We present the short-term results of a quasi-experimental evaluation of the revised D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) curriculum. Study outcomes examined were D.A.R.E.'s effects on three substances, namely students' lifetime and 30-day use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana, as well as their school attendance and academic performance. The study comprised students in 17 urban schools, each of which served as its own control; 5th graders in the 2006–2007 school year constituted the comparison group (n = 1490), and those enrolled as 5th graders in the 2007–2008 school year constituted the intervention group (n = 1450). We found no intervention effect on students' substance use for any of the substance use outcomes assessed. We did find that students were more likely to attend school on days they received D.A.R.E. lessons and that students in the intervention group were more likely to have been suspended. Study findings provide little support for the implementation and dissemination of the revised D.A.R.E. curriculum.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhmedN. U.AhmedN. S.BennettC. R.HindsJ. E. (2002). Impact of a Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program in preventing the initiation of cigarette smoking in fifth- and sixth-grade students. Journal of the National Medical Association, 94, 249–256.
2.
BeckerH. K.AgopianM. W.YehS. (1992). Impact evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Journal of Drug Education, 22, 283–291.
3.
BirkelandS.Murphy-GrahamE.WeissC. (2005). Good reasons for ignoring good evaluation: The case of the drug abuse resistance education (D.A.R.E.) program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 247–256.
4.
BlasikK. A.BelsitoR. (1993). Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program (D.A.R.E.). Evaluation report. Broward County, FL: Broward County (Florida) Public Schools.
5.
BotvinG. J.GriffinK. W.PaulE.MacaulayA. P. (2003). Preventing tobacco and alcohol use among elementary school students through life skills training. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 12, 6–17.
6.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (2008). Blueprints promising programs overview. Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/promising/overview.html
7.
ClaytonR. R.CattarelloA.WaldenK. P. (1991). 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.
8.
ClaytonR. R.CattarelloA. M.JohnstoneB. M. (1996). The effectiveness of drug abuse resistance education (Project D.A.R.E.): 5-year follow-up results. Preventive Medicine, 25, 307–318.
9.
DeJongW. (1987). A short-term evaluation of Project D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education): Preliminary indications of effectiveness. Journal of Drug Education, 17, 279–294.
10.
DonnermeyerJ. F.WurschmidtT. N. (1997). Educators' perceptions of the D.A.R.E. program. Journal of Drug Education, 27, 259–276.
11.
Drug Strategies. (1999). Making the grade: A guide to school drug prevention programs. Washington, DC: Drug Strategies.
12.
DukesR. L.SteinJ. A.UllmanJ. B. (1997). Long-term impact of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Results of a 6-year follow-up. Evaluation Review, 21, 483–500.
13.
DukesR. L.UllmanJ. B.SteinJ. A. (1995). An evaluation of D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), using a Solomon four-group design with latent variables. Evaluation Review, 19, 409–435.
14.
DukesR. L.UllmanJ. B.SteinJ. A. (1996). Three-year follow-up of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Evaluation Review, 20, 49–66.
15.
EnnettS. T.RosenbaumD. P.FlewellingR. L.BielerG. S.RingwaltC. L.BaileyS. L. (1994). Long-term evaluation of drug abuse resistance education. Addictive Behaviors, 19, 113–125.
16.
EnnettS. T.ToblerN. S.RingwaltC. L.FlewellingR. L. (1994). How effective is drug abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of Project D.A.R.E. outcome evaluations. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1394–1401.
17.
HansenW. B.McNealR. B. (1997). How D.A.R.E. works: An examination of program effects on mediating variables. Health Education & Behavior, 24, 165–176.
18.
HarmonM. A. (1993). Reducing the risk of drug involvement among early adolescents: An evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Evaluation Review, 17, 221–239.
19.
HenryG. T. (2003). Influential evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 515–524.
20.
LynamD. R.MilichR.ZimmermanR.NovakS. P.LoganT. K.MartinC. (1999). Project D.A.R.E.: No effects at 10-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 590–593.
21.
MerrillJ.PinskyI.Killeya-JonesL.SlobodaZ.DilascioT. (2006). Substance abuse prevention infrastructure: A survey-based study of the organizational structure and function of the D.A.R.E. program. Retrieved July 16, 2008, from http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/1/1/25
22.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2003). Preventing drug use among children and adolescents. A research-based guide for parents educators, and community leaders (2nd ed.). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health.
23.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002). Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat 1425.
24.
RingwaltC. L.EnnettS.VincusA.ThorneJ.RohrbachL. A.Simons-RudolphA. (2002). The prevalence of effective substance use prevention curricula in U.S. middle schools. Prevention Science, 3, 257–265.
25.
RingwaltC. L.EnnettS. T.HoltK. D. (1991). An outcome evaluation of Project D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Health Education Research, 6, 327–337.
26.
RingwaltC. L.GreeneJ. M.EnnettS. T.IachanR.ClaytonR. R.LeukefeldC. G. (1994). Past and future directions of the D.A.R.E. program: An evaluation review (Draft Final Report). Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
27.
RogersE. M. (1993). Diffusion and reinvention of Project D.A.R.E., In BackerT. E.RogersE. M. (Eds.), Organizational aspects of health communication campaigns: What works? (pp. 139–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
RogersE. M. (1995). Diffusion of drug abuse prevention programs: Spontaneous diffusion, agenda setting, and reinvention. In BackerT. E.DavidS. L.SaucyG. (Eds.), Reviewing the behavioral science knowledge base on technology transfer. NIDA research monograph 155 (pp. 90–105). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
29.
RosenbaumD. P.FlewellingR. L.BaileyS. L.RingwaltC. L.WilkinsonD. L. (1994). Cops in the classroom: A longitudinal evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 3–31.
30.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. (1998). Notice of final Principles of Effectiveness, 63Fed Reg. 104.
31.
Society for Prevention Research. (2004). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Falls Church, VA: Society for Prevention Research.
32.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration [SAMHSA]. (2003). National Survey on Drug Use (NSDUH). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
33.
ThombsD. L. (2000). A retrospective study of D.A.R.E.: Substantive effects not detected in undergraduates. Journal of Alcohol & Drug Education, 46, 27–40.
34.
ToblerN. S.StrattonH. H. (1997). Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 18, 71–128.
35.
WeissC. H.Murphy-GrahamE.BirkelandS. (2005). An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect D.A.R.E. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 12–30.
36.
WestS. L.O'NealK. K. (2004). Research and practice: Project D.A.R.E. outcome effectiveness revisited. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1027–1029.
37.
WysongE.AniskiewiczR.WrightD. (1994). Truth and D.A.R.E.: Tracking drug education to graduation and as symbolic politics. Social Problems, 41, 448–472.
38.
ZagumnyM. J.ThompsonM. K. (1997). Does D.A.R.E. work? An evaluation in rural Tennessee. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 42, 32–41.
