Own your ow legal marijuana business
Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry
Think For Yourself

An Evaluation of D.A.R.E.

Reducing The Risk of Drug Involvement Among Early Adolescents: An Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)
Michele Alicia Harmon, April 1993
Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology
University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

This research was supported in part by a grant from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, and the Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students at the Johns Hopkins University. Partial support was also provided by the Charleston County School District in South Carolina. I would like to thank the following people for their technical support and assistance: The Charleston County School District staff (especially Candice Bates), the Charleston County DARE officers, and Lois Hybl and Gary Gottfredson at the Johns Hopkins University. I am also grateful for comments provided by Denise Gottfredson on earlier drafts of this paper.


This paper examines the effectiveness of the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program in Charleston County, South Carolina by comparing 341 fifth grade DARE students to 367 nonDARE students. Significant differences were found in the predicted direction for alcohol use in the last year, belief in prosocial norms, association with drug using peers, positive peer association, attitudes against substance use, and assertiveness. No differences were found on cigarette, 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, rebellious behavior, and self-esteem.



The adolescent drug use epidemic in the United States dates back over 20 years. Beginning in the 1960's when much of the nation's youth began to use psychoactive drugs such as LSD and PCP, the drug epidemic created public concern as it continued into the 70's. The 1980's showed much of the same with drug use on the rise and new drugs such as MDMA (XTC), ice, and crack suddenly appearing in every major city.

This paper begins with an examination of the adolescent drug use problem in the United States and Charleston, South Carolina (where the current study takes place). Possible solutions to this problem are briefly discussed and a summary of prior studies of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) is provided. The current study is then presented followed by a brief discussion and recommendations for future research.

Much of what is known about adolescent drug use is a result of the annual High School Senior Survey conducted by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan (Johnston, 1973). Data from a recent report examining drug use (Johnston, Bachman, & O'Malley, 1991) show a gradual decline for all types of drugs since 1975. However, the current levels of drug use in the United States imply a large number of adolescents are still using drugs. For example, in 1990, 90 percent of U.S. seniors reported drinking alcohol at some time in their lives, while 64 percent said they had smoked cigarettes.

Adolescent drug use in Charleston, South Carolina, where the current study takes place, is similar to national use.

During the 1989-90 school year all students (223,663) in grades 7-12 in South Carolina's 91 public school districts were surveyed to collect a variety of information on current and past drug use (South Carolina Department of Education and South Carolina Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, 1990). Many of the survey questions were modeled after the annual High School Senior Survey (Johnston, 1973).

The main findings for grade 12 from the South Carolina survey for Charleston County are presented in Table 1. Relevant national data are also shown for comparison. Information collected from the Charleston survey includes lifetime, annual, and 30-day prevalence rates.

Lifetime prevalence rates show the U.S. percentages generally larger than those in Charleston. For example, almost 90% of the U.S. seniors compared to 77% of the Charleston seniors said they had drunk alcohol at least once in their lives. In addition, 10% more U.S. seniors than Charleston seniors said they had used marijuana and 17% more U.S.seniors said they had smoked cigarettes.

In contrast to the lifetime prevalence rates, the 30-day prevalence rates for Charleston and the U.S. are quite similar. Very small differences exist with about half favoring the U.S. and half favoring Charleston.

The South Carolina and National Youth Survey data give a useful picture of the extent of drug use in the United States and Charleston, South Carolina. However, it should be noted that many youths leave school before their senior year. Obviously, the youths who have dropped out of school before their senior year are not included in either the annual High School Senior Survey or the South Carolina Youth Survey. Since drug use is higher for high school drop outs than it is for those who stay in-school (Anhalt & Klein 1976; Johnston, 1973) reported senior drug use rates are most likely underestimates for all adolescents.

Even with dropouts excluded from the survey data, the amount of reported drug use in the United States, and Charleston, South Carolina, is high. Although national data show reported drug involvement slowly declining, the current high levels of drug use display a grim picture of adolescents today. Furthermore, the drug epidemic is far from over and the goal of drug free youth in America is still very distant. Answers to the question of what can be done to stop the drug use epidemic still escapes practitioners, law enforcement personnel, health professionals and social scientists.

The past two decades have led to a variety of strategies aimed at combatting the drug problem. Polich, Ellickson, Reuter, & Kahan (1984) suggest the three most widely used attempts to combat or control drug use are supply reduction, treatment, and prevention.

Supply Reduction

Efforts to limit or control the supplies of drugs have been carried out via laws unfavorable towards drug use and corresponding law enforcement activities. Law enforcement agencies have directed efforts at reducing the production, import, distribution, and retail sales of illegal "street" drugs. The hope remains that by targeting these major market areas the quantity of drugs entering the country will decrease, trafficking and selling drugs will become more risky, shortages of drugs in the illicit market will take place, and the price of drugs to consumers will increase, ultimately reducing consumption.

As Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller (1992) point out, manipulating illegal drug supplies by increasing drug interdiction and drug dealer arrests should lead to positive outcomes such as raising the price of street drugs to the user, thus reducing the demand for drugs.

However, contrary evidence is cited by Polich, et al. (1984). They conclude doubling drug interdiction, and/or increasing arrests and imprisonment of drug dealers would affect neither retail prices nor the availability of illegal drugs. Essentially, the point is made that large drug quantities will always be available to take the place of any quantity confiscated. Increasing arrests would do little, they argue, because prison overcrowding forces the least violent to become paroled and often times these types of prisoners are low level street dealers that end up back on the street. Even if lower level dealers are arrested and kept in jail, there are many more that will take their place. Finally, because there is an immense amount of competition on the streets, dealers are forced to keep their prices down to stay in business. Therefore, supply reduction used alone as a means for reducing society's drug problem appears ineffective.


Similar to supply reduction, millions of dollars are spent every year on treatment as a means of curtailing drug use. And much like supply reduction strategies, treatment also shows little promise for eliminating drug use, particularly among adolescents.

Much of the drug treatment literature suggests treatment for adolescents is ineffective (Hubbard, Cavanaugh, Graddock, & Rachal, 1983; Miller, 1973; Stein & Davis, 1982). Treatment effectiveness is most often measured by continued abstinence from drugs.

Research on adolescent treatment programs suggests treatment, especially for adolescents, requires a lifestyle adjustment. This is to say that for most adolescents drug abuse is not a problem of physiological dependence. Rather, the problem stems from adolescent "life problems." Many researchers suggest that attention to these types of problems should be first and foremost (Bennett, 1983; Coupey & Schonberg, 1982). Researchers in the medical field agree adolescent drug abuse cannot be treated apart from family, school, and peer related problems (Macdonald & Newton, 1981; Mackenzie, 1982; Monopolis & Savage, 1982). This implies adolescent drug abusers are treated for the wrong problem since most programs are designed to deal with physical drug dependence. Research supports this argument by showing traditional drug treatment programs are ineffective in treating adolescent clients (Hubbard et al., 1983; Sells & Simpson, 1979).

A review of treatment programs produces mixed results with no clear, conclusive evidence and studies plagued by methodological flaws. For example, Ogborne (1978) claims treatment is not effective, NIDA (1981) reports it is effective, and Einstein (1981) says a general evaluation cannot be made. However, Polich et al. (1984) and Beschner (1989) caution that few, if any, are backed by true scientific evaluations.

Polich and his colleges (1984) reviewed several small scale treatment studies applicable to youthful drug abusers, none of which produced any large desired effects. A few studies did show some evidence of success. However, these results can most often be explained by rival hypotheses. Many studies found length of treatment stay to effect treatment success. Since many youth drop out of treatment programs it is not known whether these results are due to the increased benefit of treatment or to client self-selection. The lack of control group in the typical study also makes it difficult to evaluate the self-selection threat.

Although adolescent treatment efforts in general have not demonstrated desired effects, this is not to say treatment should be abandoned. Instead, steps should be taken to restructure adolescent treatment programs to deal with general adolescent life problems. Perhaps then, treatment programs will show more promise as a strategy for reducing or eliminating adolescent drug use.


Prevention holds more promise for controlling adolescent drug use than supply reduction or treatment. Reasons for promise include the timing of prevention programs and their focus on "gateway" substances - alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. National data show youth initiating alcohol use as early as age 11 and marijuana and other illicit drugs at age 12 (Elliot & Huizinga, 1984). Because drug use often begins at such an early age, prevention programs must target youth before they come in contact with drugs. Currently, many drug prevention programs do in fact target youth while they are still in elementary school. This is especially important in light of the fact that the earlier an individual uses drugs the more likely they are to engage in greater and more persistent use of dangerous drugs (Flemming, Kellam, & Brown, 1982; Robins & Przybeck, 1985).

Many studies indicate drug use begins with one of the "gateway" substances and follows a logical progression to experimentation with other drugs (Hamburg, Braemer, & Jahnke, 1975; Kandel, 1978; Loeber & Le Blanc, 1990; Richards, 1980). Prevention programs show promise because most, if not all, drug prevention programs focus on "gateway" drugs.

Prevention efforts have not always been as promising, however. In the past, evaluations of many different prevention programs showed little or no effectiveness. Early studies were also methodologically weak. Since then there have been several "waves" of drug prevention programs each building on what was previously learned. More recent approaches have proven effective in reducing "gateway" drug use with studies demonstrating an increase in methodological rigor.

Traditional prevention approaches include information dissemination, affective education, and alternative activities. These efforts are based on a misunderstanding about why adolescents engaged in drug use. For example, information dissemination programs assume adolescents use drugs simply because they lack information about such drugs. Information dissemination approaches provided adolescents with facts about the pharmacology of drugs, the uses of various drugs types, and the consequences of drug use. Fear arousal and moral persuasion are two variations of the information dissemination, or health education model that provide similar information, adding either scare tactics or moral appeals. Affective education focuses on clarifying values and increasing self-esteem assuming individuals lacking these attributes will use drugs. Similarly, alternative activities try to relieve boredom and provide adolescents with stimulating alternatives hoping they will engage in these activities instead of turning to drug use.

Research clearly demonstrates the first generation of drug prevention programs has little or no impact on deterring adolescent drug use (Berberin, Gross, Lovejoy, & Paparella, 1976; Hanson, 1980; Kinder, Pape, & Walfish, 1980; Malvin, Moskowitz, Schaps, & Schaeffer, 1985; Schaps, Bartolo, Moskowitz, Palley, & Churgin, 1981). In fact, some programs are associated with an increase in drug use (Gordon & McAlister, 1982; Swisher & Hoffman, 1975).

The second generation of drug prevention efforts has proven more effective in reducing adolescent drug use. Psychosocial approaches such as psychological inoculation, resistance skills training and, personal and social skills training target research-based risk factors for adolescent drug use. All of these programs focus on increasing an individual's personal and social competence through skill acquisition (Arkin, Roemhild, Johnson, Luepker, & Murray, 1981; Botvin & Dusenbury, 1987; Schinke & Gilchrist, 1985; Hansen, Johnson, Flay, Graham, & Sobel, 1988; Telch, Killen, McAlister, Perry, & Maccoby, 1982). Most programs teach personal and social skills such as problem-solving, decision-making, coping, resisting peer pressure, and assertiveness. Of the prevention efforts reviewed, the literature suggests continued psychosocial efforts be employed with emphasis placed on resistance skill training and personal and social skill training approaches. Follow-up, or booster sessions are recommended, however, since there is some evidence initial effects may decline (Botvin, Eng, & Williams, 1983).


DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) is a drug abuse prevention program that focuses on teaching students skills for recognizing and resisting social pressures to use drugs. DARE lessons also focus on the development of self-esteem, coping, assertiveness, 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 lessons offered once a week for 45 to 50 minutes. The DARE curriculum can only be taught by police officers who attend an intensive two-week, 80 hour, training. The DARE program calls for a wide range of teaching activities including question and answer sessions, group discussion, role play, and workbook exercises.

The DARE curriculum was created by Dr. Ruth Rich, a curriculum specialist with the Los Angeles Unified School District, from a "second generation" curriculum known as Project SMART (Self-Management and Resistance Training) (Hansen, et al., 1988). DARE was piloted in fifty Los Angeles elementary schools with over 8,000 fifth and sixth grade students during the 1983-84 school year. Two years later, all 345 elementary schools under the Los Angels Police Department's jurisdiction had a DARE officer assigned to teach the curriculum. The program, which originally targeted fifth and sixth grade students, was then expanded to include a junior high school curriculum and a much briefer orientation for students in kindergarten through fourth grade.

DARE is one of, if not the most, wide spread drug prevention programs in the United States. In 1989, over three million children in 80,000 classrooms were exposed to DARE ("Project DARE", 1990). Currently, there are DARE programs in every state in the United States and some counties have mandated DARE as part of the school health curriculum. It has also been implemented in several other countries including Canada, England, Australia, and New Zealand. In addition, it has been adopted by many reservation schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and by the worldwide network of U.S. Defense Department schools for children of military personnel. There is a Spanish version and a Braille translation of the student workbook. Efforts are also under way to develop strategies for teaching DARE to hearing impaired and other special needs students.

Previous DARE Evaluations

Several DARE evaluations have been conducted over the last eight years in at least seven states and Canada (Agopian & Becker, 1990; Aniskiewicz & Wysong, 1987; Clayton, Cattarello, Day, & Walden, 1991; Clayton, Cattarello, & Walden, in press; DeJong, 1987; Earle, 1987; Evaluation and Training Institute, 1990; Faine, 1989; Faine & Bohlander, 1988, 1989; Manos, Kameoka, & Tanja, 1986; Nyre, 1985, 1986; Nyre & Rose, 1987; Ringwalt, Ennett, & Holt, 1991; Walker, 1990). Some show positive results, some show negative results, and most have serious methodological flaws.

Most of the DARE studies conclude that DARE is a "success". However, success has various meanings. For some evaluations it means teachers and other school administrators surveyed said "DARE was a success". In other evaluations it means students responded they liked the DARE program. Still others claim success if teachers and students rate DARE as "useful" or "valuable". For the most part, success is based on the finding that students are more able to generate "appropriate" responses to a widely used 19 item questionnaire about drug facts and attitudes after the DARE program than before. In these last instances, almost all had no control group. Several of the studies above contain such severe methodology problems that any results, if cited, should be questioned. In a review of several of these studies, Clayton et al. (1991, p. 300) labels most of them as "at best pilot and/or descriptive in nature" and does not bother mentioning any of their findings.

Methodological flaws contained in most of the DARE evaluations include one or more of the following problems: 1) no control group, 2) post-test only, 3) poorly operationalized measures, 4) low alpha levels for scales (<.50), 5) no statistical tests performed, and 6) pre-treatment differences not taken into account. Despite the lack of methodological rigor among most of these studies, three should be mentioned as they have corrected many (but not all) of the cited weaknesses. The results from these studies as well as any methodological flaws are reported below.

For their experiment in North Carolina, Ringwalt and his colleges (1991) evaluated the DARE program using 1270 fifth and sixth grade students as subjects. They randomly assigned 10 schools to receive the DARE program and 10 schools to serve as controls.

All students were pre-tested before the program began using a questionnaire designed to measure the following variables: self-report drug use, intentions to use drugs in the next year, attitudes towards drugs, perceived costs and benefits of drug use, perceived peer attitudes toward drug use, perceived media influences on drug use, self-esteem, and assertiveness. The reported internal reliability of all scales was favorable (.60 to .90)

Significant pre-treatment differences were found on measures of race, sex, self-report alcohol use, general attitudes towards drugs, perceived peer attitudes towards drugs, costs of alcohol use, and perceived media influences.

Controlling on pre-treatment differences, the dependent variable at time 1 (pre-test), and school type, it was concluded DARE met some of its immediate objectives. Significant differences between the experimental and control group include general attitudes towards drugs, attitudes toward specific drugs (beer, wine coolers, wine, cigarettes, and inhalants), perceptions of peers attitudes towards drug use, assertiveness, recognizing media influences to use drugs, and the costs associated with drug use. However, no statistically significant effects were found for self-reported drug use, future intentions to use drugs, perceived benefits of drug use (alcohol and cigarettes) or self-esteem.

Ringwalt et al. (1991) conducted an evaluation study showing the DARE program had effects on some of the immediate outcome objectives. However, because the experimental and control groups were quite different to begin with, it could be argued that even though statistical controls were employed the groups probably differed on other variables not measured by the pre-test. These unmeasured pre-treatment differences could account for the observed post-test differences.

A second point about the study should also be mentioned. The initial pages of the study explain the fact that methodological shortcomings have existed in drug program evaluations but that the current study improves upon one of those problems by performing statistical analyses appropriate for the research design. Continuing, in the results section the authors note prior evaluations have conducted the analysis at the wrong level. They make the argument that some studies have used individuals as the unit of analysis when schools have been assigned to treatment and control conditions. They immediately go on to say that in order to guard against any contamination of the results by school differences in their study, analysis of covariance, with school as a covariate, is employed. While the authors succeed at controlling for post-test differences associated with school membership, they still perform the analysis at a different level than the assignment, thus inflating the degrees of freedom.

A second DARE evaluation also demonstrating methodological strength over previous studies is that of Faine and Bohlander (1988). The authors not only compared DARE to nonDARE students in the fifth grade but also looked at four school types in Frankfort, Kentucky - rural, parochial, inner-city, and suburban. Eight schools were randomly assigned to receive DARE and six were randomly assigned to the control condition in the Fall and Spring of the 1987-88 school year. Two additional control group schools were selected on the basis of school type to match the school characteristics of the experimental group. The randomization and selection process resulted in 451 experimental students and 332 control students.

The six outcome variables measured were self-esteem, knowledge of drugs, attitudes towards drugs and alcohol, peer resistance, perceived external control and attitudes toward the police. There were no reported interaction effects between DARE and school type on any of the outcome measures. It should be noted that self-reported drug use was not examined. Comparing DARE to control students, they found significant differences in the expected direction for all six measures which included self-esteem (p<.05), attitudes towards the police (p<.001), knowledge of drugs (p<.001), attitudes towards drugs (p<.001), perceived external locus of control (p<.01), and peer resistance scores (p<.001). For some outcomes, such as self-esteem, the control group also improved from the pre- to the post-test. However, pre- to post-test analysis revealed the greatest gains for the DARE group.

Faine and Bohlander (1989) extended their original evaluation by conducting two phases of a one-year follow up study. However, severe methodological problems prohibit drawing any conclusions. The first phase design involves testing the control and experimental cohort at the end of the 1988-89 school year in order to assess the long term effectiveness of DARE. However, after one year the control group had also received DARE. In this situation, any observable differences cannot confidently be attributed to the DARE program. This is especially true in light of the fact the authors reported the shift from the first to the second year meant the majority of students moved from an elementary school to a junior high school. The change in school structure alone could have influenced the results, not to mention other possibilities such as a maturation effect.

Unfortunately, the second phase of the follow-up is just as methodologically flawed as the first. Because all students in the original DARE evaluation had received DARE by the end of the 1988-89 school year, a control group from two additional counties was sought out in order to make comparisons. Since the additional control counties had not been pre-tested, there is no way of knowing if any pre-treatment differences existed between the control and experimental students before the experimental students were exposed to DARE. Although Faine and Bohlander's (1988) initial DARE evaluation produced convincing results, too many rival hypothesis exist to draw conclusions about the long term follow-up study.

The last DARE study worth mentioning took place in Lexington, Kentucky (Clayton et al., 1991). During the 1987-1988 school year, the first of a five year longitudinal study, 23 schools were randomly assigned to the treatment (DARE) condition and 8 schools were randomly assigned as controls. The control group received the standard health curriculum which contained a drug education unit. The initial cohort was made up of 2,091 sixth grade students.

Initial equivalency tests indicate the treatment group had significantly more white students and significantly more positive attitudes towards drugs than the control group. The treatment group also reported significantly more lifetime, last year, and last month alcohol use.

The authors used analysis of variance to compare the treatment and control group outcomes. However, they only controlled on race despite other pre-treatment differences. Statistically significant (p<.01) differences in the expected direction were found for general drug attitudes, and negative attitudes toward specific drugs (cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana). Differences between the two groups were also found on the peer relationship scale (p<.05). Compared to the nonDARE group, the DARE students self-reported more popularity among their peers. Differences were not observed for self-esteem, peer pressure resistance, or self-reported drug use.

A two-year follow-up study (Clayton, in press) examined the same cohort of 6th grade students using two follow-up questionnaires after the initial post-test. The first follow- up questionnaire was given during the 1988-1989 school year when the cohort was in the 7th grade and the second follow-up questionnaire was administered during the 1989-1990 school year when the cohort was in the 8th grade. Attrition rates over the two years did not differ significantly between the two groups.

The long-term effects of DARE prove to be minimal in terms of past year alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use. The only statistically significant difference occurred at the first follow-up for last year marijuana use. Unfortunately, this finding occurred in the opposite direction than that expected. Significantly more marijuana use was reported by the DARE students than nonDARE students. Otherwise, no significant effects were found at any other time for any other drug type.

The long-term effectiveness of DARE was not demonstrated in the Lexington evaluation. However, Clayton and his colleagues (in press) suggest an alternative explanation for the lack of significant findings. They propose the lack of any long-term effects may be due to the fact that the control group was not in a no-treatment condition. Since it is not specified what the standard health curriculum (drug unit) entails, it is certainly possible the control students received similar education and training as that provided by the DARE program.

Summary of DARE Evaluations

Recent DARE evaluations demonstrate an improvement in methodology over earlier studies. The three DARE studies described above all use respectable research methodology. Summarizing the results of these studies is somewhat difficult given each one utilizes unique outcome measures such as recognizing media influences and costs and benefits of drug use (Ringwalt, et al., 1991) external locus of control and attitudes towards police (Faine & Bohlander, 1988) and peer relations (popularity among one's peers) (Clayton et al., 1991). However, all three studies do measure drug attitudes, self-esteem, and peer resistance (assertiveness) providing inconsistent results with respect to self-esteem and peer resistance (assertiveness). Findings from Ringwalt et al. (1991), Faine and Bohlander (1988) and Clayton et al.(1991) agree that DARE has an effect on drug attitudes. In all three cases, the treatment (DARE) group had significantly less positive attitudes towards drugs compared to the control group. There is a lack of agreement among all other outcome variables measured.

Although other long-term studies have been attempted, the only one demonstrating adequate methodology is the Lexington study (Clayton et al., in press). Possibly confounded by the lack of a true "no treatment" control group, the results do not warrant program success.

In short, studies of the DARE program have produced mixed results and DARE evaluations up to this point are inconclusive. Further replications are necessary in order make more confident conclusions about the effects of the DARE program.

DARE Compared to Most Promising Prevention Approach

Several aspects of the DARE program make it a likely candidate for success. First, the program is offered to students just before the age when they are likely to experiment with drugs. Second, although there is little research on the effectiveness of law enforcement personnel as classroom instructors, uniformed police officers serve as teachers of the DARE curriculum in hopes of increasing favorable attitudes towards the law and law enforcement personnel. Third, the DARE program seeks to prevent the use of "gateway drugs" (i.e., alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana), thereby decreasing the probability of subsequent heavier, more serious, drug use. Fourth, the DARE program draws upon several aspects of effective drug prevention efforts from the "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, more evaluation efforts need to take place before forming an overall conclusion about the program. This is especially important considering the fact that millions of government dollars are spent on this one particular drug prevention program every year and its dissemination continues to spread rapidly throughout the United States - all without any conclusive evidence concerning its effectiveness.


The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the DARE program in Charleston County, South Carolina. Specific aims of the program include the stated DARE objectives - increasing self-esteem, assertiveness, coping skills, and decreasing positive attitudes towards drugs, actual drug use, and association with drug using peers. The study also examines the program's effectiveness for reducing other known risk factors associated with adolescent drug use such as social integration, commitment and attachment to school, and rebellious behavior.


Research Design

The current study uses a nonequivalent control group quasi-experimental design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963) to determine if participating in the DARE program has any affect on the measured outcome variables compared to a similar group that did not receive the program.

The DARE program took place during the Fall and Spring semesters of the 1989-90 school year. A student self-report questionnaire was used to measure the outcome variables. All pre- and post-tests were administered approximately 20 weeks apart.

The survey administration was conducted by the school alcohol and drug contact person. The administration was conducted in such a way as to preserved the confidentiality of the students. All students were assigned identification numbers prior to the time of the pre-test. The identification number was used to link the pre- and post-test questionnaire responses. A questionnaire was distributed in an envelope with the student's name in the top right hand corner. Each name was printed on a removable label which the students tore off and threw away. The administrator read the cover page of the survey informing the students there was a number on the survey booklet which may be used to match their responses with questions asked later. The administrator also informed the students they had the right not to answer any or all of the questions.

Response rates for the sample were high. Table 2 shows pre-test rates range from 79.3% to 98.5%, with an average response rate of 93.5% for the DARE students and 93.7% for the comparison students. An average of 90% of the DARE students and 86.4% of the comparison students completed the post- test. The pre- and post-test (combined) response rates were similar for both groups; 86.5% (295) of the treatment and 83.7% (307) of the comparison students completed both surveys.

Statistical analysis procedures were performed to examine the differences between the DARE and nonDARE students. To begin, Analysis of Variance procedures were employed. This type of analysis enables pre- treatment differences on demographic or dependent measures to be detected and subsequently controlled for in later analysis. Controlling for any pre-treatment differences between the two groups and the measured dependent variable on the pre-test, the Analysis of Covariance procedure was used to detect significant differences at the time of the post-test.


Seven hundred eight fifth grade students from eleven elementary schools in Charleston County, South Carolina participated in the present study. Students came from five schools receiving the DARE program and six that did not. Of the 708 students involved in the study, 341 received the treatment (DARE), and 367 served as comparison students. The students came from schools representing a cross section of those found in the Charleston County School District. Three schools are urban, six suburban, and two rural.

Each of the DARE schools was paired with a comparison school based on the following characteristics: Number of students, percent of students receiving free or reduced lunch, percent white, percent male, percent never retained, and percent meeting BSAP (Basic Skills Assessment Program) reading and math standards.


The You and Your School questionnaire was used to measure DARE objectives and other factors associated with later drug use. You and Your School was a preliminary version of What About You? (Gottfredson, 1990), a questionnaire designed to measure drug involvement and risk factors for later drug use.

You and Your School consists of 10 scales and 4 sets of individual questions designed to measure the dependent variables. The ten scales used in the study are: 1) Belief in Prosocial Norms, 2) Social Integration, 3) Commitment to School, 4) Rebellious Behavior, 5) Peer Drug Modeling, 6) Attitudes Against Substance Use, 7) Attachment to School, 8) Self-Esteem, 9) Assertiveness, and 10) Positive Peer Modeling. Sets of individual variables include questions on attitudes about police, coping strategies, and drug use in the last year and last month. Appendix A shows the contents of each scale and the individual items used in the survey.

Scale reliabilities were determined using Cronbach's alpha. Table 4 shows the number of items in each scale and the corresponding reliability coefficients. Reliability coefficients range from .58 for Assertiveness to .85 for Social Integration. Each scale was calculated so that a high score indicates a high level of the factor. For all scales, the items were recoded so that the responses were in the same direction and averaged.


Pre-treatment Differences for DARE and NonDARE Students

Comparisons were made between the DARE and nonDARE groups to assess initial equivalence on the demographic and outcome variables (see Table 5). Statistically significant pre-treatment differences were found for two of the three demographic measures. The DARE group had significantly more female students (p<.05) and more white students (p<.01) than the comparison group. The data indicate males made up 45% of the DARE group and 54% percent of the comparison group while white students made up 59% of the DARE group and 44% of the comparison group. No significant differences were found for the respondent's average age. The mean age for both groups of students was 10.3 years old.

Three other measures were also shown to be significantly different for DARE and nonDARE students at the time of the pre-test. Before the DARE program began, a higher percentage of the DARE students reported smoking cigarettes in the last year. The DARE group was also found to be less attached to school and believe less in prosocial norms than the comparison group.

Post-treatment Differences for DARE and NonDARE Students

Initial analyses compared the DARE and comparison groups on each outcome measure without applying statistical controls for known pre- treatment differences (see Table 6). These analyses revealed differences between only two variables, peer drug modeling and attitudes against substance use, both at the p<.05 level. However, as shown in Table 7, controlling for pre-existing differences and the dependent variable measured prior to treatment, the DARE students initiated alcohol use less in the last year (p<.05), had higher levels of belief in prosocial norms (p<.01), reported less association with drug using peers (p<.01), felt more of their peer associations were positive or prosocial (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 nonDARE students did not differ significantly on the percent reporting cigarette, tobacco, or marijuana 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 no different between the two groups. Finally, social integration, commitment and attachment to school, rebellious behavior, and self-esteem scale scores were not significantly different for those in the DARE program than for those not 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 DARE students also reported less association with drug using peers and less alcohol use in the last year. However, the DARE students were equivalent to the nonDARE students on social integration, commitment and attachment to school, rebellious behavior, coping strategies, attitudes about the police, self-esteem, and last year and last month drug use (with the exception of last year alcohol use).


Limitations of the Present Study

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

The problem with the unit of analysis is that the treatment and comparison groups were determined by matching schools on specified school characteristics, the program was delivered to classrooms of students, and the analysis was performed at the individual level. The best solution to this problem would have been to randomly assign students to classrooms within schools where some classrooms would receive DARE and others classrooms would not. Assuming this could be done with many classrooms (at least 50), in several different schools, the analysis could be performed using the DARE and control classroom means. This was not possible since the evaluation was conducted after student assignment to classrooms and DARE assignment to schools had already taken place.

Given the random assignment of children into classrooms was not possible, it then would have been better if schools were randomly assigned to receive the DARE program or serve as control schools. This would have decreased a selection threat since currently the argument could be made that the treatment and comparison schools were different to begin with on school characteristics other than those used for matching. As previously mentioned, the decision about which schools received DARE and which did not was determined prior to the beginning of the evaluation.

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

Current Findings and Comparisons

The current DARE evaluation demonstrates the program's effectiveness on some of the measured outcome variables but not on others. The current study shows DARE does have an impact on several of the program objectives. Among these are attitudes against substance use, assertiveness, positive peer association, association with drug using peers, and alcohol use within the last year.

It should be noted several of the variables showing no difference between the treatment and control groups are not specifically targeted by DARE (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 the DARE program does not specifically aim to change attitudes towards police officers, although this may be a tacit objective. Since the program does not target these outcomes specifically, it may not be surprising there were no differences found between the DARE and nonDARE groups. It was hypothesized the DARE program may impact factors relating to later adolescent drug use even if those factors were not specific aims of the program but this hypothesis did not hold true. In a sense this is evidence that helps to reject the selection argument. If the positive results were due to selection, they would not be found only for the outcomes targeted by DARE.

Much like the three previously reviewed DARE evaluations, the current study adds to the mixed results produced thus far with one exception. Across all studies using a pre-post comparison group design, DARE students' attitudes against drug use have consistently been shown to increase and differ significantly from the control students. Since favorable attitudes towards drug use has been shown to predict or correlate with later adolescent drug use (Kandel, Kessler, & Margulies, 1978) this finding provides some of the most convincing evidence that DARE shows promise as a drug prevention strategy.

On the other hand, there are no other consistent findings for assertiveness (resisting peer pressure), self-esteem, or attitudes towards police. The current study found an increase in assertiveness among the DARE students as compared to the nonDARE students. Ringwalt et al. (1991) and Faine and Bohlander (1988) also found this to be true but Clayton et al. (1991) did not. Effects on self-esteem were not demonstrated in the present DARE evaluation nor were they in Clayton's (Clayton et al., 1991) or Ringwalt's (Ringwalt et al., 1991). However, significant differences in self-esteem were seen for the DARE participants over the controls in Faine and Bohlander's (1988) study. Thus, the Charleston study helps to increase the consistency of the assertiveness and self-esteem results.

Faine and Bohlander's (1988) study also showed positive attitudes towards police were significantly greater for the treatment group than the control group but the present study did not replicate such findings. However, the difference found between these two studies may be due to the measures used. The current DARE study uses only two single item questions to assess students' attitudes about the police whereas Faine and Bohlander (1988) used an 11-item scale. Moderate to high factor loadings (.27 to .82) were reported for each item in the scale, and although the overall reliability was not reported, Faine and Bohlander's (1988) measure of police attitudes is likely to be more valid.

With reference to drug use, all of the stronger DARE evaluations found no effects with the exception of the current study which found a significant difference on last year alcohol use. Clayton's follow-up evaluation showed only one significant difference in the wrong direction on the first of two follow-up post-tests (Clayton et al., in press). As Clayton et al. (in press) points out, the lack of short-term drug use differences may be due to low base rates and thus, should not be interpreted to mean DARE has no effect on adolescent drug involvement.


Replication studies of the evaluation of the DARE program should be continued since mixed evidence exists about the program's overall effectiveness. Conducting randomized experiments would certainly be best for drawing more confident conclusions about DARE program outcomes. Longitudinal studies would also aid in assessing the long-term program goal of deterring adolescent drug use.

There is one large problem with recommending a long-term study on a drug prevention program that is conducted in schools in the United States. The problem involves finding a true "no treatment" control group. Almost every school in the nation has some type of drug education component embodied in the school curriculum which is often mandated by the state. Therefore, it is likely the control group will receive some form of drug education. This problem has been documented as Clayton's (Clayton et al., in press) study used a comparison group that received the school drug education unit and ETI (Evaluation and Training Institute) had to discontinue their 5-year longitudinal study because the entire control group had essentially become a treatment group (Criminal Justice Statistics Association, 1990).

In the future, it may be possible only to compare student's receiving some specified drug prevention program with the school system's drug education unit. However, this appears acceptable if the school system simply requires a unit session on factual drug information or a similar low level intervention since prevention efforts such as this have consistently been shown to have no positive effects (Berberin et al., 1976; Kinder et al., 1980; Schaps, et al., 1981; Tobler, 1986).

Should evaluations of the DARE program continue, it is suggested one national survey instrument be developed and used for all outcome evaluations. Currently, it is difficult to assess whether or not DARE is actually a success since different researchers use different survey instruments to examine a variety of outcome measures. Measuring DARE program objectives and other risk factors associated with later drug use with one survey would 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 two reasons for this suggestion. First, it has not been consistently demonstrated that attitudes towards police become more positive upon receiving the DARE program, and second, there has been some evidence supporting the use of peer leaders as primary program providers (Arkin, et al., 1981; Botvin & Eng, 1982; Botvin, Baker, Renick, Filazzola, & Botvin, 1984; Perry, Killen, Slinkard, & McAlister, 1980).

It would be not only interesting, but informative, to compare DARE program outcomes utilizing peer leaders vs. police officers as instructors. Should peer leaders provide equal or better outcomes, DARE programming costs would be considerably less and police officers would be more readily available to respond to citizen calls.

It is further recommended that DARE be restructured to incorporate components shown more consistently to be effective such as those found in "second generation" approaches. Although DARE aims to increase resistance skills, coping, and decision-making, the lessons specifically targeting these factors do so in the context of drug use only. As previously mentioned adolescents engaging in drug use behavior are often involved in other problem behaviors (Jessor & Jessor, 1977). It would seem most practical and beneficial to target all of these behaviors utilizing one program as Botvin (1982) and Swisher (1979) have suggested. The DARE program could serve as this one program assuming several changes were implemented.

First, existing components would have to be expanded and additional components added in order to target more broad based adolescent life problems such as family struggles, peer acceptance, sexual involvement, intimate relationships, and effective communication (expressing ideas, listening). Additional sessions should include components from "second generation" programs such as setting goals, solving problems, and anticipating obstacles (Botvin, et al., 1983; Schinke & Gilchrist, 1985).

Second, skill acquisition is said to come about only through practice and reinforcement (Bandura, 1977). It is proposed that any new skills taught, such as problem solving, be reinforced with "real life" homework where students practice these skills in the context of the "real world" rather than simply role playing them in the classroom.

The last recommendation is applicable not only to the DARE program but any drug prevention effort. It involves the addition of booster sessions following the prevention program. Since adolescence is a time of growth, individual attitudes and behaviors may continue to change and develop as the youth is maturing. While short-term evidence of program effectiveness is encouraging, there is no guarantee a youth will continue to practice those same behaviors or hold those same beliefs years, or even months, after the program has ended. In fact, follow-up studies have documented the eroding effects of drug prevention programs (Botvin & Eng, 1980; Botvin & Eng, 1982) and the superior effects of booster session (Botvin et al., 1983; Botvin, et al., 1984). For these reasons, DARE, or any other drug prevention program targeting adolescents, should include a series of follow-up sessions in order to increase the likelihood of sustaining any positive effects.

Table 1
Charleston County and U.S. High School Seniors' Drug Use - Prevalence Rates(a) for the Class of 1990

                Lifetime            Annual            30-day
              ----------------  ----------------  ----------------
Drug           Charleston  U.S.  Charleston  U.S.  Charleston  U.S.
Alcohol            77.2    89.5      68.0    80.6      54.4    57.1
Cigarettes         47.1    64.4      30.4     NA       22.5    29.4
Marijuana          30.6    40.7      22.1    27.0      15.9    14.0
Cocaine             8.7     9.4       6.3     5.3       3.7     1.9
Crack               1.5     3.5       1.0     1.9       0.9     0.7
Hallucinogens       9.0     9.4       7.5     5.9       4.4     2.2
Amphetamines(b)     5.0    17.5       3.4     9.1       2.3     3.7
Sedatives           2.8     5.3       2.0     2.5       1.5     1.0
Any illicit drug    31.9   47.9      24.0    32.5      18.1    17.2
Note. NA indicates data not available.

  • Prevalence rates are based on percent ever used (lifetime), percent used 12 months prior to the survey (annual), and percent used 30 days prior to the survey (30-day).

  • Amphetamines are called stimulants on the National Youth Survey.

Table 2

Response Rates for DARE and Comparison Schools

Number of surveys Percent completed completed ---------------- ----------------- pre pre DARE/Comparison and and Schools N pre post post pre post post ------------------------------------------------------------------- DARE Schools School 1 91 84 75 72 92.3 82.4 79.1 School 2 90 88 84 84 97.8 93.3 93.3 School 3 50 47 46 44 94.0 92.0 88.0 School 4 52 46 44 41 88.5 84.6 78.8 School 5 58 54 58 54 93.1 100.0 93.1 Total 341 319 307 295 93.5 90.0 86.5 Comparison Schools School 6 80 72 68 64 90.0 85.0 80.0 School 7 77 73 65 63 94.8 84.4 81.8 School 8 63 61 57 56 96.8 90.5 88.9 School 9 50 48 42 41 96.0 84.0 82.0 School 10 29 23 20 18 79.3 69.0 62.1 School 11 68 67 65 65 98.5 95.6 95.6 Total 367 344 317 307 93.7 86.4 83.7

Table 3

Characteristics of DARE and Comparison Schools<
                   Percent of 3rd graders in 1986-87 school year...
                    | Number |
                    |   of   |Recvng |     |    |        | Meeting | Meeting
                    |students|free or|     |    |        |  BSAP   |  BSAP
          DARE/     | in 3rd |reduced|     |    | Never  | Reading |  Math
School  Comparison  | grade  | lunch |White|Male|Retained|Standards|Standards

School  1   DARE         122       14    74   46     80       97         95
School  6   Comparison    97       41    48   64     67       95         88

School  2   DARE          91       18    74   41     72       96         94
School  7   Comparison   131       24    63   57     67       95         93

School  3   DARE          59       16    88   53     81       96         86
School  8   Comparison   117       32    62   63     74       95         90
School  4   DARE         107       69    15   44     52       94         74
School  9   Comparison    45       86    36   57     66       70         63
School  5b  DARE         120       74d   30   56d    88d      --c       --c
School 11   Comparison   135       73    28   46     71       94         89
School 10   Comparison   102       92    05   44     48       82         64
a These figures were taken from the 1986-1987 school year. The third
graders in this cohort received DARE during the 1989-1990 school year.
b These figures are based on the 5th grade class.
c BSAP reading and math tests are not administered at the 5th grade level.
d These figures came from Spring 1989, Grades 1 through 3.

Table 4

Reliability of Scales
  Scale Name              Items              Alpha

Social Integration          15                 .85
Commitment to School         9                 .67
Attachment to School         8                 .75
Belief in
 Prosocial Norms            15                 .76
Rebellious Behavior         14                 .82
Assertiveness                8                 .58
Positive Peer Modeling      16                 .69
Peer Drug Modeling           8                 .77
Self-Esteem                 15                 .84
Attitudes Against
 Substance Use              12                 .66

Table 5

Means and Standard Deviations for Pre-treatment Measures and Demographic Characteristics - DARE and Comparison Students
DARE Comparison ------------- ------------- Pre-treatment Measure M SD N M SD N ------------------------------------------------------------------- Percent reporting drug use in last year cigarettes .09* .29 292 .04 .20 300 smokeless tobacco .01 .08 291 .00 .00 299 beer, wine, or liquor .08 .27 292 .06 .23 297 marijuana .01 .10 292 .00 .05 298 Self-reported drug use in last month (frequency) cigarettes .11 .42 293 .08 .39 300 alcohol .11 .41 291 .09 .35 296 marijuana .02 .25 291 .02 .25 298 Coping with stress talking to someone .70 .46 283 .73 .44 293 try to relax .83 .38 277 .84 .37 294 do things I like most .66 .47 274 .73 .45 289 Attitudes about police police can't be trusted .11 .31 276 .13 .34 293 police would rather catch you .27 .45 278 .23 .42 288 Social integration 1.75 .24 290 1.79 .22 304 Commitment to school 1.78 .21 292 1.79 .21 304 Attachment to school 1.70* .26 291 1.74 .25 304 Belief in prosocial norms 1.83* .18 291 1.86 .17 305 Rebellious behavior 1.24 .21 291 1.23 .22 303 Peer drug modeling 1.06 .13 293 1.07 .15 303 Self-esteem 1.75 .21 291 1.78 .21 304 Attitudes against subst. use 1.88 .14 290 1.88 .16 304 Assertiveness 2.32 .33 291 2.34 .35 302 Positive peer modeling 4.98 .43 292 5.02 .43 302 % Male .45* .50 295 .54 .50 305 % White .59** .49 293 .44 .50 305 Age 10.26 .81 294 10.30 .93 305 ------------------------------------------------------------------- *Difference between DARE and comparison group mean is statistically significant at the p<.05 level. **Difference between DARE and comparison group mean is statistically significant at the p<.01 level.

Table 6

Means and Standard Deviations for Outcome Measures - DARE and Comparison Students
                                  DARE              Comparison
                                -------------        -------------
Outcome Measure                 M     SD    N        M    SD    N
Percent reporting drug use
 in last year
  cigarettes                   .10   .29    293    .10   .29   304
  smokeless tobacco            .00   .12    293    .02   .14   302
  beer, wine, or liquor        .10   .32    290    .13   .33   301
  marijuana                    .01   .14    293    .01   .11   303
Self-reported drug use
 in last month (frequency)
  cigarettes                   .14   .49    291    .16   .54   302
  alcohol                      .13   .49    289    .17   .52   301
  marijuana                    .05   .36    290    .07   .46   301
Coping with stress
 talking to someone            .65   .48    280    .67   .47   283
 try to relax                  .84   .36    276    .81   .39   281
 do things I like most         .73   .45    273    .75   .43   281
Attitudes about police
 police can't be trusted       .14   .35    273    .13   .33   273
 police would rather catch you .24   .43    274    .28   .45   280

Social integration            1.75   .26    287   1.77   .24   299
Commitment to school          1.79   .20    291   1.78   .21   306
Attachment to school          1.68   .29    289   1.69   .27   300
Belief in prosocial norms     1.84   .18    295   1.82   .21   306
Rebellious behavior           1.28   .23    294   1.29   .24   306
Peer drug modeling            1.07*  .15    293   1.10   .19   305
Self-esteem                   1.75   .21    288   1.76   .22   300
Attitudes against subst. use  1.89*  .14    289   1.86   .18   301
Assertiveness                 2.33   .33    289   2.29   .36   303
Positive peer modeling        5.02   .47    292   4.98   .49   303
* Difference between DARE and comparison group mean is statistically
  significant at the p<.05 level.

Table 7

F Statistics from Analysis of Covariance
Outcome Variable             F Statistic         p-level
Percent reporting drug use
 in last year
  cigarettes                  3.39                  ns
  smokeless tobacco           2.65                  ns
  beer, wine, or liquor       4.11                   *
  marijuana                    .66                  ns

Self-reported drug use
 in last month (frequency)
  cigarettes                  1.56                  ns
  alcohol                     1.70                  ns
  marijuana                    .00                  ns

Coping with stress
 talking to someone            .23                  ns
 try to relax                 1.95                  ns
 do things I like most         .00                  ns

Attitudes about police
 police can't be trusted       .16                  ns
police would rather catch you 1.91                  ns

Social integration             .19                  ns
Commitment to school          2.15                  ns
Attachment to school          1.21                  ns
Belief in prosocial norms     7.28                  **
Rebellious behavior            .12                  ns
Peer drug modeling            8.37                  **
Self-esteem                    .59                  ns
Attitudes against subst. use 15.38                 ***
Assertiveness                 5.19                   *
Positive peer modeling        4.42                   *

Note. Analysis of covariance results are adjusted for pre-existing
differences on the following variables:  Sex, race, cigarettes smoked
in the last year, attachment to school, belief in prosocial norms, and
the outcome variable measured prior to treatment.

Differences between the DARE and comparison group mean that are not
significant at the p<.05 level are indicated by "ns".

  *Difference between DARE and comparison group mean is statistically
significant at the p<.05 level.
 **Difference between DARE and comparison group mean is statistically
significant at the p<.01 level.
***Difference between DARE and comparison group mean is statistically
significant at the p<.001 level.


Item Content of Scales and Individual Variables


How wrong is it for you or someone your age to do each of the following

Cheat on school tests
Use marijuana
Break something that belongs to someone else just to be mean
Steal something worth less than $5
Drink beer or wine
Break into a car or house to steal something
Steal something worth more than $50
Sell drugs to another student

Please tell whether you think each of the following statements is mostly
true or mostly false.

Sometimes a lie helps to stay out of trouble with the teacher.
It is alright to get around the law if you can.
It is okay to lie if it keeps your friends out of trouble
Sometimes you have to be a bully to get respect.
If you find someone's purse it is OK to keep it.
Sometimes you have to cheat in order to win.

                         Social Integration

Please tell whether you think each of the following statements is mostly
true or mostly false.

I often feel like nobody at school cares about me.
Teachers don't ask me to help them in class.
I feel no one really cares what happens to me.
I often feel lonely at school.
Sometimes I feel lonely when I'm with my friends.
I don't feel as if I really belong at school.
I often feel left out of things.
Other students don't want to be my friend.
My friends try to help me if I have a problem.
I don't feel that I fit in very well with my friends.
Teachers don't call on me in class, even when I raise my hand.
My friends don't care about my problems.
I feel like I belong at this school.
I feel close to my friends.
I know people in this school will help me when I need help.

                         Commitment to School

Do you expect to complete high school?
How important do you think it is to work hard in school?
How hard do you work in school?

How true about you are the following statements?

My schoolwork is messy.
I don't bother with homework or class assignments.
I turn my homework in on time.
If a teacher gives a lot of homework, I try to finish all of it.
The grades I get in school are important to me.
I often feel like quitting school.

Rebellious Behavior How often do you do each of the following things? Take things that do not belong to me. Stay after school to be punished. Break other people's things. Try to hurt or bother people (by tripping, hitting, or throwing things). Tease other students. Fight with other students. Talk back to the teacher. Show off in class. Do things I know will make the teacher angry. Cheat on tests. Copy someone else's homework. Come late to class. Pay attention in class. Do what the teacher asks me to do.

Peer Drug Modeling During the last year, how many of your friends have done each of the following things? Used marijuana Drunk beer or wine Sold Drugs Gotten drunk once in a while Sold or given beer or wine to a student Please mark T for "true" and F for "false" for each of the following statements. A friend has offered to share marijuana with me. A friend has offered to share cigarettes with me. I sometimes use marijuana or other drugs just because my friends are doing it.

Attitudes Against Substance Use If you think you would do each of these things, mark Y for yes. If you think you would not do each of these things, mark N for no. If your friends were doing something that would get them in trouble, would you try to stop them? If one of your friends was smoking some marijuana and offered you some, would you smoke it? Are the following statements mostly true or mostly false? I will never drink beer, wine, or hard liquor. I will never try marijuana or other drugs. Smokers look stupid. People my age who smoke are show-offs. I will never smoke cigarettes. People who smoke marijuana have more fun than people who don't. People my age who smoke cigarettes have more friends than people who don't. Smoking makes a person look grown up. Girls like boys who smoke. If a young person smokes marijuana, he or she will be popular.

Attachment to School Please tell whether you think each of the following statements is mostly true or mostly false. I like the principal. I like school. I like to be called on by my teacher to answer questions. I usually enjoy the work I do in class. I care what teachers think about me. I like my teacher. Most of the time I do not want to go to school. Sometimes I wish I did not have to go to school.

Self-Esteem Please tell whether you think each of the following statements is mostly true or mostly false. I am happy most of the time. I am usually happy when I am at school. Most of the time I am proud of myself. Other students see me as a good student. My grades at school are good. I am satisfied with my school work. I am proud of my school work. Most boys and girls think I am good at school work. I feel good about myself. I can't do anything well. Sometimes I feel bad about myself. My teacher thinks that I am a slow learner. I often wish I were someone else. Sometimes I think I am no good at all. Other boys and girls think I am a trouble maker.

Assertiveness How often do you do these things? Compliment a friend Ask someone for a favor Ask people to give back things they have borrowed Complain when someone gets ahead of you in line Complain when someone gives you less change than you are supposed to get Tell people what you think even if they might think you are wrong Ask a teacher to explain something you don't understand Ask a person who is doing something wrong to stop

Positive Peer Modeling How important is it to you that your friends... are interested in the same things your are? tell you the truth? tell you how they feel? help you with the problems you have? keep their promises? care about you? Are these statements mostly true or mostly false about your friends? Most of my friends think getting good grades is important. Most of my friends hate school. My friends often try to get me to do things the teacher doesn't like. As far as you know, are the following statements true or false about your best friend? Likes school Tries to behave in school Gets into trouble at school If you think you would do each of these things, mark Y for yes. If you think you would not do each of these things, mark N for no. If your friends got into trouble with the police, would you lie to protect them? If a friend asked to copy your homework, would you let the friend copy it even if it might get you in trouble with a teacher? How often do you do these things? Compliment a friend Ask a person who is doing something wrong to stop Individual Variables Attitudes About Police Please tell us if you think each of the following statements is mostly true or mostly false? Most police officers can be trusted. The police would rather catch you doing something wrong than try to help you. Coping With Stress

Please tell us if you think each of the following statements is mostly true or mostly false?

If I got into an argument with another student, I would talk to someone about it.

When I have to talk in front of the class, I try to relax.

When I have too many things to do, I try to do the things I like the most.

                  Last Year Drug Use - Prevalence

In the last year have you...

Smoked cigarettes?
Used smokeless tobacco?
Drunk beer, wine, or "hard" liquor?
Smoked marijuana (grass, pot, hash, ganja)?

                 Last Month Drug Use - Frequency

In the last month how often have you...

Smoked cigarettes?
Drunk alcoholic beverages?
Smoked marijuana?


  1. Agopian, M. W., & Becker, H. K. (1990). Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) in the Long Beach Unified School District: Final report. Long Beach: California State University, Criminal Justice Department.
  2. Anhalt, H. L., & Klein, M. (1976). Drug abuse in junior high school populations. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 3, 589-603.
  3. Aniskiewicz, R. E., & Wysong, E. E. (1987). Project DARE evaluation report: Kokomo schools, Spring 1987. Kokomo: Indiana University, Sociology Department.
  4. Arkin, R. M., Roemhild, H. J., Johnson, C. A., Luepker, R. V. & Murray, D. M. (1981). The Minnesota smoking prevention program: A seventh grade health curriculum supplement. Journal of School Health, 51, 616-661.
  5. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall.
  6. Bennett, G. (1983). Youthful substance abuse. In G. Bennett, C. Vourakis, & D. S. Woolf (Eds.), Substance abuse: Pharmacologic, developmental and clinical perspectives (pp. 156-174). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Berberin, R. M., Gross, C., Lovejoy, J., & Paparella, S. (1976). The effectiveness of drug education programs: A critical review. Health Education Monographs, 4, 337-397.
  8. Beschner, G. M. (1989). The problem of adolescent drug abuse: An introduction to intervention strategies. In G. M. Beschner & A. S. Friedman (Eds.), Treatment services for adolescent substance abusers (DHHS Publication No. ADM 89-1342, pp. 1-12). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
  9. Botvin, G. J. (1982). Broadening the focus of smoking prevention strategies. In T. Coates, A. Petersen, & C. L. Perry (Eds.), Promoting adolescent health: A dialogue on research and practice (pp. 137-148). New York: Academic Press.
  10. Botvin, G. J. (1990). Substance abuse prevention theory, practice, and effectiveness. In M. Tonry & J. Q. Wilson (Eds.), Drugs and crime: Annual review of research in crime and justice, vol. 13 (pp. 461-519). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  11. Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Renick, N., Filazzola, A. D & Botvin, E. M. (1984). A cognitive-behavioral approach to substance abuse prevention. Addictive Behaviors, 9, 137-147.
  12. Botvin G. J., & Dusenbury, L. (1987). Substance abuse prevention and the promotion of competence. In L. S. Bond, & B. E. Compas (Eds.), Primary Prevention and Promotion in the Schools (pp. 146-178). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  13. Botvin, G. J., & Eng, A. (1980). A comprehensive school-based smoking prevention. Journal of School Health, 50, 209-213.
  14. Botvin, G. J., & Eng, A. (1982). The efficacy of a multi-component approach to the prevention of cigarette smoking. Preventive Medicine, 11, 199-211.
  15. Botvin, G. J., Eng, A. & Williams, C. L. (1980). Preventing the onset of cigarette smoking through Life Skills Training. Preventive Medicine, 9, 135-143.
  16. Botvin, G. J., Renick, N., & Baker, E. M. (1983). The effects of scheduling format and booster sessions on a broad spectrum psychosocial approach to smoking prevention. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, 359-379.
  17. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  18. Clayton, R. R., Cattarello, A., Day, L. E. and Walden, K. P. (1991). Persuasive communications and drug abuse prevention: An evaluation of the DARE program, In L. Donohew, H. Sypher, & W. Bukowski (Eds.), Persuasive communication and drug abuse prevention (pp. 295-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
  19. Clayton, R. R., Cattarello, A., & Walden, K. P. (in press). Sensation seeking as a potential mediating variable for school-based prevention interventions: A two-year follow-up of DARE. Journal of Health Communications.
  20. Coupey, S. M., & Schonberg, S. K. (1982). Evaluation and management of drug problems. Adolescents Pediatric Annuals, 11, 653-658.
  21. Criminal Justice Statistics Association. (1990). Evaluating drug control initiatives: Conference proceedings, June 20-22, 1990. Washington, DC: Author.
  22. 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.
  23. Earle, R. B. (1987). Evaluation of the Illinois state police DARE pilot program. Springfield, IL: A. H. Training and Development Systems, Inc.
  24. Einstein, S. (1981). Understanding drug user treatment evaluation: Some unresolved Issues. International Journal of Additions, 16, 381-400.
  25. Elliot, D. S., & Huizinga, D. (1984). The relationship between delinquent behavior and ADM problems (The Nation Youth Survey Project Report No. 28). Boulder: University of Colorado, Behavioral Research Institute.
  26. Evaluation and Training Institute. (1990). DARE evaluation report for 1985-1989. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
  27. Evans, R. I. (1976). Smoking in children: Developing a social psychological strategy of deterrence. Preventive Medicine, 5, 122-127.
  28. Faine, J. R. (1989). DARE in Nashville schools 1988-1989: An evaluation of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program. Bowling Green: Western Kentucky University, Social Research Laboratory.
  29. Faine, J. R., & Bohlander, E. (1988). Drug Abuse Resistance Education: An assessment of the 1987-1988 Kentucky State Police DARE program. Bowling Green: Western Kentucky University, Social Research Laboratory.
  30. Faine, J. R., & Bohlander, E. (1989) DARE in Kentucky schools 1988-89: An evaluation of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program. Bowling Green: Western Kentucky University, Social Research Laboratory.
  31. Flemming, J. P., Kellam, S. G., & Brown, C. H. (1982). Early predictors of age at first use of alcohol, marijuana, and cigarettes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 9, 285-303.
  32. Gottfredson, G. D. (1990). What About You, Form B, Research Edition: Development and applications of an inventory for assessing risk of drug involvement. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.
  33. Gordon, N. P., & McAlister, A. L. (1982). Adolescent drinking: Issues and research. In T. J. Coates, A. C. Peterson, & C. Perry (Eds.), Promoting adolescent health: A dialog on research and practice (pp. 201-223). New York: Academic Press.
  34. Hamburg, B. A., Braemer, H. C., & Jahnke, W. A. (1975). Hierarchy of drug use in adolescence: Behavioral and attitudinal correlates of substantial drug use. American Journal of Psychiatry, 132, 1155-1167.
  35. Hansen, W. B., Johnson, A. J., Flay, B. R., Graham, J. W., & Sobel, J. (1988). Affective and social influences approaches to prevention of multiple substance abuse among seventh grade students: Results from project SMART. Preventive Medicine, 17, 135-154.
  36. Hanson, D. J. (1980). Drug education: Does it work? In F. R. Scarpitti and S. K. Datesman (Eds.), Drugs and the Youth Culture (pp. 251-282). Beverly Hills: Sage.
  37. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. L. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64-105.
  38. Hubbard, R. L., Cavanaugh, E. R., Graddock, S. G., & Rachal, J. V. (1983). Characteristics, behaviors and outcomes for youth in TOPS study (Report submitted to National Institute on Drug Abuse under Contract No. 271-79-3611). Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
  39. Jessor, R., & Jessor, S. L. (1977). Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth. New York: Academic Press.
  40. Johnston, L. D. (1973). Drugs and american youth. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
  41. Johnston, L. D., Bachman, J. G., & O'Malley, P. M. (1991). Press release from the University of Michigan News and Information Services: January 23, 1991. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
  42. Kandel, D. B. (1978). Convergence in prospective longitudinal surveys of drug use in normal populations. In D. B. Kandel (Ed.), Longitudinal Research on drug use: Empirical findings and methodological Issues (pp. 3-38). Washington, DC: Hemisphere-Wiley.
  43. Kandel, D. B., Kessler, R. C., & Margulies, R. S. (1978). Antecedents of adolescent initiation into stages of drug use: A developmental analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 7, 13-40.
  44. Kinder, B., Pape, N., & Walfish, S. (1980). Drug and alcohol education programs: A review of outcome studies. International Journal of Addictions, 7, 1035-1054.
  45. Loeber, R., & Le Blanc, M. (1990). Toward a developmental criminology. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 12 (pp. 375-473). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  46. Macdonald, D. I., & Newton M. (1981). The clinical syndrome of adolescent drug abuse. Advances in Pediatrics, 8, 1-25.
  47. Mackenzie, R. G. (1982). The adolescent as a drug abuser: A paradigm for intervention. Pediatric Annals, 11, 659-668.
  48. Malvin, J. J., Moskowitz, J., Schaps, E., & Schaeffer, G. (1985). Evaluation of two School-based alternatives programs. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 30, 98-108.
  49. Manos, M. J., Kameoka, K. Y, & Tanja, J.H. (1986). Evaluation of Honolulu Police Department's Drug Abuse Resistance Education project (Report No. 329). Manoa: University of Hawaii-Manoa, School of Social Work, Youth Development and Research Center.
  50. Miller, D. (1973). The medical and psychological therapy of adolescent drug abuse. International Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 2, 309-330.
  51. Monopolis, S., & Savage, C. (1982). Substance abuse, public health, and the pediatrician. Pediatrician, 1, 176-196.
  52. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1981). Effectiveness of drug abuse treatment programs. (Publication No. ADM 81-1143). Rockville, MD.
  53. Nyre, G. F. (1985). Final evaluation report, 1984-1985, project DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Los Angeles: Evaluation and Training Institute.
  54. Nyre, G. F. (1986). DARE Evaluation Report, 1985-1986 Project DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation and Training Institute.
  55. Nyre, G. F., & Rose, C. (1987). Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) longitudinal evaluation annual report. Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation and Training Institute.
  56. Ogborne, A. C. (1978). Patient characteristics as predictors of treatment outcomes for alcohol and drug abusers. In Y. Israel, F. B. Glaser, H. Kalant, R. E. Popham, W. Schmidt, & R. G. Smart (Eds.), Research advances in alcohol and drug problems, vol. 4 (pp. 177-223). New York: Plenum Press.
  57. Perry, C. L., Killen, J., Slinkard, L. A., & McAlister, A. L. (1980). Peer teaching and smoking prevention among junior high students. Adolescence, 9, 277-281.
  58. Polich, J. M., Ellickson, P. L., Reuter, P., & Kahan, J. P. (1984). Strategies for controlling adolescent drug use. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
  59. Project DARE: How's it doing?. (1990 Spring). Prevention File, pp. 16-18.
  60. Richards, L. G. (1980). The epidemiology of youthful drug use. In F.R. Scarpitti & S. K. Datesman (Eds.), Drugs and the youth culture (pp. 33-57). Beverly Hills: Sage.
  61. Ringwalt, C., Ennett, S. T., & Holt, K. (1991). An outcome evaluation of DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Health Education Research Theory and Practice, 6, 327-337.
  62. Robins, L. N. & Przybeck, T. R. (1985). Age of onset of drug use as a factor in drug and other disorders. In C. L. Jones & R. J. Battles (Eds.), Etiology of Drug Abuse: Implications for Prevention (pp. 178-192) (Research Monograph No. 56, DHHS Publication No. ADM 85-1335). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
  63. Schaps, E. J., Bartolo, R. D., Moskowitz, J., Palley, C. S., & Churgin, S. (1981). A review of 127 drug abuse prevention program evaluations. Journal of Drug Issues, 11, 17-43.
  64. Schinke, S. P., & Gilchrist, L. D. (1985). Preventing substance abuse with children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 596-602.
  65. Sells S. B., & Simpson, D. D. (1979). Evaluation of treatment outcome for youths in the Drug Abuse Reporting Program (DARP): A follow-up study. In G. M. Beschner & A. S. Friedman (Eds.), Youth drug abuse: Problems, issues and treatment (pp. 571- 613). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
  66. South Carolina Department of Education and South Carolina Commission on Alcohol & Drug Abuse (1990). Youth survey results regarding alcohol and other drug use in South Carolina during the 1989-90 school year: Survey results for Charleston School District. Columbia, SC: Author.
  67. Stein, M. D., & Davis, J. K. (1982). Therapies for adolescents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  68. Swisher, J. D. (1979). Prevention issues. In R. L. Dupont, A. Goldstein, & J. O'Donnell (Eds.), Handbook on drug abuse (pp. 423-435). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
  69. Swisher, J. D., & Hoffman, A. (1975). Information: The irrelevant variable in drug education. In Corder, B. W., Smith, R. A., & Swisher, J. D. (Eds.), Drug abuse prevention: Perspectives and approaches for educators. Dubuque, IA: Brown.
  70. Telch, M. J., Killen, J. D., McAlister, A. L., Perry, C. L., & Maccoby, N. (1982). Long-term follow-up of a pilot project on smoking prevention with adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5, 1-8.
  71. Tobler, N. (1986). Meta-Analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention programs: Quantitative outcome results of program participants compared to a control or comparison group. Journal of Drug Issues, 16(4), 537-567.
  72. Walker, S. G. (1990). The Victoria Police Department Drug Abuse Resistance Education Programme (DARE) (Programme Evaluation Report 2). Victoria, British Columbia, CANADA: Author.


Library Highlights

Drug Information Articles

Drug Rehab