Preventing Substance Use Problems Among Young People - A Compendium of Best Practices

Section 4 - Special Focus: A Summary of Evaluations of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Program

The "Drug Abuse Resistance Education" (D.A.R.E.) program is the most widely implemented school-based drug use prevention program in the US. It is also increasingly popular among Canadian schools and police forces. A health education specialist, in co-operation with law enforcement agencies, first developed it in California in the mid-1980s.

The primary prevention curriculum is delivered by trained, uniformed police officers to children in Grades 5 and 6 (ages 10-12). Seventeen 45-minute sessions are taught on a weekly basis, spanning the following topics: information about drug effects; media awareness; normative education; peer resistance skills; decision-making skills; self-esteem; healthy alternatives; and personal safety. D.A.R.E. includes a parent program consisting of 6 lessons. Thus, the D.A.R.E. curriculum, revised in 1995, is reasonably comprehensive to the extent that parents of participating students complete the parent component. It contains elements of the informational, affective, and social influences approaches, utilizing both didactic and interactive teaching methods.

There have been many D.A.R.E. reviews and evaluations, but few rigorous scientific evaluations. While some evaluations show positive results,¹ studies published in peer reviewed journals, including a 5-year prospective study and a meta-analysis of D.A.R.E. outcome evaluations, have been consistent in showing that the program does not prevent or delay drug use, nor does it affect future intentions to use. ^{2, 3,4,5,6,7,8} On the positive side, it does seem to boost anti-drug attitudes, at least in the short-term, increase knowledge about drugs and foster positive police-community relations. Also, acceptance of the program is generally quite high among police presenters, students and their parents. ^9,10

There are several possible explanations for the lack of effect on drug use. A primary difficulty may be in the method of instruction. An interactive life skills training approach appears to be most effective in late elementary and junior high years. ¹¹ Yet just 9 of 17 lessons in the D.A.R.E. curriculum give attention to social competency development, and use of interactive teaching techniques is infrequent. ¹² Interactive approaches that actively engage students in a variety of participatory activities require unique classroom management and facilitation skills. To be considered truly interactive, program activities and discussion need to be student-focused, and involve the leader in a less central way; ¹³ consequently, if the program places police officers in a prominent role in the sessions, effectiveness may be inhibited.

It should be noted that many prevention programs have failed to show effect on behavioural outcomes and some of the evaluations hold D.A.R.E. to high standards. To their credit, D.A.R.E. sponsors have shown a willingness to evaluate and to attempt to improve the program over the years. The program was revised in 1995 to include more interactive delivery strategies, and other topics such as violence however, the effectiveness of the revised program is yet to be reported.

While awaiting findings from evaluations of the revised program, it would make sense for sponsors to revisit the program approach to ensure sufficient interactivity among students. This means also reviewing the role of the police officer in delivering the program. Recruitment and training of D.A.R.E. presenters need to give attention to attributes and skills that lend themselves to effective facilitation of interactive lessons. A well-conceived approach that involved police officers co-leading with mental health professionals or students may enhance outcomes as well (meta-analysis has suggested that mental health professionals and peer leaders tend to be effective with this approach).¹⁴

It is also important that information on substances be accurate and balanced. Messages that exaggerate negative risks and contain moral undertones need to be avoided because they will not be viewed as credible. Programs that demonstrate - explicitly and implicitly - respect for the ability of young people to reason and to draw meaning and insight from their own experiences and that of others will be more effective. Other elements of good practice that may be worth considering are adding booster sessions and increasing the comprehensiveness of the program by collaborating with other prevention interests in the community. It is also important to bear in mind that youth are not a homogeneous population. Greater effectiveness is likely when programs tailor their approach and method to the characteristics (including risk level) of various sub-groups.

Police officers represent a very significant resource for classroom drug education in this country and their efforts need to be supported. It is important that their potential as drug educators is maximized by a recruitment, training and curriculum development approach that is grounded in the available scientific evidence.

---

¹ Donnermeyer, J., D.A.R.E. Evaluation: State of Ohio, Phase II Executive Summary. 1995.
² Becker, H. K., Agopian, M. W., and Yeh, S., Impact evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Journal of Drug Education, Vol. 22, 283-291, 1992.
³ Clayton, R. R., Cattarello, A. M., and Johnstone, B. M., The Effectiveness of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (Project D.A.R.E.): 5-year Follow-up Results. Preventive Medicine, Vol. 25, 307-318, 1996.
⁴ Dukes, R. L., Ullman, J. B., and Stein, J. A., Three year follow-up of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Evaluation Review, 20, 49-66, 1996.
⁵ Ennett, S. T., Tobler, N. S., Ringwalt, C. L., and Flewelling, R. L. How Effective is Drug Abuse Resistance Education? A Meta-analysis of Project D.A.R.E. Outcome Evaluations. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 84, 1394-1401, 1994.
⁶ Harmon, M. A., Reducing the Risk of Drug Involvement Among Early Adolescents: An Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Evaluation Review, Vol. 17, 221-239, 1993.
⁷ Rosenbaum, D. P., Flewelling, R. L., Bailey, S. L., Ringwalt, C. L., and Wilkinson, D. L. Cops in the Classroom: A Longitudinal Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.).Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 31, 3-31, 1994.
⁸ Britt, M., and Jachym, N., Cigarette and Alcohol Use Among 4^th and 5^th Graders: Results of a New Survey. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education . Vol 41, #3, 1996.
⁹ Curtis, C.K., The Efficacy of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program in West Vancouver Schools. West Vancouver Police Department, 1999.
¹⁰ Donnermeyer, J., Parents' Perceptions of a School-Drug Prevention Education Program. Journal of Drug Education Vol. 30, #3, 2000.
¹¹ Tobler, N., Drug Prevention Programs Can Work: Research findings. Journal of Addictive Diseases, Vol. 11, #3, 1992.
¹² Evans, A., and Bosworth, K., Building Effective Drug Education Programs, Phi delta Kappa Center For Evaluation, Development And Research #19, Dec. 1997.
¹³ Tobler, N, et al., School-based Adolescent Drug Prevention Programs: A1998 Meta-analysis. Journal of Primary Prevention, Vol. 20, #4, 2000.
¹⁴ Tobler, N.; Stratton, H., Effectiveness Of School-Based Drug Prevention Programs: A meta-analysis of the Literature. Journal of Primary Prevention, Vol. 18, #1: 71-128, 1997.