Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:A:American Journal of Police:Vol14.Issue3-4.1995:
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
111
DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION
PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
Robert T. Sigler
University of Alabama
Gregory B. Talley
Los Alamos Police Department
The use of non-alcoholic drugs for recreational purposes dates
back to 4000 BC (Sonnedecker, 1962). Introduced to New England in
1629, marijuana (medicinal use) and hemp (rope) were cultivated as
major crops until the Civil War (Bercher, 1972). Efforts to control drug
use were virtually non-existent through much of history. In the United
States, efforts directed toward control began with the passage of a city
ordinance in San Francisco regulating the distribution of opium (Green
and Levy, 1976). About 40 years later, the Harrison Act sought to
establish national control for opiates. It was followed 23 years later by the
Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. The first national agency to combat drug
sales was established in 1930 and evolved into today’s Drug Enforcement
Administration (McWilliams, 1990). Drug enforcement grew rapidly
during the 1970s and 1980s, and by 1990 specialized enforcement
programs were in place in all 50 states (Drug Enforcement
Administration, 1990).
Even though enforcement efforts have led to increasingly high
levels of interdiction and seizure, the use of drugs by younger and
younger children has continued to expand. Johnston et al. (1986) studied
trends in high school student drug use by examining results from surveys
of 16,000 high school seniors from 1975 to 1985. Among their findings
were indications that about 61 percent of the students reported having
used illicit drugs at some time in their lives, and about 5 percent had
reported using marijuana and alcohol on a daily basis.
Drug use by children cannot be predicted from family
background. There are no significant relationships between drug use and
112
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
characteristics such as sex, race, religion, family income, or father’s
income (Kandel et al., 1978). There does appear to be a relationship
between drug use and drug use of the child’s peers, and the attitudes and
values of drug users reflect lessened conformity to social expectations
(Kandel, 1980). There is a consistent pattern of decreasing grades,
absences from school, and declining academic motivation prior to drug
use (Binder et al., 1988).
Attention has turned to drug prevention programs, many of which
are educational in nature. Oetting and Beauvais (1987) suggested that
nearly all drug use begins in the pre-adolescent or adolescent years. They
further noted that nearly all young people occasionally take drugs
(including alcohol) but seldom take enough drugs to produce tolerance or
addiction. Addiction is influenced by a number of social, cultural and
psychological factors. They suggest that these factors in the decision to
use drugs are secondary to the values and pressures expressed by the
child’s peer group. Peers provide drugs, talk to each other about drugs,
and determine the context in which drugs are used. Nearly all drug use
occurs with peers, but even when used alone it is done as a function of
norms established by the youth’s peers.
Research in the 1970s examined the factors associated with drug
use and discovered factors such as gateway drug use (Kandel and Faust,
1975), socialization and peer recreational activities, and predisposing
character traits (Smith and Fogg, 1975). While secondary school students
were familiar with different types of drugs, they were unaware of the
hazards associated with drug use (Wright and Pearl, 1981). In order to
prevent drug use, educational programs were developed for use in the
nation’s schools.
Many of the early educational programs were less than successful
and in some cases appeared to be counterproductive. Some programs
produced increased drug awareness but this increased awareness
appeared to lead to increased investigations of drugs on the part of the
children involved in the programs (Shepphard et al., 1987); meanwhile,
other programs appeared to be of marginal value in preventing drug use
(Botvin and Wills, 1985). Careful analysis of early efforts and revised
second generation programs led to the discovery of a number of factors
that appear to be linked to program success. A short, concentrated,
lecture-oriented effort is less effective than longer participative programs.
Successful programs have both substance and quality (Bonaguro et al.,
1988), include an emphasis on resistance skills (Gonzalez, 1988; Hansen
et al., 1988), decision-making skills (Milgram, 1987), problem-solving
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
113
skills and value clarification (Goodstadt, 1989), and role playing or
modeling and self-management skills (Goldstein, 1989). In addition,
students must be motivated to use what they have learned (DeJong,
1987), and programs that include booster or follow-up sessions are more
successful (Duryea and Okwumabua, 1988).
The Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Unified
School District applied these factors to the program of drug education
that they developed. The Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
(DARE) created by this joint venture is composed of three elements
designed for specific grade levels (kindergarten through grade 4, grades 5
and 6, and grades 7 through 9). Students are prepared to recognize the
pressures that might influence them to use drugs and are provided with
the skills needed to resist those pressures using a focus on self-esteem,
communication skills, decision-making skills, and positive alternatives to
drug use. The DARE program is taught by veteran police officers in
regular classrooms, during school hours, for one hour a week for one
semester. The primary program is in the fifth and sixth grade component.
The early component introduces the students to the police officers and to
the negative effects of drugs, and the later component functions as a
booster for the basic program. The early component is a class visitation or
enrichment component while the booster component is a second onesemester, hour program (DeJong, 1987). The DARE program has enjoyed
wide acceptance and has been adopted by a number of police departments
and schools in the United States.
Three previous evaluations of DARE programs have been
reviewed. The first evaluated the original DARE program. DeJong
(1987) compared seventh graders who had been exposed to the DARE
program with seventh graders who had not been exposed to the DARE
program. Seventh graders who had been exposed to the DARE program
reported lower usage of alcohol, cigarettes and other substances during
their seventh grade year. A second study conducted by the Illinois State
Highway Patrol, evaluated the effectiveness of training the children to
say “no” (Ringwalt et al., 1990). In this study, the control group subjects
increased their use of tobacco, a “gateway” drug, while the experimental
group displayed no increase in tobacco use; differences in alcohol use,
however, were not significant. The experimental group did have higher
levels of self-esteem than the control group.
The third evaluation focused on program acceptance by various
cooperating groups (Earle et al., 1987). It was found that the program was
well accepted by teachers, school administrators and students with
114
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
resistance from drug and alcohol abuse service providers. They also
evaluated effectiveness and found that by the fourteenth week of the
program 92 percent of the students had acquired full refusal skills. The
study reported here attempts to assess attitude change, learning and
reported behavior following the administration of the program. The site
selected for evaluation was Los Alamos, New Mexico, a town that has
adopted and which is considering expanding the DARE program.
METHODOLOGY
Los Alamos is a moderate sized town with a professional base in
a relatively isolated environment. Crime rates tend to be consistently
lower than national averages. There have been no arrests for heroin in
recent years, although cocaine and marijuana arrests are not out of the
ordinary. There is neither an inner city nor areas which could be
characterized as extremely low income “ghetto” neighborhoods. Each
year the Los Alamos School District administers the PRIDE Survey
which includes measures of the use of controlled substances. Data were
collected using two instruments in a field experiment and one instrument
in a series of surveys.
VARIABLES
The independent variable in this study is exposure to the DARE
program. The DARE program is a set of 17 lessons designed to reduce the
likelihood that students will choose to use drugs which are presented to
students in the sixth grade as a part of their regular curriculum taught by
police officers.
The primary dependent variables were attitudes toward drug use
and degree of reported drug use. Attitudes toward drug use was measured
by a 40 item Likert type scale with six subscales: beliefs regarding the
effects experienced through drug use, beliefs concerning addiction,
beliefs regarding legal status of drug use, beliefs concerning the
physiological consequences of drug use, beliefs concerning the effects of
drug use, and beliefs concerning adult messages about drug use. Items
were scored such that attitudes which negatively label drugs and drug use
received higher scores. Thus, the higher the score the higher the rejection
of drugs and drug use. Reported drug use included reports of subject use
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
115
of controlled substances, beliefs regarding the harmfulness of controlled
substances, and frequency of use of controlled substances by friends. The
substances addressed included cigarettes, beer, wine coolers, liquor,
marijuana, cocaine, uppers, downers, inhalants and hallucinogens.
COLLECTION OF DATA
Two approaches were used in the collection of data. The first used
a field experiment approach. The DARE program is delivered to one half
of the schools in the district each semester. Data were collected during the
fall semester of 1990. The pre-test was administered at the beginning of
the semester and the post-test was administered at the end of the fall
semester. Students in the schools receiving the DARE program were the
experimental subjects and students in the schools not receiving the
DARE program constituted the control group. Assignment of the schools
to the DARE program was made by the superintendent of schools.
Teachers were trained and they administered the pre-test and the posttest.
The instrument was composed of a 40 item Likert type scale and
a set of demographic items. Following the administration of the pre-test,
complaints regarding the nature of the instrument were made by
community members who were concerned about privacy and possible
police investigation based on the information in the questionnaires even
though full human subject safety precautions were used. As a result, the
demographic items were removed from the post-test, thus demographic
data is only available from the pre-test. Complete data were collected for
248 subjects.
The second method of obtaining data relied on the regular
collection of data from the PRIDE Survey. The PRIDE Survey is
administered by teachers in the classroom to all seventh graders during
the fall semester and includes measures of reported controlled substance
abuse. Data from three seventh grades (1989, n = 216; 1990, n = 245,
1991 n = 259) were evaluated. The 1991 class had completed the DARE
training approximately 11 months before the collection of the PRIDE
data. The PRIDE instrument is a standardized self-administered
questionnaire which is composed of ten sections. Each of the eight
sections which measures drug behavior or beliefs is composed of a list of
ten drugs which students evaluate for focus questions such as “when did
you first?” and “within the past year how often have you?”. These data
116
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
were analyzed by PRIDE, Inc. who produced the analyses needed for this
project.
FINDINGS
There were no significant differences between the control and
experimental groups for the demographic variables. In addition, the
reported family demographics corresponded to census figures for the Los
Alamos population. There were no significant relationships among the
reported drug use measures and the various demographic measures. The
items in the Likert type scale were evaluated using the inter-quartile t. Six
items failed to discriminate and were dropped, producing a 34 item scale
with a range of 91 to 160 and a distribution which approximated a normal
curve.
The first hypothesis stated that children exposed to the DARE
program would have stronger anti-drug use attitudes than children not
exposed to the DARE program. Scores for the two groups corresponded
to the expected pattern, providing support for the first hypothesis (see
Table 1). Anti-drug use attitudes increased for the experimental group and
decreased for the control group with the pre-test scores for both groups
relatively equivalent. Attitudes of children who were exposed to the
DARE program were more positive toward drugs and drug use (increased
scores reflect a negative labeling of drugs and drug use) with a mean
increase of 4.3 units following the program, while the attitudes toward
drugs and drug use of children not exposed to DARE declined 2.9 units
during the same period.
The second hypothesis stated that children who had been exposed
to the DARE program would report lower use of controlled substances
than students who had not been exposed to the DARE program. This
Table 1
MEAN SCORES FOR ATTITUDES TOWARD DRUG USE
Group
Pre-test
Post-test*
Experimental*
Control
134.4706
135.2500
138.9067
132.3797
n = 248
* p < 0.002
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
117
hypothesis was not supported by the data. The differences between the
control groups and the experimental group were not significant and
several reversals can be noted. Students who were exposed to the DARE
program reported lower use of controlled substances (2.45%) than the
1989 sample (2.86%) but not less than the 1990 sample (1.66%) (see
Table 2). While DARE subjects reported lower first use of beer,
cigarettes, marijuana and inhalants than the control group, they reported
higher first use for liquor, cocaine and prescription drugs. Both first use
and past year sections had never used response options. Students who
indicated that they never used drugs for these items were classified as
abstainers. While DARE students reported lower levels of overall
abstinence than the control groups (91.57% compared with 93.44% and
92.54%) (see Table 3), the differences are not significant and reversals
can be noted for individual drugs. DARE subjects reported higher
abstinence levels than the control group for cigarettes and hallucinogens
Table 2
PERCENT OF SUBJECTS REPORTING FIRST USE OF HARMFUL
SUBSTANCES AT AGE OF 12 OR 13a b
Year
Substance
Cigarettes
Beer
Wine Coolers
Liquor
Marijuana
Cocaine
Uppers
Downers
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Other
Mean
n
a All
Control
1989
Control
1990
DARE
1991
7.9
4.2
7.0
3.7
3.3
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.9
1.4
1.4
6.2
2.5
3.7
2.5
1.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.4
0.4
4.7
2.3
5.8
5.8
1.2
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.4
3.1
2.86
216
1.66
245
2.45
259
subjects were measured while in the seventh grade. For the DARE subjects this was
the year immediately following exposure to DARE.
b There were no significant differences in comparisons between the percentages for the
DARE and control years.
118
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
Table 3
PERCENT OF STUDENTS REPORTING ABSTAINING FROM USE OF LISTED
SUBSTANCES
Year
Substance
Cigarettes
Beer
Wine Coolers
Liquor
Marijuana
Cocaine
Uppers
Downers
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Other
Mean
n
Control
1989
Control
1990
DARE
1991
83.2
86.0*
84.1
88.3
96.3
99.1
98.1
99.5
96.1
99.5
97.7
79.8
81.7
82.4
89.2
97.1
98.8
99.2
99.6
97.5
99.2
97.9
83.8
78.4
80.3
84.9
96.9
98.5
98.4
98.1
96.9
98.4
92.7
93.44
216
92.54
245
91.57
259
* Comparisons between percentages for the control group and the DARE group significant
at the 0.05 level.
but lower levels of abstinence than the control group for beer, wine
coolers, liquor, cocaine and downers. Lack of significance is also noted
for perceptions of drugs as harmful with a single reversal – liquor. The
DARE students were more likely to see the controlled substances as
harmful than either of the two control groups (see Table 4).
SUMMARY
DARE programs are being developed across the country. These
programs represent a major investment of both police manpower and
class time. The data reported here indicate that the DARE program is
successful in providing information. DARE students are more likely to
have attitudes favorable to avoidance of drug use. DARE students have
stronger anti-drug use attitudes than the control group at the end of
training and appear to have retained aspects of this perspective one year
later. The levels of reported behavior are less supportive. This study did
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
119
Table 4
PERCENT OF STUDENTS BELIEVING LISTED SUBSTANCES ARE HARMFUL
Year
Substance
Cigarettes
Beer
Wine Coolers
Liquor
Marijuana
Cocaine
Uppers
Downers
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Mean
n
Control
1989
Control
1990
DARE
1991
74.3
56.5
50.0
69.6
90.7
93.0
84.6
84.6
83.6
89.2
73.9
51.9
49.0
65.3*
90.5
91.3
85.1
85.1
82.2
88.4
78.7
58.9
50.8
74.8
94.6
95.3
90.7
90.7
82.9
91.5
77.61
216
76.27
245
80.89
259
* Comparisons between percentages for the control group and the DARE group significant
at the 0.05 level.
not find significant improvement in self-reported drug use when DARE
students were compared with two control groups. This is not consistent
with the results of an evaluation of the original program (DeJong, 1987)
which found lower reported use of all drugs for DARE subjects or with an
evaluation of an Illinois program (Ringwalt et al., 1990). Of course, the
groups may not be directly comparable because different time periods are
involved (1989, 1990, 1991). The inability to gather demographic data
with the post-test also limits the interpretation of the findings. It is
possible that the DARE program is more effective with one type of
student than with others. The one-year follow-up provides a limited time
frame and does not fully assess the stability of the effect over time.
At best, it appears that further research needs to be conducted
with more precise measures of reported use over a longer period of time.
It should be noted that at the time of the study, neither the seventh grade
“booster” sessions nor the earlier introductory sessions were in place.
With limited positive results at this stage, program expansion should be
approached with caution and with plans for comprehensive evaluation
which should include long-term measures of reported behaviors.
120
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
REFERENCES
Bercher, E.M. (1972), Licit and Illicit Drugs, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.
Binder, A., Geis, G. and Bruce, D. (1988), Juvenile Delinquency; Historical,
Cultural, Legal Perspectives, New York: Macmillan.
Bonaguro, J.A., Rhonehouse, M. and Bonaguro, E.W. (1988), “Effectiveness of
Four School Health Education Projects Upon Substance Use, Self-esteem, and
Adolescent Stress”, Health Education, 15:81-92.
Botvin, G.J. and Wills, T.A. (1985), “Personal and Social Skills Training:
Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches to Substance Abuse Prevention”, Journal of
Drug Education, 17:279-294.
DeJong, W. (1987), “A Short-Term Evaluation of Project DARE (Drug Abuse
Resistance Education): Preliminary Indications of Effectiveness”, Journal of
Drug Education, 17:279-294.
Drug Enforcement Association (DEA) (1990), 1990 Domestic Cannabis
Eradication/Suppression Program, Washington, DC: DEA.
Duryea, E.J. and Okwumabua, J.O. (1988), “Effects of a Preventive Alcohol
Education Program after Three Years”, Journal of Drug Education, 17:23-31.
Earle, Jr, R.B., Garner, J. and Phillips, N. (1987), Evaluation of the Illinois State
Police Pilot DARE Program, Springfield, IL: A.H. Training and Development
Systems, Inc.
Gonzalez, G.M. (1988), “Should Alcohol and Drug Education be a Part of
Comprehensive Prevention Policy? The Evidence From the College Campus”,
The Journal of Drug Issues, 18:355-365.
Goldstein, A.P. (1989), “Refusal Skills: Learning to be Positively Negative”,
Journal of Drug Education, 19:271-283.
Goodstadt, M.S. (1989), “Drug Education: The Prevention Issues”, Journal of
Drug Education, 19:197-208.
Green, H.I. and Levy, M.H. (1976), Drug Misuse Human Abuse, New York:
Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Hansen, W.B., Graham, J.W., Wolkenstein, B.H., Lundy, B.Z., Pearson, J., Flay,
B.R. and Johnson, C.A. (1988), “Differential Impact of Three Alcohol Prevention
Curricula on Hypothesized Mediation Variables”, Journal of Drug Education, 18:
143-153.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
121
Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M. and Bachman, J.C. (1986), Drug Use Among
American High School Students, College Students, and Other Young Addicts:
National Trends Through 1985, Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.
Kandel, D.B. (1980), “Drug and Drinking Behavior Among Youth”, Annual
Review of Sociology, 6:235-285.
Kandel, D. and Faust, R. (1975), “Sequence and Stages in Patterns of Adolescent
Drug Use”, Archives of General Psychiatry, 32:923-932.
Kandel, D.B., Kessler, R.C. and Margulies, R.Z. (1978), Longitudinal Research
on Drug Use: Empirical Findings and Methodological Issues, Washington
Publishing.
McWilliams, J.C. (1990), The Protectors: Harry J. Narcotics, 1930-1962,
Newark: University of Delaware Press.
Milgram, G.G. (1987), “Alcohol and Drug Education Programs”, Journal of
Drug Education, 17:43-57.
Oetting, E.R. and Beauvais, F. (1987), “Common Elements in Youth Drug Abuse:
Peer Clusters and Other Psychosocial Factors”, The Journal of Drug Issues,
17:133-151.
Ringwalt, C., Curtin, T.R. and Rosenbaum, D. (1990), Executive Summary: A
First-Year Evaluation of DARE in Illinois, Springfield, IL.
Shepphard, M.A., Goodstadt, M.S. and Willett, M.M. (1987), “The Drug
Education-Drug Use Dilemma”, The Journal of Drug Issues, 17:197-200.
Smith, G.M. and Fogg, C.P. (1975), “Teenage Drug Use: A Search for Causes and
Consequences”, P 20 Drugs, Society, and Human Behavior, by O. Ray (Ed.), St.
Louis: C.V. Mosby Co.
Sonnedecker, G. (1962), “Emergence of the Concept of Opiate Addiction”, P299
Drugs, Society, and Human Behavior, by O. Ray (Ed.), St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Co.
Wright, J. and Pearl, L. (1981), “Knowledge and Experience of Young People
Regarding Drug Abuse Between 1969 and 1979”, British Medical Journal,
282:793-796.
111
DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION
PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
Robert T. Sigler
University of Alabama
Gregory B. Talley
Los Alamos Police Department
The use of non-alcoholic drugs for recreational purposes dates
back to 4000 BC (Sonnedecker, 1962). Introduced to New England in
1629, marijuana (medicinal use) and hemp (rope) were cultivated as
major crops until the Civil War (Bercher, 1972). Efforts to control drug
use were virtually non-existent through much of history. In the United
States, efforts directed toward control began with the passage of a city
ordinance in San Francisco regulating the distribution of opium (Green
and Levy, 1976). About 40 years later, the Harrison Act sought to
establish national control for opiates. It was followed 23 years later by the
Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. The first national agency to combat drug
sales was established in 1930 and evolved into today’s Drug Enforcement
Administration (McWilliams, 1990). Drug enforcement grew rapidly
during the 1970s and 1980s, and by 1990 specialized enforcement
programs were in place in all 50 states (Drug Enforcement
Administration, 1990).
Even though enforcement efforts have led to increasingly high
levels of interdiction and seizure, the use of drugs by younger and
younger children has continued to expand. Johnston et al. (1986) studied
trends in high school student drug use by examining results from surveys
of 16,000 high school seniors from 1975 to 1985. Among their findings
were indications that about 61 percent of the students reported having
used illicit drugs at some time in their lives, and about 5 percent had
reported using marijuana and alcohol on a daily basis.
Drug use by children cannot be predicted from family
background. There are no significant relationships between drug use and
112
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
characteristics such as sex, race, religion, family income, or father’s
income (Kandel et al., 1978). There does appear to be a relationship
between drug use and drug use of the child’s peers, and the attitudes and
values of drug users reflect lessened conformity to social expectations
(Kandel, 1980). There is a consistent pattern of decreasing grades,
absences from school, and declining academic motivation prior to drug
use (Binder et al., 1988).
Attention has turned to drug prevention programs, many of which
are educational in nature. Oetting and Beauvais (1987) suggested that
nearly all drug use begins in the pre-adolescent or adolescent years. They
further noted that nearly all young people occasionally take drugs
(including alcohol) but seldom take enough drugs to produce tolerance or
addiction. Addiction is influenced by a number of social, cultural and
psychological factors. They suggest that these factors in the decision to
use drugs are secondary to the values and pressures expressed by the
child’s peer group. Peers provide drugs, talk to each other about drugs,
and determine the context in which drugs are used. Nearly all drug use
occurs with peers, but even when used alone it is done as a function of
norms established by the youth’s peers.
Research in the 1970s examined the factors associated with drug
use and discovered factors such as gateway drug use (Kandel and Faust,
1975), socialization and peer recreational activities, and predisposing
character traits (Smith and Fogg, 1975). While secondary school students
were familiar with different types of drugs, they were unaware of the
hazards associated with drug use (Wright and Pearl, 1981). In order to
prevent drug use, educational programs were developed for use in the
nation’s schools.
Many of the early educational programs were less than successful
and in some cases appeared to be counterproductive. Some programs
produced increased drug awareness but this increased awareness
appeared to lead to increased investigations of drugs on the part of the
children involved in the programs (Shepphard et al., 1987); meanwhile,
other programs appeared to be of marginal value in preventing drug use
(Botvin and Wills, 1985). Careful analysis of early efforts and revised
second generation programs led to the discovery of a number of factors
that appear to be linked to program success. A short, concentrated,
lecture-oriented effort is less effective than longer participative programs.
Successful programs have both substance and quality (Bonaguro et al.,
1988), include an emphasis on resistance skills (Gonzalez, 1988; Hansen
et al., 1988), decision-making skills (Milgram, 1987), problem-solving
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
113
skills and value clarification (Goodstadt, 1989), and role playing or
modeling and self-management skills (Goldstein, 1989). In addition,
students must be motivated to use what they have learned (DeJong,
1987), and programs that include booster or follow-up sessions are more
successful (Duryea and Okwumabua, 1988).
The Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Unified
School District applied these factors to the program of drug education
that they developed. The Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
(DARE) created by this joint venture is composed of three elements
designed for specific grade levels (kindergarten through grade 4, grades 5
and 6, and grades 7 through 9). Students are prepared to recognize the
pressures that might influence them to use drugs and are provided with
the skills needed to resist those pressures using a focus on self-esteem,
communication skills, decision-making skills, and positive alternatives to
drug use. The DARE program is taught by veteran police officers in
regular classrooms, during school hours, for one hour a week for one
semester. The primary program is in the fifth and sixth grade component.
The early component introduces the students to the police officers and to
the negative effects of drugs, and the later component functions as a
booster for the basic program. The early component is a class visitation or
enrichment component while the booster component is a second onesemester, hour program (DeJong, 1987). The DARE program has enjoyed
wide acceptance and has been adopted by a number of police departments
and schools in the United States.
Three previous evaluations of DARE programs have been
reviewed. The first evaluated the original DARE program. DeJong
(1987) compared seventh graders who had been exposed to the DARE
program with seventh graders who had not been exposed to the DARE
program. Seventh graders who had been exposed to the DARE program
reported lower usage of alcohol, cigarettes and other substances during
their seventh grade year. A second study conducted by the Illinois State
Highway Patrol, evaluated the effectiveness of training the children to
say “no” (Ringwalt et al., 1990). In this study, the control group subjects
increased their use of tobacco, a “gateway” drug, while the experimental
group displayed no increase in tobacco use; differences in alcohol use,
however, were not significant. The experimental group did have higher
levels of self-esteem than the control group.
The third evaluation focused on program acceptance by various
cooperating groups (Earle et al., 1987). It was found that the program was
well accepted by teachers, school administrators and students with
114
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
resistance from drug and alcohol abuse service providers. They also
evaluated effectiveness and found that by the fourteenth week of the
program 92 percent of the students had acquired full refusal skills. The
study reported here attempts to assess attitude change, learning and
reported behavior following the administration of the program. The site
selected for evaluation was Los Alamos, New Mexico, a town that has
adopted and which is considering expanding the DARE program.
METHODOLOGY
Los Alamos is a moderate sized town with a professional base in
a relatively isolated environment. Crime rates tend to be consistently
lower than national averages. There have been no arrests for heroin in
recent years, although cocaine and marijuana arrests are not out of the
ordinary. There is neither an inner city nor areas which could be
characterized as extremely low income “ghetto” neighborhoods. Each
year the Los Alamos School District administers the PRIDE Survey
which includes measures of the use of controlled substances. Data were
collected using two instruments in a field experiment and one instrument
in a series of surveys.
VARIABLES
The independent variable in this study is exposure to the DARE
program. The DARE program is a set of 17 lessons designed to reduce the
likelihood that students will choose to use drugs which are presented to
students in the sixth grade as a part of their regular curriculum taught by
police officers.
The primary dependent variables were attitudes toward drug use
and degree of reported drug use. Attitudes toward drug use was measured
by a 40 item Likert type scale with six subscales: beliefs regarding the
effects experienced through drug use, beliefs concerning addiction,
beliefs regarding legal status of drug use, beliefs concerning the
physiological consequences of drug use, beliefs concerning the effects of
drug use, and beliefs concerning adult messages about drug use. Items
were scored such that attitudes which negatively label drugs and drug use
received higher scores. Thus, the higher the score the higher the rejection
of drugs and drug use. Reported drug use included reports of subject use
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
115
of controlled substances, beliefs regarding the harmfulness of controlled
substances, and frequency of use of controlled substances by friends. The
substances addressed included cigarettes, beer, wine coolers, liquor,
marijuana, cocaine, uppers, downers, inhalants and hallucinogens.
COLLECTION OF DATA
Two approaches were used in the collection of data. The first used
a field experiment approach. The DARE program is delivered to one half
of the schools in the district each semester. Data were collected during the
fall semester of 1990. The pre-test was administered at the beginning of
the semester and the post-test was administered at the end of the fall
semester. Students in the schools receiving the DARE program were the
experimental subjects and students in the schools not receiving the
DARE program constituted the control group. Assignment of the schools
to the DARE program was made by the superintendent of schools.
Teachers were trained and they administered the pre-test and the posttest.
The instrument was composed of a 40 item Likert type scale and
a set of demographic items. Following the administration of the pre-test,
complaints regarding the nature of the instrument were made by
community members who were concerned about privacy and possible
police investigation based on the information in the questionnaires even
though full human subject safety precautions were used. As a result, the
demographic items were removed from the post-test, thus demographic
data is only available from the pre-test. Complete data were collected for
248 subjects.
The second method of obtaining data relied on the regular
collection of data from the PRIDE Survey. The PRIDE Survey is
administered by teachers in the classroom to all seventh graders during
the fall semester and includes measures of reported controlled substance
abuse. Data from three seventh grades (1989, n = 216; 1990, n = 245,
1991 n = 259) were evaluated. The 1991 class had completed the DARE
training approximately 11 months before the collection of the PRIDE
data. The PRIDE instrument is a standardized self-administered
questionnaire which is composed of ten sections. Each of the eight
sections which measures drug behavior or beliefs is composed of a list of
ten drugs which students evaluate for focus questions such as “when did
you first?” and “within the past year how often have you?”. These data
116
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
were analyzed by PRIDE, Inc. who produced the analyses needed for this
project.
FINDINGS
There were no significant differences between the control and
experimental groups for the demographic variables. In addition, the
reported family demographics corresponded to census figures for the Los
Alamos population. There were no significant relationships among the
reported drug use measures and the various demographic measures. The
items in the Likert type scale were evaluated using the inter-quartile t. Six
items failed to discriminate and were dropped, producing a 34 item scale
with a range of 91 to 160 and a distribution which approximated a normal
curve.
The first hypothesis stated that children exposed to the DARE
program would have stronger anti-drug use attitudes than children not
exposed to the DARE program. Scores for the two groups corresponded
to the expected pattern, providing support for the first hypothesis (see
Table 1). Anti-drug use attitudes increased for the experimental group and
decreased for the control group with the pre-test scores for both groups
relatively equivalent. Attitudes of children who were exposed to the
DARE program were more positive toward drugs and drug use (increased
scores reflect a negative labeling of drugs and drug use) with a mean
increase of 4.3 units following the program, while the attitudes toward
drugs and drug use of children not exposed to DARE declined 2.9 units
during the same period.
The second hypothesis stated that children who had been exposed
to the DARE program would report lower use of controlled substances
than students who had not been exposed to the DARE program. This
Table 1
MEAN SCORES FOR ATTITUDES TOWARD DRUG USE
Group
Pre-test
Post-test*
Experimental*
Control
134.4706
135.2500
138.9067
132.3797
n = 248
* p < 0.002
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
117
hypothesis was not supported by the data. The differences between the
control groups and the experimental group were not significant and
several reversals can be noted. Students who were exposed to the DARE
program reported lower use of controlled substances (2.45%) than the
1989 sample (2.86%) but not less than the 1990 sample (1.66%) (see
Table 2). While DARE subjects reported lower first use of beer,
cigarettes, marijuana and inhalants than the control group, they reported
higher first use for liquor, cocaine and prescription drugs. Both first use
and past year sections had never used response options. Students who
indicated that they never used drugs for these items were classified as
abstainers. While DARE students reported lower levels of overall
abstinence than the control groups (91.57% compared with 93.44% and
92.54%) (see Table 3), the differences are not significant and reversals
can be noted for individual drugs. DARE subjects reported higher
abstinence levels than the control group for cigarettes and hallucinogens
Table 2
PERCENT OF SUBJECTS REPORTING FIRST USE OF HARMFUL
SUBSTANCES AT AGE OF 12 OR 13a b
Year
Substance
Cigarettes
Beer
Wine Coolers
Liquor
Marijuana
Cocaine
Uppers
Downers
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Other
Mean
n
a All
Control
1989
Control
1990
DARE
1991
7.9
4.2
7.0
3.7
3.3
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.9
1.4
1.4
6.2
2.5
3.7
2.5
1.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.4
0.4
4.7
2.3
5.8
5.8
1.2
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.4
3.1
2.86
216
1.66
245
2.45
259
subjects were measured while in the seventh grade. For the DARE subjects this was
the year immediately following exposure to DARE.
b There were no significant differences in comparisons between the percentages for the
DARE and control years.
118
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
Table 3
PERCENT OF STUDENTS REPORTING ABSTAINING FROM USE OF LISTED
SUBSTANCES
Year
Substance
Cigarettes
Beer
Wine Coolers
Liquor
Marijuana
Cocaine
Uppers
Downers
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Other
Mean
n
Control
1989
Control
1990
DARE
1991
83.2
86.0*
84.1
88.3
96.3
99.1
98.1
99.5
96.1
99.5
97.7
79.8
81.7
82.4
89.2
97.1
98.8
99.2
99.6
97.5
99.2
97.9
83.8
78.4
80.3
84.9
96.9
98.5
98.4
98.1
96.9
98.4
92.7
93.44
216
92.54
245
91.57
259
* Comparisons between percentages for the control group and the DARE group significant
at the 0.05 level.
but lower levels of abstinence than the control group for beer, wine
coolers, liquor, cocaine and downers. Lack of significance is also noted
for perceptions of drugs as harmful with a single reversal – liquor. The
DARE students were more likely to see the controlled substances as
harmful than either of the two control groups (see Table 4).
SUMMARY
DARE programs are being developed across the country. These
programs represent a major investment of both police manpower and
class time. The data reported here indicate that the DARE program is
successful in providing information. DARE students are more likely to
have attitudes favorable to avoidance of drug use. DARE students have
stronger anti-drug use attitudes than the control group at the end of
training and appear to have retained aspects of this perspective one year
later. The levels of reported behavior are less supportive. This study did
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
119
Table 4
PERCENT OF STUDENTS BELIEVING LISTED SUBSTANCES ARE HARMFUL
Year
Substance
Cigarettes
Beer
Wine Coolers
Liquor
Marijuana
Cocaine
Uppers
Downers
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Mean
n
Control
1989
Control
1990
DARE
1991
74.3
56.5
50.0
69.6
90.7
93.0
84.6
84.6
83.6
89.2
73.9
51.9
49.0
65.3*
90.5
91.3
85.1
85.1
82.2
88.4
78.7
58.9
50.8
74.8
94.6
95.3
90.7
90.7
82.9
91.5
77.61
216
76.27
245
80.89
259
* Comparisons between percentages for the control group and the DARE group significant
at the 0.05 level.
not find significant improvement in self-reported drug use when DARE
students were compared with two control groups. This is not consistent
with the results of an evaluation of the original program (DeJong, 1987)
which found lower reported use of all drugs for DARE subjects or with an
evaluation of an Illinois program (Ringwalt et al., 1990). Of course, the
groups may not be directly comparable because different time periods are
involved (1989, 1990, 1991). The inability to gather demographic data
with the post-test also limits the interpretation of the findings. It is
possible that the DARE program is more effective with one type of
student than with others. The one-year follow-up provides a limited time
frame and does not fully assess the stability of the effect over time.
At best, it appears that further research needs to be conducted
with more precise measures of reported use over a longer period of time.
It should be noted that at the time of the study, neither the seventh grade
“booster” sessions nor the earlier introductory sessions were in place.
With limited positive results at this stage, program expansion should be
approached with caution and with plans for comprehensive evaluation
which should include long-term measures of reported behaviors.
120
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
REFERENCES
Bercher, E.M. (1972), Licit and Illicit Drugs, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co.
Binder, A., Geis, G. and Bruce, D. (1988), Juvenile Delinquency; Historical,
Cultural, Legal Perspectives, New York: Macmillan.
Bonaguro, J.A., Rhonehouse, M. and Bonaguro, E.W. (1988), “Effectiveness of
Four School Health Education Projects Upon Substance Use, Self-esteem, and
Adolescent Stress”, Health Education, 15:81-92.
Botvin, G.J. and Wills, T.A. (1985), “Personal and Social Skills Training:
Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches to Substance Abuse Prevention”, Journal of
Drug Education, 17:279-294.
DeJong, W. (1987), “A Short-Term Evaluation of Project DARE (Drug Abuse
Resistance Education): Preliminary Indications of Effectiveness”, Journal of
Drug Education, 17:279-294.
Drug Enforcement Association (DEA) (1990), 1990 Domestic Cannabis
Eradication/Suppression Program, Washington, DC: DEA.
Duryea, E.J. and Okwumabua, J.O. (1988), “Effects of a Preventive Alcohol
Education Program after Three Years”, Journal of Drug Education, 17:23-31.
Earle, Jr, R.B., Garner, J. and Phillips, N. (1987), Evaluation of the Illinois State
Police Pilot DARE Program, Springfield, IL: A.H. Training and Development
Systems, Inc.
Gonzalez, G.M. (1988), “Should Alcohol and Drug Education be a Part of
Comprehensive Prevention Policy? The Evidence From the College Campus”,
The Journal of Drug Issues, 18:355-365.
Goldstein, A.P. (1989), “Refusal Skills: Learning to be Positively Negative”,
Journal of Drug Education, 19:271-283.
Goodstadt, M.S. (1989), “Drug Education: The Prevention Issues”, Journal of
Drug Education, 19:197-208.
Green, H.I. and Levy, M.H. (1976), Drug Misuse Human Abuse, New York:
Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Hansen, W.B., Graham, J.W., Wolkenstein, B.H., Lundy, B.Z., Pearson, J., Flay,
B.R. and Johnson, C.A. (1988), “Differential Impact of Three Alcohol Prevention
Curricula on Hypothesized Mediation Variables”, Journal of Drug Education, 18:
143-153.
American Journal of Police, Vol. XIV, No. 3/4 1995
121
Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M. and Bachman, J.C. (1986), Drug Use Among
American High School Students, College Students, and Other Young Addicts:
National Trends Through 1985, Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.
Kandel, D.B. (1980), “Drug and Drinking Behavior Among Youth”, Annual
Review of Sociology, 6:235-285.
Kandel, D. and Faust, R. (1975), “Sequence and Stages in Patterns of Adolescent
Drug Use”, Archives of General Psychiatry, 32:923-932.
Kandel, D.B., Kessler, R.C. and Margulies, R.Z. (1978), Longitudinal Research
on Drug Use: Empirical Findings and Methodological Issues, Washington
Publishing.
McWilliams, J.C. (1990), The Protectors: Harry J. Narcotics, 1930-1962,
Newark: University of Delaware Press.
Milgram, G.G. (1987), “Alcohol and Drug Education Programs”, Journal of
Drug Education, 17:43-57.
Oetting, E.R. and Beauvais, F. (1987), “Common Elements in Youth Drug Abuse:
Peer Clusters and Other Psychosocial Factors”, The Journal of Drug Issues,
17:133-151.
Ringwalt, C., Curtin, T.R. and Rosenbaum, D. (1990), Executive Summary: A
First-Year Evaluation of DARE in Illinois, Springfield, IL.
Shepphard, M.A., Goodstadt, M.S. and Willett, M.M. (1987), “The Drug
Education-Drug Use Dilemma”, The Journal of Drug Issues, 17:197-200.
Smith, G.M. and Fogg, C.P. (1975), “Teenage Drug Use: A Search for Causes and
Consequences”, P 20 Drugs, Society, and Human Behavior, by O. Ray (Ed.), St.
Louis: C.V. Mosby Co.
Sonnedecker, G. (1962), “Emergence of the Concept of Opiate Addiction”, P299
Drugs, Society, and Human Behavior, by O. Ray (Ed.), St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Co.
Wright, J. and Pearl, L. (1981), “Knowledge and Experience of Young People
Regarding Drug Abuse Between 1969 and 1979”, British Medical Journal,
282:793-796.