ~ ~«g fi«««~o _mmmc U) 0(a N C C C Caso .ZZZZ0 cts cis co0 ~ 0 U U U U0 C) 00.0C co ’E ’E ’E ’Eg c o c c c ccNOLM·m·m in·mm<fi56%&dquo;«°o°o~~I:Bi~êDêDêD(a clj m 0)$(~#j~## L - 0 :¡:; &dquo;C &dquo;C &dquo;CCM3~S~!~§&dquo;C1;)fä:ËËËcc cu ~ ~’ Q n. n~&horbar;...e-Q.Q.Q.~Q)mfa::::J::::J::::J :3~~ N m o 0 0-20 rA E cm cm cm~~~a.555 oCL :3 m 0 U)E 0 -- -- -r-

&horbar;&horbar; 0 as 0) (g t0 t0 asCL. CL M> cn m ° o 0 0> w m 0 0 0m m ~’C U U Um dCD M Co CL&dquo;o ’a ’acc 0- 0 E 0) E o a o c o c~’~.c 8wwwq:: 0 a: a: a:C m p C Q Q Qt&dquo;&dquo;°’maaa

M S 5uj ~~~-d x~-CE 3 3 o<D m <j< c c c0 sgCD r Za ’C ’C’a_mEN>;~cD 00 8co TA229D CIS m O O O- 0-0 0 w 0as > ~ -&dquo; M M M

Uc .- ’C c ëü ëü ëüp ~ -p m Rf I~ t~>=Qwmmm ...9 ~=c g>g>g>.. &dquo;- ~ c c cj~j~.~.~.fi-0 U5cc$ Cc%0 c: (Dz 5 ~ ~+- ::: E




232

POSTTREATMENT DIFFERENCES FORDARE AND NON-DARE STUDENTS

Initial analyses compared the DARE and comparison groups on eachoutcome measure without applying statistical controls for known pretreat-ment differences. These analyses revealed differences between only twovariables, peer drug modeling and attitudes against substance use, both at thep < .05 level. However, as Table 2 shows, controlling for preexisting differ-ences and the dependent variable measured prior to treatment, the DAREstudents initiated alcohol use less in the last year (p < .05), had higher levelsof belief in prosocial norms (p < .01), reported less association with drug-using peers (p < .01), felt more of their peer associations were positive orprosocial (p < .05), had an increase in attitudes against substance use (p <

.001 ), and were more assertive (p < .05) than the comparison students.Other findings demonstrated no effect. DARE and non-DARE students

did not differ significantly on the percentage reporting cigarette, tobacco, ormarijuana use in the last year, or frequency of any drug use in the past month.Items targeting coping strategies and attitudes about police were also nodifferent between the two groups. Finally, social integration, commitmentand attachment to school, rebellious behavior, and self-esteem scale scoreswere not significantly different for those in the DARE program than for thosenot in the program.

In summary, the evidence shows DARE students had more beliefs in

prosocial norms, more attitudes against substance use, more assertiveness,and more positive peer associations than the comparison group. The DAREstudents also reported less association with drug-using peers and less alcoholuse in the last year. However, the DARE students were equivalent to thenon-DARE students on social integration, commitment and attachment toschool, rebellious behavior, coping strategies, attitudes about the police,self-esteem, and last-year and last-month drug use (with the exception oflast-year alcohol use).

DISCUSSION

LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY

Several factors limit the present study. These are different units of analy-sis, selection threat due to lack of randomization, and multiple comparisons.




233

The problem with the unit of analysis is that the treatment and comparisongroups were determined by matching schools on specified school character-istics, the program was delivered to classrooms of students, and the analysiswas performed at the individual level. The best solution to this problem wouldhave been to randomly assign students to classrooms within schools wheresome classrooms would receive DARE and other classrooms would not.

Assuming this could be done with many classrooms (at least 50), in severaldifferent schools, the analysis could be performed using the DARE andcontrol classroom means. This was not possible because the evaluation wasconducted after student assignment to classrooms and DARE assignment toschools had already taken place.

Given the random assignment of children into classrooms was not possi-ble, it then would have been better if schools were randomly assigned toreceive the DARE program or serve as control schools. This would havedecreased a selection threat. Currently the argument could be made that thetreatment and comparison schools were different to begin with on schoolcharacteristics other than those used for matching. As previously mentioned,the decision about which schools received DARE and which did not wasdetermined prior to the beginning of the evaluation.

The last issue worth mentioning is that of multiple comparisons. It ispossible the significant outcome effects are overestimated due to the fact thatthe statistical tests performed were not independent but were treated as such.

CURRENT FINDINGS AND COMPARISONS

The current DARE evaluation demonstrates the program’s effectivenesson some of the measured outcome variables but not on others. i’he current

study shows DARE does have an impact on several of the program objec-tives. Among these are attitudes against substance use, assertiveness, positivepeer association, association with drug-using peers, and alcohol use withinthe last year.

It should be noted that several of the variables showing no differencebetween the treatment and control groups are not specifically targeted byDARE (although they are shown to be correlated with adolescent drug use).Among these are social integration, attachment and commitment to school,and rebellious behavior. It could also be argued that the DARE program doesnot specifically aim to change attitudes toward police officers, although thismay be a tacit objective. Because the program does not target these outcomesspecifically, it may not be surprising there were no differences found betweenthe DARE and non-DARE groups. It was hypothesized that the DARE




234

program may impact factors relating to later adolescent drug use, even ifthose factors were not specific aims of the program but this hypothesis didnot hold true. In a sense this is evidence that helps to reject the selectionargument. If the positive results were due to selection, they would not befound only for the outcomes targeted by DARE.

Much like the three previously reviewed DARE evaluations, the currentstudy adds to the mixed results produced thus far with one exception. Acrossall studies using a pre-post comparison group design, DARE students’attitudes against drug use have consistently been shown to increase and differsignificantly from the control students. Because favorable attitudes towarddrug use have been shown to predict or correlate with later adolescent druguse (Kandel, Kessler, and Margulies 1978), this finding provides some of themost convincing evidence that DARE shows promise as a drug preventionstrategy.

On the other hand, there are no other consistent findings for assertiveness(resisting peer pressure), self-esteem, or attitudes toward police. The currentstudy found an increase in assertiveness among the DARE students as com-pared to the non-DARE students. Ringwalt et al. (1991) and Faine andBohlander (1988) also found this to be true but Clayton, Cattarello, Day, andWalden (1991) did not. Effects on self-esteem were not demonstrated in thepresent DARE evaluation nor were they in Clayton’s (Clayton, Cattarello,Day, and Walden 1991 ) or Ringwalt’s (Ringwalt et al. 1991 ). However, sig-nificant differences in self-esteem were seen for the DARE participants overthe controls in Faine and Bohlander’s (1988) study. Thus the Charleston studyhelps to increase the consistency of the assertiveness and self-esteem results.

Faine and Bohlander’s (1988) study also showed that positive attitudestoward police were significantly greater for the treatment group than thecontrol group but the present study did not replicate such findings. However,the difference found between these two studies may be due to the measuresused. The current DARE study uses only two single-item questions to assessstudents’ attitudes about the police, whereas Faine and Bohlander (1988)used an 11-item scale that is likely to be more valid.

With reference to drug use, all of the stronger DARE evaluations foundno effects with the exception of the current study, which found a significantdifference on last-year alcohol use. Clayton’s follow-up evaluation showedonly one significant difference in the wrong direction on the first of twofollow-up posttests (Clayton, Cattarello, and Walden 1991). As Clayton,Cattarello, and Walden (1991) point out, the lack of short-term drug usedifferences may be due to low base rates and thus should not be interpretedto mean DARE has no effect on adolescent drug involvement.




’ 235

RECOMMENDATIONS

Replication studies of the evaluation of the DARE program should becontinued because mixed evidence exists about the program’s overall effec-tiveness. Conducting randomized experiments would certainly be best fordrawing more confident conclusions about DARE program outcomes. Lon-gitudinal studies would also aid in assessing the long-term program goal ofdeterring adolescent drug use.

There is one large problem with recommending a long-term study on adrug prevention program that is conducted in schools in the United States.The problem involves finding a true &dquo;no treatment&dquo; control group. Almost

every school in the nation has some type of drug education component em-bodied in the school curriculum that is often mandated by the state. Therefore,it is likely the control group will receive some form of drug education. Thisproblem has been documented as Clayton’s (Clayton, Cattarello, and Walden1991) study used a comparison group that received the school drug educa-tion unit and the ETI (Evaluation and Training Institute) had to discontinuetheir 5-year longitudinal study because the entire control group had essen-tially become a treatment group (Criminal Justice Statistics Association1990).

In the future, it may be possible only to compare students’ receiving somespecificed drug prevention program with the school system’s drug educationunit. However, this appears acceptable if the school system simply requiresa unit session on factual drug information or a similar low-level interventionbecause prevention efforts such as these have consistently been shown tohave no positive effects (Berberin et al. 1976; Kinder, Pape, and Walfish1980; Schaps et al. 1981; Tobler 1986).

Should evaluations of the DARE program continue, it is suggested onenational survey instrument be developed and used for all outcome evalua-tions. Currently, it is difficult to assess whether or not DARE is actually asuccess because different researchers use different survey instruments toexamine a variety of outcome measures. Measuring DARE program objec-tives and other risk factors associated with later drug use with one surveywould enable researchers to compare results across evaluations conducted in

U.S. cities and other parts of the world.Additional recommendations include employing peer leaders (i.e., high

school students) as instructors instead of police officers. There are tworeasons for this suggestion. First, it has not been consistently demonstratedthat attitudes toward police become more positive upon receiving the DAREprogram, and second, there has been some evidence supporting the use of




236

peer leaders as primary program providers (Botvin and Eng 1982; Botvin etal. 1984; Perry et al. 1980).

It would be not only interesting, but informative, to compare DAREprogram outcomes using peer leaders versus police officers as instructors.Should peer leaders provide equal or better outcomes, DARE programmingcosts would be considerably less and police officers would be more readilyavailable to respond to citizen calls.

It is further recommended that DARE be restructured to incorporatecomponents shown more consistently to be effective such as those found insecond-generation approaches. Although DARE aims to increase resistanceskills, coping, and decision making, the lessons specifically targeting thesefactors do so in the context of drug use only. Adolescents engaging in druguse behavior are often involved in other problem behaviors (Jessor and Jessor1977). It would seem most practical and beneficial to target all of thesebehaviors using one program as Botvin (1982) and Swisher (1979) have sug-gested. The DARE program could serve as this one program, assumingseveral changes were implemented.

First, existing components would have to be expanded and’ additionalcomponents added in order to target more broad-based adolescent life prob-lems such as family struggles, peer acceptance, sexual involvement, intimaterelationships, and effective communication (expressing ideas, listening). Ad-ditional sessions should include components from second-generation pro-grams such as setting goals, solving problems, and anticipating obstacles(Botvin, Renick, and Baker 1983; Schinke and Gilchrist 1985).

Second, skill acquisition is said to come about only through practice andreinforcement (Bandura 1977). It is proposed that any new skills taught, suchas problem solving, be reinforced with &dquo;real life&dquo; homework where students

practice these skills in the context of the &dquo;real world&dquo; rather than simply roleplaying them in the classroom.

The last recommendation is applicable not only to the DARE program butany drug prevention effort. It involves the addition of booster sessions

following the prevention program. Because adolescence is a time of growth,individual attitudes and behaviors may continue to change and develop asthe youth is maturing. Although short-term evidence of program effective-ness is encouraging, there is no guarantee a youth will continue to practicethose same behaviors or hold those same beliefs years, or even months, afterthe program has ended. In fact, follow-up studies have documented theeroding effects of drug prevention programs (Botvin and Eng 1980, 1982)and the superior effects of booster sessions (Botvin, Renick, and Baker 1983;Botvin et al. 1984). For these reasons, DARE, or any other drug prevention




237

program targeting adolescents, should include a series of follow-up sessionsin order to increase the likelihood of sustaining any positive effects.

NOTE

1. The specific content of each scale and the individual items used in the analysis areavailable from the author.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bennett, G. 1983. Youthful substance abuse. In Substance abuse: Pharmacologic, developmental

and clinical perspectives, edited by G. Bennett, C. Vourakis, and D. S. Woolf, 156-74. NewYork: Wiley.

Berberin, R. M., C. Gross, J. Lovejoy, and S. Paparella. 1976. The effectiveness of drug educationprograms: A critical review. Health Education Monographs 4:337-97.

Botvin, G. J. 1982. Broadening the focus of smoking prevention strategies. In Promotingadolescent health: A dialogue on research and practice, edited by T. Coates, A. Petersen,and C. L. Perry, 137-48. New York: Academic Press.

Botvin, G. J., E. Baker, N. Renick, A. D. Filazzola, and E. M. Botvin. 1984. A cognitive-behav-ioral approach to substance abuse prevention. Addictive Behaviors 9:137-47.

Botvin, G. J., and L. Dusenbury. 1987. Substance abuse prevention and the promotion ofcompetence. In Primary Prevention and Promotion in the Schools, edited by L. S. Bond andB. E. Compas, 146-78. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Botvin, G. J., and A. Eng. 1980. A comprehensive school-based smoking prevention. Journal ofSchool Health 50:209-13.

—. 1982. The efficacy of a multi-component approach to the prevention of cigarettesmoking. Preventive Medicine 11:199-211.

Botvin, G. J., N. Renick, and E. M. Baker 1983. The effects of scheduling format and boostersessions on a broad spectrum psychosocial approach to smoking prevention. Journal ofBehavioral Medicine 6:359-79.

Campbell, D. T., and J. C. Stanley. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for re-search. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Clayton, R. R., A. Cattarello, L. E. Day, and K. P. Walden. 1991. Persuasive communicationsand drug abuse prevention: An evaluation of the DARE program. In Persuasive communi-cation and drug abuse prevention, edited by L. Donohew, H. Sypher, and W. Bukowski,295-313. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Clayton, R. R., A. Cattarello, and K. P. Walden. 1991. Sensation seeking as a potential mediatingvariable for school-based prevention interventions: A two-year follow-up of DARE. Journalof Health Communications 3(4): 229.

Criminal Justice Statistics Association. 1990. Evaluating drug control initiatives: Conferenceproceedings, June 20-22, 1990. Washington, DC: Author.




238

Elliot, D. S., and D. Huizinga. 1984. The relationship between delinquent behavior and ADMproblems (The Nation Youth Survey Project Report No. 28). Boulder: University of Colo-rado, Behavioral Research Institute.

Faine, J. R., and E. Bohlander. 1988. Drug abuse resistance education: An assessment of the1987-1988 Kentucky State Police DARE program. Bowling Green: Western KentuckyUniversity, Social Research Laboratory.

Gottfredson, G. D. 1989. You and Your School (survey instrument). Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.

Gordon, N. P., and A. L. McAlister. 1982. Adolescent drinking: Issues and research. In Promotingadolescent health: A dialog on research and practice, edited by T. J. Coates, A. C. Peterson,and C. Perry, 201-23. New York: Academic Press.

Hamburg, B. A., H. C. Braemer, and W. A. Jahnke. 1975. Hierarchy of drug use in adolescence:Behavioral and attitudinal correlates of substantial drug use. American Journal of Psychiatry132:1155-67.

Hansen, W. B., A. J. Johnson, B. R. Flay, J. W. Graham, and J. Sobel. 1988. Affective and socialinfluences approaches to prevention of multiple substance abuse among seventh gradestudents: Results from project SMART. Preventive Medicine, 17:135-54.

Hanson, D. J. 1980. Drug education: Does it work? In Drugs and the Youth Culture, edited byF. R. Scarpitti and S. K. Datesman, 251-82. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Jessor, R., and S. L. Jessor. 1977. Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitu-dinal study of youth. New York: Academic Press.

Johnston, L. D. 1973. Drugs and American youth. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institutefor Social Research.

Johnston, L. D., J. G. Bachman, and P. M. O’Malley. 1991. Press release from the University ofMichigan News and Information Services: January 23, 1991. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan, Institute for Social Research.

Kandel, D. B. 1978. Convergence in prospective longitudinal surveys of drug use m normalpopulations. In Longitudinal Research on drug use: Empirical findings and methodologicalIssues, edited by D. B. Kandel, 3-38. Washington, DC: Hemisphere-Wiley.

Kandel, D. B., R. C. Kessler, and R. S. Margulies. 1978. Antecedents of adolescent initiationinto stages of drug use: Adevelopmental analysis. Journal of Youth andAdolescence 7:13-40.

Kinder, B., N. Pape, and S. Walfish. 1980. Drug and alcohol education programs: A review ofoutcome studies. International Journal of Addictions 7:1035-54.

Perry, C. L., J. Killen, L. A. Slinkard, and A. L. McAlister. 1980. Peer teaching and smokingprevention among junior high students. Adolescence 9:277-81.

Polich, J. M., P. L. Ellickson, P. Reuter, and J. P. Kahan. 1984. Strategies for controllingadolescent drug use. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Project DARE: How’s it doing? 1990 (Spring). Prevention File, 16-18.Richards, L. G. 1980. The epidemiology of youthful drug use. In Drugs and the youth culture,

edited by F. R. Scarpitti and S. K. Datesman, 33-57. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Ringwalt, C., S. T. Ennett, and K. Holt. 1991. An outcome evaluation of DARE (Drug Abuse

Resistance Education). Health Education Research Theory and Practice 6:327-37.

Schaps, E. J., R. D. Bartolo, J. Moskowitz, C. S. Palley, and S. Churgin. 1981. A review of 127drug abuse prevention program evaluations. Journal of Drug Issues 11:17-43.

Schinke, S. P., and L. D. Gilchrist. 1985. Preventing substance abuse with children andadolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 53:596-602.

Sells, S. B., and D. D. Simpson. 1979. Evaluation of treatment outcomes for youths in the DrugAbuse Reporting Program (DARP): A follow-up study. In Youth drug abuse: Problems,




239

issues and treatment, edited by G. M. Beschner and A. S. Friedman, 571-613. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books

South Carolina Department of Education and South Carolina Commission on Alcohol and DrugAbuse. 1990. Youth survey results regarding alcohol and other drug use in South Carolinaduring the 1989-90 school year: Survey results for Charleston School District. Columbia,SC: South Carolina Department of Education and South Carolina Commission on Alcoholand Drug Abuse.

Stein, M. D., and J. K. Davis. 1982. Therapies for adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Swisher, J. D. 1979. Prevention issues. In Handbook on drug abuse, edited by R. L. Dupont, A.

Goldstein, and J. O’Donnell, 423-35. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.Swisher, J. D., and A. Hoffman. 1975. Information: The irrelevant variable in drug education.

In Drug abuse prevention: Perspectives and approaches for educators, edited by B. W.Corder, R. A. Smith, and J. D. Swisher, 49-62. Dubuque, IA: Brown.

Telch, M. J., J. D. Killen, A. L. McAlister, C. L. Perry, and N. Maccoby. 1982. Long-termfollow-up of a pilot project on smoking prevention with adolescents. Journal of BehavioralMedicine 5:1-8.

Tobler, N. 1986. Meta-analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention programs: Quantitativeoutcome results of program participants compared to a control or comparison group. Journalof Drug Issues 16 (4):537-67.

Michele Ahcia Harmon is a doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland’s Institute ofCriminal Justice and Criminology. Her primary interests include drug prevention efforts andevaluation research. She is currently conducting an evaluation of several drug preventionprograms in the state of Maryland.




reducing the risk of drug involvement among - sage publications

Documents