Performance audit, Department of Public Safety, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Program

              State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
DEPARTMENT
OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (D.A.R.E.) Program
February 2001
Report No. 01-03
The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee
composed of five senators and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impar-tial
information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government
entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the state and political
subdivisions and performance audits of state agencies and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Senator Ken Bennett, Chairman
Representative Roberta L. Voss, Vice-Chairman
Herb Guenther Robert Blendu
Dean Martin Gabrielle Giffords
Andy Nichols Barbara Leff
Tom Smith James Sedillo
Randall Gnant (ex-officio) James Weiers (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Dot Reinhard—Manager
and Contact Person (602) 553-0333
Catherine Dahlquist—Team Member
Rachel Rowland—Team Member
Copies of the Auditor General’s reports are free.
You may request them by contacting us at:
Office of the Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, AZ 85018
(602) 553-0333
Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at:
www.auditorgen.state.az.us
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
WILLIAM THOMSON
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
February 28, 2001
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Colonel Dennis A. Garrett, Director
Department of Public Safety
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Drug
Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Program within the Department of Public Safety.
This report is in response to a June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit
Committee. The performance audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in
A.R.S. §41-2951 et seq. I am also transmitting with this report a copy of the Report Highlights
for this audit to provide a quick summary for your convenience.
This is the third in a series of reports to be issued on the Department of Public Safety.
As outlined in its response, the Department disagrees with our finding that D.A.R.E. has
not been proven effective. However, even officials of the national program have recently
acknowledged concerns about D.A.R.E.’s effectiveness. On February 15, 2001, D.A.R.E.
America officials announced the development of a new D.A.R.E. program incorporating
“science-based strategies for substance abuse prevention programming.” This new
program will be tested in six cities. These very recent developments make it all the more
important that the Department implements, as it has agreed to, our recommendation to
work closely with the Drug and Gang Policy Council in determining its future involvement
with D.A.R.E.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on March 1, 2001.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Enclosure
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Program Fact Sheet
Department of Public Safety
Drug Abuse Resistance Education
(D.A.R.E.)
Services: D.A.R.E. is a national school-based drug abuse prevention program that uses
trained, uniformed police officers to deliver its curriculum. The Department coordinates and
monitors D.A.R.E. officer training and provides technical assistance to the states in the
Southwest Regional Training Center jurisdiction.
Program Revenue: $465,000
(fiscal year 2000)
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
1998 1999 2000
BJA Grant DHS Grant RICO CJEF
States included in the Southwest Re-gional
Training Center’s jurisdiction:
The American Samoa and South Pacific Islands are
also included in this region’s jurisdiction.
Program Personnel: 7 full-time staff
(fiscal year 2000)
Ü Program director
Ü Chief of staff
Ü State coordinator
Ü Educational advisor (vacant since
1996)
Ü Finance officer
Ü Two administrative staff.
Facilities: The program leases office space
and training rooms in Phoenix, Arizona, at an
annual cost of $6,000.
Equipment: The Department has a van
seized under the Racketeering Influenced
Corrupt Organization (RICO) laws, and it also
has purchased a trailer to transport its equip-ment
and supplies to local seminars. The
trailer cost about $3,000.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Program Goals: (Fiscal Years 2000 through
2002)
1. To provide D.A.R.E. certification train-ing
to law enforcement officers enabling
them to teach the elementary, junior
high, senior high, and parent training
components.
2. To monitor D.A.R.E. training conducted
within the southwest region.
Adequacy of Performance Measures:
The Department has established six objec-tives
and six performance measures that
include output, quality, and efficiency
measures.
Although the established measures are
good, the Department should establish
additional measures.
n It could improve its ability to assess the
quality of its services by adding an ad-ditional
measure to assess its customers’
satisfaction with the officers’ delivery of
the D.A.R.E. curriculum.
n In addition, it should also add an effi-ciency
measure to assess the cost-effectiveness
of the services it provides,
such as the cost per officer trained.
i
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Pro-gram
within the Department of Public Safety (Department),
pursuant to a June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Audit Committee. The audit was conducted under the authority
vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes
(A.R.S.) §41-2951 et seq. This audit is the third in a series of audits
examining programs within the Department. The Department
coordinates state and regional training and provides technical
assistance for the D.A.R.E. program.
D.A.R.E. is a school-based drug prevention program that uses
trained, uniformed police officers to deliver its curriculum. The
D.A.R.E. curriculum is primarily directed toward 5th- or 6th-grade
students, the age at which prevention experts believe youth are
most receptive to school-based drug prevention programs. Cre-ated
in 1983, D.A.R.E. is currently taught in all 50 states and 52
countries, making it the largest school-based drug education
program in the world. Arizona first offered the D.A.R.E. pro-gram
in 1986, and during the 1999 school year, police officers
taught D.A.R.E. in 576 of 1,481 schools, or almost 40 percent of
the State’s public K-12 schools.
Department Should Work With the
Drug and Gang Policy Council to
Determine Its Future Involvement
with D.A.R.E.
(See pages 9 through 19)
The Department should work with the Drug and Gang Policy
Council to determine if its continued participation in the
D.A.R.E. program is in the State’s best interest. Despite
D.A.R.E.’s popularity and widespread use, over a decade of
peer-reviewed, scientific research has failed to show that the
program’s most widely used component, the core curriculum,
has any lasting impact on preventing or reducing adolescent
substance abuse behavior. In addition, auditors’ exhaustive lit-
Summary
ii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
erature search confirmed that D.A.R.E.’s impact is mixed, at best,
over the short-term and virtually nonexistent over the long-term.
D.A.R.E. proponents are critical of the research for various rea-sons.
As an example, they suggest that the research is no longer
valid because it evaluated a curriculum that has since been
changed. While there have been revisions to the program, such
as adding a lesson on managing conflict and reducing violence,
the goals, focus, and method of delivery have remained the
same. Therefore, some researchers indicate that the curriculum
changes have not been significant enough to warrant invalida-tion
of these studies. D.A.R.E. proponents are also critical of the
research because they believe that the program offers other bene-fits
aside from whatever impact it may or may not have on pre-venting
or reducing substance abuse, such as enhanced police
and community relations. In addition, the program has strong
public support.
However, despite the program’s popularity, some communities
are choosing to replace D.A.R.E. with other drug prevention
programs. While no other prevention program has been studied
as extensively as D.A.R.E., there is an emerging body of research
that suggests other programs may be more effective in reducing
adolescent substance abuse. In addition, various federal and state
agencies are also developing program guides to assist communi-ties
in selecting effective programs. For example, the U.S. De-partment
of Health and Human Service’s Center for Substance
Abuse and Arizona’s Drug and Gang Policy Council have each
developed guidelines for selecting effective programs. To date,
D.A.R.E. is not among the programs listed.
The Department has an opportunity to help ensure that Ari-zona’s
drug prevention efforts are effective. The Department is
a member of the Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council, which
has a statutory mandate to evaluate the results achieved by
publicly supported education, treatment, and prevention pro-grams
and make recommendations for revising programs or
redirecting expenditures to achieve better use of public re-sources.
Given the questions concerning the effectiveness of the
D.A.R.E. program and emerging research on other programs,
the Department should work with the Council to determine
whether it is in the State’s best interest for the Department to
continue to participate in the D.A.R.E. program.
iii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Background.......................... 1
Finding I: Department Should Work with
the Drug and Gang Policy Council to
Determine Its Future Involvement
with D.A.R.E.................................................. 9
Research Fails to Find Lasting
Impact on Preventing or Reducing
Adolescent Drug Abuse Behavior................................. 9
Other Benefits Attributed to D.A.R.E............................. 14
Some Communities Are Replacing
D.A.R.E. with Other Prevention Programs.................... 15
Department Should Determine
Whether Continued Participation
in D.A.R.E. Is Beneficial.................................................. 18
Recommendation............................................................ 19
Appendix ........................................................... a-i
Agency Response
Tables
Table 1 Department of Public Safety
Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and
Changes in Fund Balance
Years Ended June 30, 1998, 1999, and 2000........ 4
Table 2 Department of Public Safety
Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
Program Impact on Substance Abuse Behaviors
Reported in Evaluation Studies.......................... 11
iv
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
1
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Pro-gram
within the Department of Public Safety (Department),
pursuant to a June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Audit Committee. The audit was conducted under the authority
vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes
(A.R.S.) §41-2951 et seq. This audit is the third in a series of audits
examining programs within the Department. The Department
coordinates state and regional training and provides technical
assistance for the D.A.R.E. program.
Program Overview
D.A.R.E. is a national school-based drug prevention program
that uses trained, uniformed police officers to deliver its curricu-lum.
The D.A.R.E core curriculum, the most widely used com-ponent,
is primarily directed toward 5th- or 6th-grade students, the
age at which prevention experts believe youth are most receptive
to school-based drug prevention programs. The D.A.R.E. pro-gram’s
intent is to provide children with the information and
skills they need to live drug- and violence-free lives.
In a joint effort, the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los
Angeles Unified School District created the D.A.R.E. program in
1983. Currently, D.A.R.E. is taught in all 50 states and 52 coun-tries,
making it the largest school-based drug education program
in the world. Arizona first offered the D.A.R.E. program in 1986,
and during the 1999 school year police officers taught D.A.R.E. in
almost 40 percent of the State’s public K-12 schools (576 out of
1,481 schools).
Program Curricula
D.A.R.E.’s structured curricula consists of a series of lessons that
provide information about the effects of drugs, building resis-tance
skills and self-esteem, altering beliefs about drug use, man-
D.A.R.E. has become the
largest school-based drug
education program.
Introduction and Background
2
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
aging stress, and reducing violent tendencies. Although D.A.R.E.
is designed to be a continuing education program, its core cur-riculum
is the most widely known and used component. The
core curriculum is taught on a weekly basis to 5th- or 6th-grade
students and consists of 17 hour-long sessions.1 Between 1986
and 1988, D.A.R.E. expanded its curriculum to include kinder-garten
to 4th-grade, junior and senior high school, and parent
components. In Arizona, about half of the schools administering
the core curriculum have implemented at least one of these addi-tional
components.
The D.A.R.E. curricula is uniformly structured and administered.
Trained law enforcement officers deliver the curricula in a spe-cific
order. Prior to teaching the core D.A.R.E. curriculum, an
officer must become a certified D.A.R.E. instructor by taking 80
hours of D.A.R.E. training. This training covers classroom man-agement
skills, teaching strategies, and content and presentation
of the D.A.R.E. curriculum. An officer must receive additional
training to teach any of the other D.A.R.E. components. Addi-tionally,
to retain certification, a D.A.R.E. officer must maintain a
level of proficiency as dictated by the national D.A.R.E. organiza-tion.
Program Organization
Although local police departments administer the D.A.R.E. cur-riculum,
the program is governed at the national, regional, and
state levels. At the national level, D.A.R.E. America promotes the
program through the sale of D.A.R.E. merchandise and raises
funding by obtaining corporate sponsorship as well as by secur-ing
endorsements from celebrities and politicians. In addition,
D.A.R.E. America enacts policies and procedures to ensure the
consistency of officer training across the nation via regional and
state training centers. Together with the Los Angeles Unified
School District, D.A.R.E. America owns the copyright to the
D.A.R.E. curricula.
1 In 1993, the core curriculum was revised to include more participatory
learning activities and a lesson on managing stress and reducing vio-lence.
Introduction and Background
3
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
At the regional level, D.A.R.E. has five training centers (Arizona,
California, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia) which pro-vide
technical support and oversight, and ensure the consistency
of curricula training at the various state-level training centers in
their jurisdiction. The regional training centers also train Mentor
Officers who train D.A.R.E. classroom officers at the state level.
Most states have training centers where D.A.R.E. officers are
certified to teach the core curriculum.1 States that do not have a
training center usually appoint a D.A.R.E. coordinator who
manages the officer selection process, coordinates training, and
provides assistance to communities who desire to implement the
D.A.R.E. program.
Arizona’s D.A.R.E. Program,
Staff, and Funding
Arizona’s D.A.R.E. program operates under the Department of
Public Safety’s Office of the Director and performs both regional-and
state-level functions. The Arizona D.A.R.E. program consists
of seven full-time employees—a program director, chief of staff,
state coordinator, educational advisor (currently vacant), finance
officer, and two administrative staff. In addition, the program
uses 11 part-time volunteers.
The Arizona D.A.R.E. program currently receives funding from
both federal and state monies. As noted in Table 1 (see page 4),
the following federal and state sources provide financial support
to the program:
n U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assis-tance—
The Bureau provides a federal grant that supports
training functions and provides the salary for the program’s
finance officer. For fiscal year 2000, Arizona received
$262,825.
n Arizona Department of Health Services—The Department
provides funding in the form of a grant for the program’s
1 A state can also become accredited to provide officer training on the
other D.A.R.E. curricula. If a state does not have a training center, officers
may receive training from another regional or state center.
Introduction and Background
4
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Table 1
Department of Public Safety
Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance1
Years Ended June 30, 1998, 1999, and 2000
(Unaudited)
1998 1999 2000
Revenues:
Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund
appropriations 2 $ 48,720 $ 60,250 $ 66,400
Intergovernmental 3 360,208 346,221 337,801
Other 4 174,937 165,609 61,056
Total revenues 583,865 572,080 465,257
Expenditures:
Personal services 255,680 265,366 257,433
Employee related 53,595 54,350 51,857
Professional and outside services 20,114 21,006 21,002
Travel, in-state 11,079 19,673 18,422
Travel, out-of-state 76,774 51,297 39,095
Aid to organizations 43,262 33,346 26,990
Other operating 95,804 89,658 91,791
Equipment 10,328 4,387 25,391
Total expenditures 566,636 539,083 531,981
Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures 17,229 32,997 (66,724)
Fund balance, beginning of year 51,510 68,739 101,736
Fund balance, end of year $ 68,739 $101,736 $ 35,012
1 The Department allocated the revenues and expenditures recorded in the Department’s Joint Account. The
Joint Account is a commingled account primarily funded from State General Fund appropriations and
other appropriated monies, such as Criminal Justice Enhancement monies.
2 Consists of fines and forfeits deposited in the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund and appropriated to the
Department. Amounts presented do not include monies appropriated but unspent at year-end that are re-tained
by the Department and are subject to legislative appropriations in future years.
3 Includes a federal grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice and a grant from the Arizona
Department of Health Services.
4 Consists primarily of monies from the Department’s Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization Fund.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of financial information provided by the Department of Public Safety.
Introduction and Background
5
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
administrative assistant and secretary positions. In fiscal year
2000, the program received $74,976.
n Arizona Department of Public Safety—The Department
uses both Arizona Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund
(CJEF) monies and Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organi-zation
(RICO) monies to support the program. These monies
provide the funding for the chief of staff, state coordinator,
and operating costs. In fiscal year 2000, the program received
$66,400 in CJEF monies and $61,056 in RICO monies. Addi-tionally,
effective April 2000, the program director’s position
is funded with appropriated DPS monies. Prior to this time,
the position was funded with RICO monies.
Although the financial table details the Department’s D.A.R.E.
program revenues and expenditures, the total amount spent on
the program statewide is unclear because it is administered at
the local level. Specifically, participating law enforcement agen-cies
and schools also support the program by providing staff,
D.A.R.E. materials, and class time. The expenditures are likely
significant because two-thirds of the D.A.R.E.-certified officers
spend the majority of their duty time with the D.A.R.E. program.
According to Arizona D.A.R.E. statistics, 239 officers participated
in delivering the program in 1999. Auditors estimate that local
communities are collectively spending about $4 million per year
on salaries for the officers participating in the D.A.R.E. program.
Audit Scope and Methodology
The audit focused on whether Arizona, and the Arizona De-partment
of Public Safety in particular, should continue to sup-port
and participate in the D.A.R.E. program. To this end, audi-tors
examined the Department’s current role within the D.A.R.E.
program and the program’s effectiveness in meeting its goals of
reducing adolescent drug use and violence.
Various methods were used to obtain information on the Ari-zona
D.A.R.E. program, the Department’s role in D.A.R.E., and
the program’s efficacy. Specifically, to determine the Depart-
Local law enforcement spent
an estimated $4 million in
1999 on D.A.R.E.
Introduction and Background
6
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
ment’s role, auditors interviewed Arizona D.A.R.E. program
personnel and reviewed program organizational and funding
information. Auditors also examined Arizona D.A.R.E. statistics,
which encompassed pre/post student opinion surveys, surveys
of both teachers and administrators, and school participation
statistics. Additionally, auditors gathered information regarding
the law enforcement communities’ involvement in D.A.R.E.,
such as the number of communities with programs and the
number of police officers involved. Auditors also interviewed
state and national drug prevention experts and explored the
research-based principles of substance abuse prevention pro-grams.
Additionally, auditors explored why various communi-ties
nationwide have chosen to no longer participate in D.A.R.E.
To determine the effectiveness of the D.A.R.E. program, auditors
first conducted an extensive literature search on all research and
information on the program’s effectiveness. Due to the wide-spread
use of the D.A.R.E. program, a plethora of research and
information was gathered and reviewed. Although several stud-ies
have already used the available research to draw conclusions
about D.A.R.E’s impact and effectiveness, auditors conducted an
independent review of the research. Included in the review were
studies that adhered to rigorous methodological standards, such
as the use of control and comparison groups, pre- and posttests,
and representative samples. Studies investigating the generic
effect of drug programs other than D.A.R.E. or studies examin-ing
D.A.R.E. in conjunction with other programs were excluded.
While these types of studies can provide information on the
overall impact of substance abuse prevention, D.A.R.E.’s impact,
as distinct from that of other programs, could not be determined.
In all, 14 methodologically sound peer-reviewed articles were
evaluated encompassing studies of the D.A.R.E. core curriculum
conducted in California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
North Carolina, and South Carolina. Included are the two most
recent evaluations conducted by Lynam et al. (1999), and
Rosenbaum and Hanson (1998). See Appendix (pages a-i
through a-vi), for a complete listing of the studies selected. These
evaluations review both the short-term effectiveness of the
D.A.R.E. core curriculum as well as its impact over a longer
period of time. In addition, the studies also include one meta-analysis
evaluation. Meta-analyses measure and analyze the
A plethora of information
and research is available on
the D.A.R.E. program.
Auditors further analyzed
the 14 most current studies
that adhere to sound meth-odological
techniques.
Introduction and Background
7
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
outcomes of multiple studies to draw conclusions about the
program.
This report presents a finding and recommendation in one area:
n The Department should work with the Arizona Drug and
Gang Policy Council to determine whether it is in the State’s
best interest for the Department to continue to promote and
participate in the D.A.R.E. program.
The audit was conducted in accordance with government audit-ing
standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Direc-tor
and staff of the Arizona Department of Public Safety and the
Program Director and staff of the Arizona D.A.R.E. Unit for their
cooperation and assistance during the audit.
8
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
9
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING I DEPARTMENT SHOULD WORK
WITH THE DRUG AND GANG
POLICY COUNCIL TO
DETERMINE ITS FUTURE
INVOLVEMENT WITH D.A.R.E.
The Department of Public Safety (Department) should work
with the Drug and Gang Policy Council to determine if its par-ticipation
in the D.A.R.E. program is in the State’s best interest.
Despite D.A.R.E.’s popularity and widespread use, over a dec-ade
of research has failed to show the program’s most widely
used component, the core curriculum, has any lasting impact on
preventing or reducing substance abuse behavior among youth.
Although D.A.R.E. proponents discount the research and cite
several other potential program benefits, some communities are
replacing D.A.R.E. with other prevention programs. Therefore,
given questions concerning D.A.R.E.’s effectiveness and emerg-ing
research on other programs, the Department should work
with the Drug and Gang Policy Council to determine if it should
continue its involvement with the D.A.R.E. program.
Research Fails to Find Lasting
Impact on Preventing or Reducing
Adolescent Drug Abuse Behavior
Because the D.A.R.E. program is the most widely used school-based
substance abuse prevention education program, many
scientific evaluations regarding the program’s ability to meet its
goal of preventing adolescent drug use have been conducted. A
review of the most methodologically sound evaluations con-ducted
in various communities across the nation finds that the
D.A.R.E. core curriculum has little or no impact on preventing or
reducing drug abuse behavior either short-term or long-term.
Researchers conducting these evaluations and other substance
abuse prevention experts have hypothesized various reasons
Finding I
10
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
why the program has not proven effective. However, program
proponents are critical of the research.
Evaluations lend little support to D.A.R.E’s effectiveness—The
effectiveness of the D.A.R.E. core curriculum in preventing or
reducing drug use has been the focus of numerous evaluations.
Therefore, an extensive literature search on all research and in-formation
available on the program’s effectiveness was con-ducted.
While a plethora of research and information was gath-ered
and reviewed, this audit focused on studies that adhered to
sound methodological techniques and evaluated whether the
program was effective in reducing or preventing adolescent
drug abuse. The majority of the studies have been conducted on
the D.A.R.E. program’s core curriculum offered to 5th- or 6th-graders
because this is the most widely used D.A.R.E. compo-nent.
In all, 14 articles spanning over a decade of empirical research in
7 separate states were selected, reviewed, and summarized (see
Appendix, pages a-i through a-vi).1 The 14 articles found that
D.A.R.E. has had virtually no impact on students’ drug use be-haviors.
Because much of the D.A.R.E. program focuses on ele-mentary
school students, it is important to understand the pro-gram’s
impact both over the short term (months immediately
after training to 3 years later) and the long term (4 or more years
after the training). While some of the articles found that D.A.R.E.
had a small short-term effect, none of the articles reported that
D.A.R.E. had any appreciable effect over the longer period. Table
2 (see page 11) provides a listing of the articles and their findings
on the program’s impact on substance abuse behavior.
n Short-term impact—The program’s impact on reducing
substance abuse behavior in the short-term (up to three years
after the training) is mixed at best. Ten of the 14 articles dis-cussed
the core curriculum’s short-term effectiveness. Five of
the ten articles found that the program had some positive
short-term behavioral effects. However, these effects were
small, inconsistent, and short-lived. In most cases, D.A.R.E.
had an impact on the use of only one substance and only one
1 The articles cover eight separate evaluations conducted in California,
Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Caro-lina.
Finding I
11
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Table 2
Department of Public Safety
Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
Program Impact on Substance Abuse Behaviors Reported in Evaluation Studies
Impact on substance abuse behavior
Short-term Long-term
Becker, Harold, Agopian, Michael, and Sany Yeh. “Impact Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resis-tance
Education (D.A.R.E.).” Journal of Drug Education, 22:4 (1992): 283-91.
Clayton, Richard, Cattarello, Anne, and Bryan Johnstone. “The Effectiveness of Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (Project D.A.R.E.): Five-Year Follow-Up Results.” Preventive Medicine, 25
(1996): 307-18.
DeJong, William. “A Short-Term Evaluation of Project D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance
Education): Preliminary Indications of Effectiveness.” Journal of Drug Education, 17:4 (1987): 279-
294.
Dukes, Richard, Stein, Judith, and Jodie Ullman. “Long-Term Impact of Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (D.A.R.E.): Results of a Six-Year Follow-Up.” Evaluation Review, 21:4 (August 1997):
483-500.
Dukes, Richard, Ullman, Jodie, and Judith Stein. “Three-Year Follow-Up of Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.).” Evaluation Review, 20:1 (February 1996): 49-66.
Ennett, Susan, Rosenbaum, Dennis, Flewelling, Robert, Bieler, Gayle, Ringwalt, Christopher,
and Susan Bailey. “Long-Term Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education.” Addictive
Behaviors, 19:2 (1994): 113-125.
Ennett, Susan, Tobler, Nancy, Ringwalt, Christopher, and Robert Flewelling. “How Effective is
Drug Abuse Resistance Education? A Meta-Analysis of Project D.A.R.E. Outcome Evalua-tions.”
The American Journal of Public Health, 84:9 (September 1994): 1394-1401.
Hansen, William, and Ralph McNeal. “How D.A.R.E. Works: An Examination of Program
Effects on Mediating Variables.” Health Education and Behavior, 24:2 (April 1997): 165-76.
Harmon, Michele, A. Reducing the Risk of Drug Involvement Among Early Adolescents: An Evalua-tion
of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology,
University of Maryland, College Park (April 1993).
Lynam, Donald, Milich, Richard, Zimmerman, Rick, Novak, Scott, Logan, T.K., Martin, Cath-erine,
Luekefeld, Carl, and Richard Clayton. “Project D.A.R.E.: No Effects at Ten-Year Follow-
Up.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67:4 (August 1999): 590-93.
Ringwalt, Christopher, Ennett, Susan, and Kathleen Holt. “An Outcome Evaluation of Project
D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education).” Health Education Research, 6:3 (1991): 327-337.
Rosenbaum, Dennis, P., and Gordon S. Hanson. “Assessing the Effects of School-Based Drug
Education: A Six-Year Multilevel Analysis of Project D.A.R.E.” Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 35:4 (November 1998): 381-412.
Rosenbaum, Dennis, Flewelling, Robert, Bailey, Susan, Ringwalt, Chris, and Deanna Wilkin-son.
“Cops in the Classroom: A Longitudinal Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education
(D.A.R.E.).” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31:1 (February 1994): 3-31.
Wysong, Earl, Aniskiewicz, Richard, and David Wright. “Truth and D.A.R.E.: Tracking Drug
Education to Graduation and as Symbolic Politics.” Social Problems, 41:3 (August 1994): 448-72.
Alcohol
(immediately)
None
Alcohol & tobacco
(1 year)
Not
studied
None
Tobacco
(immediately)
None
Tobacco
(2 years)
Alcohol
(1 year)
Not
studied
None
Not
studied
None
Not
studied
Not
studied
None
Not
studied
Hard drugs
(6 years,
males only)
Not
studied
Not
studied
Not
studied
Not
studied
Not
studied
None
Not
studied
None
Not
studied
None
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of cited articles.
Finding I
12
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
measure of abuse for that substance. For example, Hansen
and McNeal (1996) reported a reduction in tobacco use but
“nonsignificant effects on alcohol use, illegal drug use, ster-oid
use, inhalant use, and drug selling and dealing behavior.”
Another article (Harmon, 1993) found that while students re-ceiving
D.A.R.E. initiated alcohol use less during the follow-ing
year, there were no differences found in tobacco or mari-juana
use.
Five articles found no significant positive short-term effects
on drug use behaviors for those having participated in the
program. For example, one article (Rosenbaum et al., 1994)
concluded that D.A.R.E. had “no statistically significant main
effects on the initiation of alcohol or cigarettes, increased use
of the substances, or quitting behavior.” Another article
(Dukes, Ullman, and Stein, 1996) reported no statistical dif-ferences
between D.A.R.E. and non-D.A.R.E. students on the
onset of drug use and actual drug use three years later.
n Long-term impact—Five of the 14 articles reviewed the core
program’s long-term impact and only one of these (Dukes,
Stein, and Ullman, 1997) found any effect on students’ behav-ior.
However, the positive effect was found only for males us-ing
hard drugs six years after undergoing the D.A.R.E. core
curriculum and was counter to findings at three years. Fur-thermore,
this study found no differences at six years for stu-dents’
use of alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana. The other long-term
evaluations found D.A.R.E. had no effect on students’
drug use behaviors. The longest period studied was ten years
(Lynam et al., 1999). However, even articles that focused on
fewer years reached similar conclusions. For example,
Rosenbaum and Hanson (1998) found that after six years the
level of drug and alcohol use (recent and lifetime) did not dif-fer
as a function of whether or not students participated in
the D.A.R.E. core curriculum.
Various reasons have been hypothesized for program’s lack of
effectiveness—Researchers and substance abuse prevention
advocates have offered several hypotheses to explain the
D.A.R.E. program’s ineffectiveness. For example:
n Not targeting the causes of drug use—Some researchers
hypothesize that the D.A.R.E. curriculum may not be ad-
Finding I
13
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
dressing the causes of adolescent substance abuse. There is
some scientific research to suggest that D.A.R.E. does not tar-get
the right causes. For example, D.A.R.E. targets self-esteem,
but scientific fact does not support the notion that
low self-esteem causes a teen to use or abuse alcohol or
drugs.
n Standardized curriculum and delivery system—Other
researchers have suggested that the program’s standardized
curriculum and delivery system have become barriers to
change. Although some researchers believe that the
standardized content and implementation ensures that
students receive the curriculum as it was designed, others
regard it as an impediment because it does not allow for
communities to adjust the program to meet specific needs. In
addition, some researchers hypothesize that law enforcement
personnel may not be the most appropriate individuals to
present the program.
n Lack of booster sessions—Others speculate that the one-time
intervention cannot be sustained without booster ses-sions
or continued intervention through junior high and sen-ior
high school. Unfortunately, there is little research specifi-cally
examining the effects of sustained or prolonged expo-sure
to school-based drug prevention programs. One study
(Donnermeyer and Davis, 1998) concludes booster sessions
do have an effect on drug use while another study
(Rosenbaum and Hanson, 1998) concludes just the opposite.
n Lack of concurrent action in the family and community—
Some suggest that a school-based drug prevention program
is insufficient to achieve the desired outcome without con-current
action from the community and family unit. For ex-ample,
reduction in tobacco use may result from the com-bined
effects of shifting social norms regarding tobacco use,
extensive anti-smoking media campaigns, school-based pre-vention
programs, and parent reinforcement and local com-munity
support (such as local non-smoking ordinances).
D.A.R.E. proponents critical of the research—Program propo-nents
frequently discount the research on D.A.R.E. because it
evaluated a core curriculum that has since been revised. How-ever,
while there have been some minor revisions over the years,
Finding I
14
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
they consisted primarily of adding a component on managing
conflict and reducing violence and more interactive teaching
methods. For example, Lynam et al. (1999) reported “To the best
of our knowledge, the goals (i.e., “to keep kids off drugs”) and
foci of D.A.R.E. (e.g., resisting peer pressure) have remained the
same across time as has the method of delivery (i.e., police offi-cers).
We believe that any changes in D.A.R.E. have been more
cosmetic than substantive…” Rosenbaum and Hanson (1998)
also indicated that the changes to the core curriculum introduced
in 1994 were “arguably small.” The program still presents essen-tially
the same curriculum in a specified order and delivered by a
uniformed law enforcement officer. Consequently, there is no
evidence to suggest that the program is so significantly different
now that the research results would not continue to be valid.
Additionally, it has also been argued that D.A.R.E. is being held
to standards that no other program has been held to. To a certain
extent, this is true. No other program has been studied as exten-sively
and in as many settings as the D.A.R.E. program. The
research on these programs is not as extensive because D.A.R.E.
was the first program of its kind to gain widespread acceptance
and has operated for nearly two decades. However, with the
increased emphasis on demonstrable program effectiveness, an
emerging body of research is developing on other drug abuse
prevention programs. As the research accumulates, these other
programs will also be subject to critical review.
Other Benefits Attributed to D.A.R.E.
Program proponents suggest that the D.A.R.E. program offers
several other benefits aside from whatever impact it may or may
not have on preventing or reducing substance abuse. Some of the
positive benefits attributed to D.A.R.E. include:
n Strong public support—There is strong public support for
the program. Testimonials and opinion surveys consistently
portray high satisfaction with the program and the desire to
continue it. Moreover, according to D.A.R.E. America, the
D.A.R.E. program is taught in more than 80 percent of all
school districts in the United States and this number contin-ues
to grow annually. For example, in calendar year 1999, 202
law enforcement agencies began implementing new D.A.R.E.
Finding I
15
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
components in their communities. Researchers speculate that
the popular support for the program in light of negative find-ings
regarding program effectiveness may be due in part to
the fact that most people believe it is a good thing to teach
children to refrain from drugs (Lynam et al., 1999).
n Enhanced police and community relations—In addition
to the strong public support, law enforcement officials and
other community members perceive the program as enhanc-ing
police and community relations. The program provides
an opportunity for police officers to interact with children
and develop positive perceptions about police officers. Al-though
the evidence is mixed, some research has shown that
children receiving the D.A.R.E. program have fewer negative
attitudes toward police.
n Inexpensive for the schools—The program is also per-ceived
to be low-cost. Information reported in Making the
Grade: A Guide to School Drug Prevention Programs indicates
that the D.A.R.E. program cost per pupil is $1.1 Additionally,
much of the funding for the program is generated through
private donations and local monies rather than state and fed-eral
tax dollars.
Some Communities Are
Replacing D.A.R.E. with
Other Prevention Programs
Despite the popularity of the D.A.R.E. program, some communi-ties
are choosing to replace D.A.R.E. with other prevention pro-grams.
Various reasons are cited for replacing the D.A.R.E. pro-gram,
including its lack of proven effectiveness. To assist com-munities
in identifying which programs meet their drug preven-tion
needs, various federal and state agencies have developed
guides of programs shown through research to be effective. Two
programs included in these guides are Life Skills Training and
the Midwestern Prevention Project.
1 Drug Strategies. Making the Grade: A Guide to School Drug Prevention
Programs, Washington, D.C.: Drug Strategies. 1999.
Finding I
16
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Communities cite various reasons for replacing D.A.R.E.—
Communities give various reasons for dropping D.A.R.E. and
looking for alternate prevention programs, including the
D.A.R.E. program’s lack of effectiveness in keeping children off
drugs and the inability to modify its curriculum or delivery sys-tem
to meet the unique demands of the school or community.
Additionally, some communities feel that using law enforcement
officers to administer the program is not an effective use of lim-ited
law enforcement resources. While there is no inclusive list-ing
of all the communities that have dropped or replaced
D.A.R.E., more than a dozen, including the cities of Austin,
Texas; Oakland, California; and Seattle, Washington have done
so. One of the communities that most recently dropped D.A.R.E.
and looked for a replacement drug prevention program is Salt
Lake City, Utah.
Guides exist for selecting drug prevention programs—In an
effort to assist communities to effectively address their drug
prevention needs, various federal and state agencies have begun
to issue guides to help them select prevention programs shown
through research to be effective.
n U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Center
for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)—CSAP’s mis-sion
is to provide national leadership in the federal effort to
prevent alcohol, tobacco, and illicit-drug problems. This
agency provides grants for substance abuse prevention pro-grams
and promotes the use of research-based programs that
have shown effectiveness through scientific study. It has de-veloped
a list of model programs proven to be successful in
reducing substance abuse.
n National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)—NIDA’s mission
is “to lead the nation in bringing power to bear on drug
abuse and addiction.” NIDA has developed a guide entitled
Preventing Drug Abuse Among Children and Adolescents. This
guide is designed to provide research-based concepts and in-formation
to further efforts to develop and carry out effective
drug abuse prevention programs. Included in this publica-tion
is a section titled “Some Research-Based Drug Abuse
Prevention Programs,” which lists examples of programs
that have been scientifically studied and have shown positive
results.
Finding I
17
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council (Council)—The
Council is mandated by statute with evaluating the results
achieved by publicly supported education, treatment, and
prevention programs and making recommendations for re-vising
programs or redirecting expenditures to achieve better
use of public resources. The Council is currently developing
an evaluation system to help make such recommendations,
and has developed a non-inclusive guide describing effective
and promising research-based prevention practices and pro-grams
for the state and local communities to implement.
Examples of programs in the prevention guides—The guides
published by CSAP, NIDA, and the Council include both proven
and promising programs. To date, D.A.R.E. is not among the
programs listed in these three agencies’ guides. However, two
examples of programs that are listed in these guides include:
n Life Skills Training—A classroom program designed to
address a wide range of risk and protective factors by teach-ing
general personal and social skills in combination with
drug resistance skills. The program consists of a three-year
prevention curriculum intended for middle school or junior
high school students. The Life Skills program covers three
major areas: drug-resistance skills and information, self-management
skills, and general social skills. Several commu-nities
have chosen to use this program in place of D.A.R.E.,
including Jefferson County, Kentucky; Lunenburg, Massa-chusetts;
and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Additionally, 220 Ari-zona
schools reported using the Life Skills program in 1999.
n Midwestern Prevention Project, Project STAR: Students
Taught Awareness and Resistance—A comprehensive
drug abuse prevention program that reaches the entire com-munity
with a comprehensive school program, mass media
efforts, a parent program, community organization, and
health policy programming. The school-based component is
a social influence curriculum that is incorporated into class-room
instruction by trained teachers over a two-year period.
Complete implementation of the program takes place over a
five-year period. This program has been used in many Indi-anapolis
schools for the past decade.
Finding I
18
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
While it is true that neither of these programs has been studied
as extensively or in as many settings as D.A.R.E., studies have
been conducted on both programs with additional studies an-ticipated.
For example, Life Skills Training has been studied over
the past 16 years and been found effective in reducing alcohol,
tobacco, and drug use in 12 major studies. In addition, on June
14, 1999, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion
(OJJDP) announced it was sponsoring multiple replications
of the Life Skills Training program in school settings. As many as
50 school sites will receive initial training, materials, and follow-up
technical assistance over a three-year period. Additionally,
the Midwestern Prevention Project has been studied in both
Kansas City and Indianapolis. Results from the Kansas City
study found the project decreased alcohol, tobacco, and mari-juana
use among students one year after participation and the
effect was sustained for more than three years after participation.
Similar results were found in the Indianapolis study. D.A.R.E.
program proponents argue that these programs’ evaluations
were not conducted in real-world settings and question whether
the programs will prove effective once tested among the general
school population.
Department Should Determine
Whether Continued Participation
in D.A.R.E. Is Beneficial
The Department has an opportunity to help ensure Arizona’s
drug prevention efforts are effective. The Department’s director
is a member of the Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council,
which has a statutory mandate to evaluate results achieved by
publicly supported education, treatment, and prevention pro-grams
and make recommendations for revising programs or
redirecting expenditures to achieve better use of public re-sources.
Given the questions concerning the effectiveness of the
D.A.R.E. program and emerging research on other adolescent
drug prevention programs, the Department should work with
the Council to determine whether it is in the State’s best interest
for the Department to continue to promote and participate in the
D.A.R.E. program.
Finding I
19
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
If the Department and Council determine that some change in
the Department’s role in the D.A.R.E. program is appropriate,
the Department should develop an implementation plan with
timelines and designated individuals responsible for carrying
out the necessary changes.
Recommendation
The Department should work with the Arizona Drug and Gang
Policy Council to determine whether it is in the State’s best inter-est
for the Department to continue to promote and participate in
the D.A.R.E. program. If it is found that some change in the De-partment’s
role is appropriate, the Department should develop
an implementation plan with timelines and designated responsi-ble
parties.
20
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Appendix
a-i
Appendix
Department of Public Safety
Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
Program Impact on Substance Abuse Behaviors Reported in Evaluation Studies
Study Article Description of the Study Impact on Substance Abuse Behavior
Short-term Long-term
Becker, Harold, Agopian, Michael, and
Sany Yeh. "Impact Evaluation of Drug
Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)."
Journal of Drug Education, 22:4 (1992): 283-
91.
The study used a self-report pre-test and
posttest survey of approximately 3,000
5th-grade Long Beach, California
students during the fall semester in
which D.A.R.E. was offered.
Approximately half the students
received D.A.R.E. while the other half
did not.
D.A.R.E. students maintained
pretest beer consumption levels
while non-D.A.R.E. group showed
an increase during the semester.
Wine use increased for both
groups, but more so for the non-
D.A.R.E. group. No difference
between the two groups on
marijuana use. D.A.R.E. group
showed high rate of abstinence
from use of hard liquor at pretest
and posttest while non-D.A.R.E.
group reported an increase in use
of hard liquor during the semester.
Not studied.
Clayton, Richard, Cattarello, Anne, and
Bryan Johnstone. "The Effectiveness of
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (Project
D.A.R.E.): Five-Year Follow-Up Results."
Preventive Medicine, 25 (1996): 307-18.
This study pretested all 6th-grade
students in 31 elementary schools in
Kentucky (23 schools randomly assigned
to receive D.A.R.E. and 8 schools
designated as controls) prior to offering
D.A.R.E., and posttested shortly after
administration of the program and
annually every subsequent year through
the 10th grade. The sample consisted of
2,071 students.
No significant differences between
D.A.R.E. and non-D.A.R.E. schools
with respect to cigarette, alcohol,
or marijuana use at 1,2, and 3
years.
No significant differences
between D.A.R.E. and non-
D.A.R.E. schools with respect to
cigarette, alcohol, or marijuana
use at 4 and 5 years.
DeJong, William. "A Short-Term
Evaluation of Project D.A.R.E. (Drug
Abuse Resistance Education): Preliminary
Indications of Effectiveness." Journal of
Drug Education, 17:4 (1987): 279-294.
This study surveyed of 598 7th-grade
students (288 receiving D.A.R.E. core
curriculum in 6th grade and 310 not
receiving the D.A.R.E. core curriculum)
from four junior high schools in Los
Angeles, California.
D.A.R.E. students reported
significantly lower use of hard
liquor and cigarettes than non-
D.A.R.E. students one year after
their D.A.R.E. training.
Not studied.
Appendix
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GNERAL
a-ii
Appendix
Department of Public Safety
Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
Program Impact on Substance Abuse Behaviors Reported in Evaluation Studies (cont’d)
Study Article Description of the Study Impact on Substance Abuse Behavior
Short-term Long-term
Dukes, Richard, Stein, Judith, and Jodie
Ullman. "Long-Term Impact of Drug
Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.):
Results of a Six-Year Follow-Up."
Evaluation Review, 21:4 (August 1997): 483-
500.
This study surveyed 12th-grade students
(356 who received D.A.R.E. in the 6th
grade and 264 who did not receive
D.A.R.E. in the 6th grade). This study
took place in Colorado Springs,
Colorado.
Not studied No statistically significant
differences were found between
the D.A.R.E. and non-D.A.R.E.
students 6 years after receiving
the program except that male
D.A.R.E. students used hard or
outsider drugs (amphetamines,
barbiturates, cocaine, LSD,
inhalants, etc.) less frequently
than non-D.A.R.E. males.
However, analysis also showed a
higher percentage of male regular
hard drug users in the control
group than in the D.A.R.E. group.
Dukes, Richard, Ullman, Jodie and Judith
Stein. "Three-Year Follow-Up of Drug
Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)."
Evaluation Review, 20:1 (February 1996): 49-
66.
This study surveyed 9th-grade students
(497 who received D.A.R.E. in the 6th
grade and 352 who did not receive
D.A.R.E. in the 6th grade). This study
took place in Colorado Springs,
Colorado.
No significant differences were
found between D.A.R.E. and non-
D.A.R.E. students in the onset of
drug use and actual drug use 3
years after receiving the program.
Not studied.
Ennett, Susan, Rosenbaum, Dennis,
Flewelling, Robert, Bieler, Gayle, Ringwalt,
Christopher, and Susan Bailey. "Long-Term
Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance
Education." Addictive Behaviors, 19:2 (1994):
113-125.
Survey of 1,334 D.A.R.E. and non-
D.A.R.E. students in 36 Illinois schools
using pre- and posttests immediately
prior to and after implementation of the
D.A.R.E. core curriculum and then 1 and
2 years after receiving D.A.R.E.
No statistically significant effect on
students’ initiation of alcohol use,
cigarette smoking, or heavy
drinking immediately after
receiving D.A.R.E. or 1 or 2 years
later. Additionally, D.A.R.E. had
no positive effect on quitting
behavior (only tested for alcohol).
However, immediately after
receiving D.A.R.E., students were
less likely to report increased
cigarette smoking, but the effect
disappeared a year later.
Not studied.
Appendix
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GNERAL
a-iii
Appendix
Department of Public Safety
Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
Program Impact on Substance Abuse Behaviors Reported in Evaluation Studies (cont’d)
Study Article Description of the Study Impact on Substance Abuse Behavior
Short-term Long-term
Ennett, Susan, Tobler, Nancy, Ringwalt,
Christopher, and Robert Flewelling. "How
Effective is Drug Abuse Resistance
Education? A Meta-Analysis of Project
D.A.R.E. Outcome Evaluations." The
American Journal of Public Health, 84:9
(September 1994): 1394-1401.
This study was a meta-analysis on 8
studies that used comparison groups to
evaluate the effect of the D.A.R.E.
program. (Three of the studies are
included in this appendix.)
This analysis found no statistically
significant effect on drug use
behavior.
Not studied.
Hansen, William, and Ralph McNeal.
"How D.A.R.E. Works: An Examination of
Program Effects on Mediating Variables."
Health Education and Behavior, 24:2 (April
1997): 165-76.
The study used three 8th-grade cohorts
from middle schools in North Carolina.
The D.A.R.E. students received the
program during the 5th grade.
This study found nonsignificant
effects on alcohol use, illegal drug
use, steroid use, inhalant use, and
drug selling and dealing. D.A.R.E.
did have a significant effect on
smoking cigarettes and smokeless
tobacco use.
Not studied.
Harmon, Michele, A. Reducing the Risk of
Drug Involvement Among Early Adolescents:
An Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (D.A.R.E.). Institute of Criminal
Justice and Criminology, University of
Maryland, College Park (April 1993).
This study surveyed 708 5th-grade
students (341 who received D.A.R.E. and
367 who did not receive D.A.R.E.) from
11 elementary schools in Charleston
County, South Carolina, using a pretest
and posttest administered
approximately 20 weeks apart.
The study found the D.A.R.E.
group initiated alcohol use less in
the last year. No differences were
found in cigarette, tobacco, or
marijuana use in the last year and
frequency of drug use in last
month.
Not studied.
Appendix
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GNERAL
a-iv
Appendix
Department of Public Safety
Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
Program Impact on Substance Abuse Behaviors Reported in Evaluation Studies (cont’d)
Study Article Description of the Study Impact on Substance Abuse Behavior
Short-term Long-term
Lynam, Donald, Milich, Richard,
Zimmerman, Rick, Novak, Scott, Logan,
T.K., Martin, Catherine, Luekefeld, Carl,
and Richard Clayton. "Project D.A.R.E.: No
Effects at Ten-Year Follow-Up." Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67:4
(August 1999): 590-93.
This study surveyed 1,002 individuals 10
years after receiving D.A.R.E. or a
standard drug-education curriculum in
6th grade. The students were initially
surveyed in 6th grade and then again
three times over the next 5 years and
finally when they were between 19 and
20 years old. The study involved 31
schools in Kentucky (23 of the schools
provided the D.A.R.E. core curriculum
and the other 8 schools did not provide
the curriculum).
Not studied. No statistically significant effect
was found between D.A.R.E. and
non-D.A.R.E. groups on
cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, or
illicit-drug use.
Ringwalt, Christopher, Ennett, Susan, and
Kathleen Holt. "An Outcome Evaluation of
Project D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance
Education)." Health Education Research, 6:3
(1991): 327-337.
This study surveyed 1,270 5th- and 6th-grade
students in 20 North Carolina
schools randomly assigned to administer
or not administer the D.A.R.E. core
curriculum. Students were pretested
one week before receiving D.A.R.E. and
then posttested immediately following
it.
The study found D.A.R.E. had no
effect on students’ use of alcohol,
cigarettes, or inhalants, or on their
future intentions to use these
substances.
Not studied.
Appendix
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GNERAL
a-v
Appendix
Department of Public Safety
Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
Program Impact on Substance Abuse Behaviors Reported in Evaluation Studies (cont’d)
Study Article Description of the Study Impact on Substance Abuse Behavior
Short-term Long-term
Rosenbaum, Dennis, P., and Gordon S.
Hanson. "Assessing the Effects of School-
Based Drug Education: A Six-Year
Multilevel Analysis of Project D.A.R.E."
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
35:4 (November 1998): 381-412.
This study was conducted as a randomized
field experiment with one pretest and
multiple planned posttests examining
students from 36 Illinois elementary schools
from both rural and urban areas. It included
1,798 students who were surveyed annually
from 6th through 12th grades. Data from the
seven posttests was merged and an analysis
strategy was used comparing the two
groups across years. The results reported
here are based on the combined sample of
students surveyed across all years.
Not studied The level of drug use (recent and
lifetime use of drugs and alcohol) did
not differ as a function of whether or
not students participated in D.A.R.E.
The exception to this is suburban
students who received D.A.R.E. were
more likely to try drugs than
suburban students who did not
receive D.A.R.E.1
Rosenbaum, Dennis, Flewelling, Robert,
Bailey, Susan, Ringwalt, Chris, and Deanna
Wilkinson. "Cops in the Classroom: A
Longitudinal Evaluation of Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)." Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31:1
(February 1994): 3-31.
This study surveyed 1,584 students in
their last year of elementary school (5th
and 6th grade) in 36 schools in Illinois
using a pretest and a posttest in the year
following exposure to the program.
The study found D.A.R.E. had no
statistically significant effect on the
initiation of alcohol, cigarettes,
increased use of substances, or
quitting behavior.
Not studied.
1 In another technical report based on this Illinois study, it was reported that after four years, D.A.R.E. students were significantly older when they “first got drunk” and when they started
drinking “at least once a month.” These delayed -onset effects, however, were not sustained at the five-year measurement point. In fact, after five years, the program was associated with
unexpected adverse effects on the primary drug outcomes: that is, D.A.R.E. students, relative to controls, reported significantly higher scores on the Total Drug Use and Total Alcohol Use
indexes, as well as the severity of drinking.
Appendix
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GNERAL
a-vi
Appendix
Department of Public Safety
Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
Program Impact on Substance Abuse Behaviors Reported in Evaluation Studies (concl’d)
Study Article Description of the Study Impact on Substance Abuse Behavior
Short-term Long-term
Wysong, Earl, Aniskiewicz, Richard, and
David Wright. "Truth and D.A.R.E.:
Tracking Drug Education to Graduation
and as Symbolic Politics." Social Problems,
41:3 (August 1994): 448-72.
This study surveyed 619 12th-grade
D.A.R.E. and non-D.A.R.E. students in
Kokomo, Indiana. D.A.R.E. students
underwent the program in the 7th grade.
Not studied The study found little difference
between D.A.R.E. and non-
D.A.R.E. students on lifetime
prevalency, recency of use, grade
level at first drug use, and
frequency of use. Two exceptions
were a higher use of
hallucinogens for D.A.R.E.
students over the last 30 days and
overall levels of use.
Appendix
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GNERAL
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
AGENCY RESPONSE
AGENCY RESPONSE TO THE REVISED PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S PERFORMANCE
AUDIT OF THE D.A.R.E. PROGRAM WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Auditor General’s Finding/Recommendations and
Agency Statements for Recommendations............................................................................. 1
Agency Response and Comments Regarding the
Report of the Office of the Auditor General .......................................................................... 2
General Comments ................................................................................................2 - 3
Specific Issues .......................................................................................................3 - 8
D.A.R.E. Program Information For Third Party Readers ....................................................... 9
D.A.R.E. Program Overview ...................................................................................... 9
Scientific Theory ........................................................................................................ 9
The Uniqueness of D.A.R.E. ...................................................................................... 10
Evaluation Issues: Evidence of Efficacy ................................................................10 - 13
Anecdotal Information ............................................................................................... 13
Future Directions ................................................................................................13 - 14
Conclusion: The Bottom Line on D.A.R.E. ..................................................................14 - 15
-1-
AGENCY RESPONSE TO THE REVISED PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S PERFORMANCE
AUDIT OF THE D.A.R.E. PROGRAM WITHIN THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
Auditor General’s Finding/Recommendations and Agency Response
for Each Recommendation
FINDING I: The Department should work with the Drug and Gang Policy
Council to determine its future involvement with D.A.R.E.
RECOMMENDATION 1: The Department should work with the Arizona Drug and Gang
Policy Council to determine whether it is in the State’s best
interest for the Department to continue to promote and
participate in the D.A.R.E. program. If it is found that some
change in the Department’s role is appropriate, the Department
should develop an implementation plan with timelines and
designated responsible parties.
RESPONSE: The finding of the Auditor General is not agreed to, but the
recommendation will be implemented. As a current member of
the Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council, the Department of Public
Safety will continue its work with the Council in reviewing publicly-supported,
education, treatment and prevention programs.
Additionally, the Department will continue to provide the Council and
the legislature with the most recent D.A. R.E. program information and
research, to allow for a more objective and inclusive review of
D.A.R.E.’s program components and effectiveness.
*Note Although not part of the formal agency recommendations, the auditor recommended adding two
performance measures within the D.A.R.E. Unit’s Strategic Plan. Their two recommendations follow:
Recommendation 1: It could improve its ability to assess the quality of its services by adding
an additional measure to assess its customers’ satisfaction with the
officers’ delivery of the D.A.R.E. curriculum.
Response: The recommendation of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented. Currently, D.A.R.E. is capturing
information regarding customers’ satisfaction with the officers’ delivery of the
D.A.R.E. curriculum. This will be reflected in the Unit’s performance
measures.
Recommendation 2: In addition, it should also add an efficiency measure to assess the cost-effectiveness
of the services it provides, such as the cost per officer
-2-
trained.
Response: The recommendation of the Auditor General is agreed to and a different
method of dealing with the recommendation will be implemented.
D.A.R.E. will research and consider the development of an efficiency measure
to assist in determining the cost of services provided.
Agency Response and Comments Regarding the Report of the Office of
the Auditor General
General Comments
“Saying D.A.R.E. has limited impact compared to other prevention programs might be a great way to
make headlines, but that claim is completely unwarranted.”
Dr. William DeJong of the Harvard School of Public Health
“The strength of D.A.R.E.’s organization is a major reason for our declining juvenile drug use rates.
D.A.R.E. knows what needs to be done to reduce drug use among children and is doing it -
successfully. Prevention in America cannot and will not ever be successful without D.A.R.E. as a key
national leader.”
General Barry R. McCaffrey, past Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy
The audit process which has extended beyond one year, has been a very long and arduous journey for both the
Auditor General’s Office and the Arizona Department of Public Safety. However, given this time frame, and
despite numerous meetings and lengthy discussion with the Auditor General’s staff, there are still significant
differences of opinion regarding their characterization of the D.A.R.E. program and its effectiveness.
Additionally, these significant differences extend to their analysis of existing research.
Our opinion is that the report of the Auditor General does not represent an objective assessment of the D.A.R.E.
program either at the national level, or more importantly, at the local level. The report excludes all but one
study of the D.A.R.E. curriculum following changes made to improve its performance in 1993. No other
evaluation of the revised curriculum has been included, although studies of the revised curriculum are
available and document the effectiveness of the program. The Auditor General’s staff received a detailed
analysis of the effects cited in each study, including quantitative differences, which does not appear in
the report.
D.A.R.E.’s effectiveness has been repeatedly documented by evaluation studies conducted by independent
researchers. D.A.R.E. may be unique among universal prevention curricula, in documenting positive behavioral
outcomes in published evaluations conducted and authored by researchers, independent of the development team.
It should be noted that neither D.A.R.E. nor any other school-based prevention curriculum consistently reports
long-term effects on drug use, unless it is combined with other activities in a comprehensive anti-drug program.
Only an evaluation by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency reviewed effects of the D.A.R.E.
program following major modifications to the curriculum in 1994. This study of the revised D.A.R.E. curriculum
found that D.A.R.E. students were less likely to use inhalants, smokeless tobacco, and crack cocaine in the 11th
-3-
grade. All other evaluations of D.A.R.E. were of the old curriculum and only one-third of the D.A.R.E. program
(elementary evaluations only) not the entire D.A.R.E. program K-12.
For the auditors to advise, “over a decade of research has proven that D.A.R.E. is relatively ineffective,”
is simply not true. D.A.R.E. has been holding the line with a clear, concise and consistent message for years.
The problem is not D.A.R.E. The problem is the void the children are walking into when they leave that D.A.R.E.
classroom. To quote the former First Lady, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, it truly “takes a village to raise a child.”
D.A.R.E. alone cannot ensure a drug-free future for our nation’s children. In fact, no single curriculum
provides a drug or violence-free community. School-based drug prevention and the D.A.R.E. program must
be a part of an overall national prevention strategy. This strategy must include continuous drug education, strong
community commitment and most importantly, parental involvement.
Specific Issues
As stated in the above General Comments Section, there are still significant differences of opinion
between the Auditor General’s Office and the Arizona Department of Public Safety regarding the audit
reports’ characterization of the D.A.R.E. program, its effectiveness, and analysis of existing research.
To assist in further clarification of our concerns we have included in this section, a third party review of the
Auditor’s General’s report. The review and specific comments were provided by Dr. Michael J. Stoil, of Conwal
Incorporated.
Dr. Michael J. Stoil is a senior analyst for Conwal Incorporated and has recently served as Technical Director for
a 3-year, congressionally-mandated comparative analysis of 1,642 drug abuse prevention efforts. He authored
both the Second and Third Report to Congress on AOD Prevention for the Secretary of Health and Human
Services. Dr. Stoil has extensive experience as a senior planner/researcher and writer in the health policy field,
with experience in health education, alcohol and other drug abuse, and behavioral health. His resume is available
upon request and his comments follow below (Pages 3 through 8):
Comments regarding the revised draft of the Auditor General’s report of the
D.A.R.E. Program
Michael J. Stoil, Ph.D
Throughout the report, the discussion switches back and forth without warning from the “core” 5th/6th
grade course (note D.A.R.E. does not use the term “core”) to the multi year program. It becomes very
difficult to determine whether a statement refers to the 5th/6th grade curriculum or to the entire program.
My own reading is that this report is not based on an evaluation of D.A.R.E. but rather on an evaluation of
the most-widely used one-year curriculum of the program.
Another confusion in the report is between “methodologically-sound evaluations” and academic articles
submitted for peer review. These are distinct categories of sources. The Arizona Auditor General used the
latter and claims to use the former, misrepresenting its sources and justifying a very artificial series of
limitations (e.g., “studies examining (fifth/6th grade) D.A.R.E. in conjunction with other programs were
excluded”).
-4-
This process of excluding unpublished state-sponsored evaluations and studies that assume 5th/6th grade
D.A.R.E. is part of a continuum prevention resulted in finding that limited the “core” programs’s
effectiveness to no more than two years.
On page 11, even the limited finding of the Auditor’s own staff that half of the cited studies in Table 2 report
short-term is summarized as, “The 14 articles found that D.A.R.E. has had virtually no impact on students’
drug use behaviors.”
The following basic issues are not addressed at any point in the report:
n  What is the criteria for continuation of a prevention program proposed by the Auditor
General? This is important because the report repeatedly claims that D.A.R.E. has no
“lasting” impact, with the implication that a two-year impact does not meet this criterion.
n  Is the criterion for success the effectiveness of one year of a program or the entire
program? The Auditor General insists on comparing the results from exposure to a single
component of the D.A.R.E. program --the 5th/6th grade course--to the results obtained
from the completion of multi year efforts.
n  Assume we are talking about the 5th/6th grade intervention only. Is it the Auditor
General’s recommendation that no program be offered to a general population of
elementary school children unless it shows behavioral impact on more than two years? If
that is true, then the Auditor General effectively is recommending that all substance abuse
prevention programs for a general population of elementary school children should be
withdrawn, at least until such time a program is documented.
The Auditor General’s representatives repeatedly claimed disinterest in evaluating the effectiveness of
substance abuse prevention in general or of alternatives to D.A.R.E.; they were concerned “only” with the
lack of impact of D.A.R.E. Nevertheless, effectiveness of an intervention is always compared to something,
even if that “something” is to do nothing.
Given that D.A.R.E. shows better results than doing nothing, the Auditor General should suggest an
appropriate standard for comparison among other elementary school interventions. The two alternatives
cited--Project Star and Life Skills--have no elementary components.
Finally, I want to make it clear that I am not a D.A.R.E. proponent. I have no stake in whether communities
reject the program; there are alternatives that may be equally viable. However, I believe firmly in unbiased,
rational decision-making to select the most appropriate interventions based on evidence...not academic
gossip. That belief lead to criticize even this “improved”version of the report.
-5-
Additional comments are addressed in the following table:
Reference in the January 31 Report Comments
“The D.A.R.E. curriculum is primarily directed
toward the 5th or 6th grade students, the age at
which prevention experts believe youth are most
receptive to school-based drug prevention
programs” p.1
Not true. The D.A.R.E. curriculum includes
elements for elementary school and secondary school
and the parents of the children. No reference is
provided for the statement that there is consensus
among prevention experts that youth are “most
receptive” to school-based drug prevention
programs in 5th or 6th grade; if anything, the guiding
consensus is for repeated interventions throughout
grade school and college. In fact, the programs cited
later in the report as “promising” are directed toward
older youth.
“Center for Substance Abuse: p. ii Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
“over a decade of peer-reviewed scientific research
has failed to show that the program’s most widely
used component..has any lasting impact on
preventing or reducing adolescent substance abuse
behavior.” p.i
1. The studies are not peer reviewed. The
articles are peer-reviewed. That’s a big
difference.
2. The Office of the Auditor General
consistently refused to examine unpublished
evaluations by state authorities on the ground
that these were not “peer-reviewed.” By that
logic, this report has no scientific weight (i.e.,
it’s not peer-reviewed).
3. Peer-reviewed articles, including those cited
in the report, document D.A.R.E.’s impact on
reducing adolescent smoking--the precursor to
other substance abuse--for two years after
exposure to the 5th-6th grade curriculum.
Other drug related behaviors are too rare to
measure with statistical significance during the
two-year period. If the Auditor General defines
that a two-year impact is not lasting,” it should
do so and insist that the same criterion will be
applied to any other curriculum element.
-6-
Reference in the January 31 Report Comments
“The D.A.R.E. program’s intent is to provide
children with the information and skills they need to
live drug-and violence-free lives.” p. 1
Inaccurate if they refer to the 5th/6th grade
curriculum only; it could be imputed to the multi-year
program. No mention made of the intent of fostering
positive interaction between children and law
enforcement officers.
Audit Scope and Methodology See introductory comments
Section entitled “Research Fails to Find Lasting
Impact...”
See introductory comments
Table 2 Table 2 shows problems with the Audit Report.
Most of the “methodologically-sound” articles
included did not study long-term effects; Dukes et al.
(1996) and Dukes et al. (1997) describe the same
study and find no short-term effects but significant
long-term effects. Rosenbaum and Hansen is
characterized as showing no long-term effects for
DA.R.E., but actually found that D.A.R.E. in
combination with other programs has significant
effects. Ennet, Ringwalt, et al. are cited three times
(1991, and two virtually identical articles in 1994)
with the false implication that three separate studies
found similar results. All in all, this is a misleading
and not terribly complete analysis.
“However, these effects were small, inconsistent, and
short-lived.” p. 10
1. The findings are inconsistent, with the
implication that differences in the research
methodologies affect the result. By analogy,
when some scientists look at the Giant Panda
and say it’s a bear while others say it’s a
raccoon, we don’t say it’s not consistently the
same animal...rather, we assume some scientists
are in error.
2. We can’t know that “these affects
were...short-lived” because, according to Table
2, none of the articles that found the effects even
studied long-term impact. And what does
“small” mean if the findings are statistically
significant?”
-7-
Reference in the January 31 Report Comments
“The majority of the studies have been conducted on
the D.A.R.E. program’s core curriculum offered to
5th or 6th graders because this is the most widely
used D.A.R.E. component.” p. 10
Academic studies focus on the 5th/6th grade
curriculum because it’s easier to design such a study
and cheaper to implement. State-funded non-academic
studies often evaluate the entire program.
“The 14 articles found that D.A.R.E. has had virtually
no impact on students’ drug use behaviors ...While
some of the articles found that D.A.R.E. had a small
short-term effect, none of the articles reported that
D.A.R.E. had any appreciable effect over the longer
period...Five of the 14 articles reviewed the core
program’s long-term impact and only one of these
found an effect on students’ behavior.” Pages 11-12
In two pages, we go from “virtually no impact” to
“small short-term effect” with none of the articles
reporting “any appreciable effect over the longer
period” to one in five showing a long-term effect for
the “core” program. An accurate, unbiased
statement of facts would be “only half of the studies
(5 out of 10 cited in Table 2 that address short-term
effects) show short-term effects of the 5th/6th grade
curriculum on student substance abuse behaviors and
only 1 in 5 document effects that last six years.”
Lack of booster sessions p. 13 This section is illogical. First, the report excludes
studies of multi year D.A.R.E. and then criticizes the
program. Then the report chooses to ignore the
NIDA, CSAP, and Department of Education
guidelines on the need for booster sessions and
claims there is little supporting research. Finally, the
report cites Project STAR and Life Skills--both of
which require multi year booster sessions--as
potential alternatives that have been proven
successful, but does not cite them as evidence for the
efficacy of booster sessions.
-8-
Reference in the January 31 Report Comments
National Institute on Drug Abuse p. 16 The report continues to omit the crucial point that the
examples of programs that have been scientifically
studied and have shown positive results” are limited
to NIDA grantees.
D.A.R.E. program proponents argue that these
programs’ evaluations were not conducted in real-world
settings and question whether the programs
will prove effective once tested among the general
school population. P. 18
These are “straw men” arguments against these
programs. The programs were conducted in the real
world and will probably prove effective. However:
1. Only their creators have evaluated Life Skills
and STAR. The sole published independent
evaluation of two years of the Life Skills
curriculum found it ineffective.
2. Their “proven effectiveness” fail the “lasting
effects” standard implied by the Auditor General
because effects of longer than two years’
duration have not been published for either
program.
-9-
D.A.R.E. Program Information For Third Party Readers
D.A.R.E. Program Overview
D.A.R.E. is the acronym for Drug Abuse Resistance Education, the single most widely-used substance
abuse prevention and safety-promotion curriculum in the world. D.A.R.E. is a collaborative program in
which local law enforcement and local schools join together to educate students about the personal and
social consequences of substance abuse and violence.
The D.A.R.E. curricula is designed to be a police officer-led series of classroom lessons delivered
sequentially from grades K-12. First developed in 1983, D.A.R.E. has undergone multiple revisions as
research findings increased knowledge of effective substance abuse prevention among school-aged
youth. Prevention of drug abuse and underage use of alcohol and tobacco is a focus of D.A.R.E.
because substance abuse is the single most costly risk-taking behavior among adolescents.
However, drug abuse is not the only behavior addressed by the D.A.R.E. curriculum. D.A.R.E.
promotes positive choices about risk-taking and health-related behaviors, social skills, communication
skills, self-esteem, and healthy self-assertion. The program provides factual information on drugs,
gangs, and violence, while teaching practical resistance skills to avoid destructive peer pressure to use
drugs or become involved in gangs or dangerous and violent situations. It does this in a school
environment that fosters a positive relationship with a community-based police officer. These vital life-skills
are the foundation for healthy, safe and wiser citizens.
Today, the D.A.R.E. program is taught in more than 80 percent of all school districts throughout the
United States, benefitting over 26 million students annually. Clearly, D.A.R.E. has played a pivotal role in
helping reverse the direction of teen drug use in America.
Unlike other prevention programs, D.A.R.E. is a non-profit program implemented at the local level at the
request of parents, school districts, and law enforcement. Over 10,000 communities have D.A.R.E. in
place and each month, scores of communities initiate or expand the D.A.R.E. program.
We realize D.A.R.E. is not a panacea for this multifaceted epidemic of drug abuse. There is no silver
bullet. Nor do we claim that D.A.R.E. is solely responsible for this recent significant and encouraging
decline in drug usage among our youth. D.A.R.E. is, however, a vital component of a comprehensive
solution that includes caring parents and strong community partnerships.
Scientific Theory
D.A.R.E. is consciously based on “social influence theory.” This theory was first employed in Project
SMART, an experimental curriculum developed by the RAND Corporation that served as a prototype for
D.A.R.E. As described in an independent analysis of D.A.R.E. by Baker, Petty, and Gleicher (1991):
...First it can be seen that the D.A.R.E. program incorporates the notion that there are
many more attitudes relevant to the prevention of drug use than merely one’s
knowledge and attitude about the illicit drug itself. Attention is given to the bolstering of
self-esteem and assertiveness, the role of peers in the influence of drug use, and so
on...
-10-
Another variable that influences the stability of newly formed anti-drug attitudes is the
amount of practice the person has thinking about and defending this new position from
attack. It is often the case that one’s attitudes, especially concerning the rejection of
drug use, will likely be subject to counter persuasion by peers or others...Again, Project
D.A.R.E. includes a variety of inoculation type sessions in which students practice
rejecting persuasive attempts by peers (pp. 198-199).
The Uniqueness of D.A.R.E.
Virtually all substance abuse and violence prevention experts agree that a key to success is enlisting the
involvement of as many of the authoritative figures in a community in reinforcing a consistent message.
D.A.R.E. provides unique involvement for a wide range of these figures, including law enforcement
officers, classroom teachers, peer leaders, and parents.
The “booster” sessions of D.A.R.E. in secondary school add involvement by other health professionals.
Very few, if any, national prevention programs mobilize all these authoritative sources to transmit and
reinforce skills and safety promotion messages. Law enforcement professionals especially favor
D.A.R.E. because it provides a rare opportunity for positive interaction with children in a familiar,
comfortable classroom setting.
Additionally, as concerns about crime rise, the way Americans think about policing is being transformed.
Integration of the creative thinking of law enforcement administrators and academics with a wide body
of policy research findings has yielded the concept of community policing. Unlike programs intended to
address specific problems faced by law enforcement, community policing calls for an all-encompassing
change in the way police perform their duties.
D.A.R.E.’s drug and violence prevention program is consistent with an integrated community policing
approach by offering students the opportunity to gain a trustworthy adult friend, develop a positive
attitude toward law enforcement personnel and acquire greater respect for the law. According to a
recent report by the U.S. Department of Justice, “In philosophy and practice, D.A.R.E. compliments the
tenets of a community-based approach to policing. Together, building on ideas of partnership, open
communication, reciprocal education, and mutual respect, community policing and D.A.R.E. can improve
the quality of life in the nation’s communities.”
Evaluation Issues: Evidence of Efficacy
D.A.R.E. is generally conceded to be the most frequently-evaluated substance abuse prevention
curriculum. Independent studies show that its effects on positive behavior are retained for at least one
year after the most recent exposure to D.A.R.E. material. Even the most critical evaluations indicate that
D.A.R.E. has measurable impact on early alcohol and tobacco use.
Evaluations conducted among youth with strong anti-drug attitudes prior to administration of D.A.R.E.
suggest that exposure to D.A.R.E. does not change their behavior. However, evaluations conducted
among urban youth who are at risk for early involvement in drug use or gang membership show
significant differences between students who experienced D.A.R.E. and students who did not receive the
curriculum.
-11-
A widespread academic legend that D.A.R.E. is “ineffective” results from two issues. First, D.A.R.E.’s
effects like those of any other prevention program, dissipate over time. In other words, no differences
are observed at age 18 between fifth grade D.A.R.E. graduates and other students. Just as there is no
difference between the risk status for influenza of someone who received a flu shot in 1992 and someone
who didn’t.
Second, it’s difficult to prove D.A.R.E.’s role in preventing rare behavior. For example, if D.A.R.E.
makes a 15% reduction in the number of 14 year olds who try cocaine, this success effects only 0.4% of
all eight graders. Statisticians argue that such small changes may be due to random chance. In fact, no
prevention curriculum tested to date has shown significant effects on drug use six years after its
completion.
Dr. Michael J. Stoil, Senior Analyst for Conwal Incorporated and Technical Director for a 3-year,
congressionally-mandated comparative analysis of 1,642 drug abuse prevention efforts and nationally
recognized researcher in the health, alcohol and drug abuse field, states: “Most universal prevention
curricula have been favorably evaluated only in outcome studies directed and authored by their
developers; in contrast, D.A.R.E.’s efficacy has been repeatedly documented by evaluation studies
conducted by independent researchers (note Dr. Michael J. Stoil’s summary tables listed on page 12).
Nevertheless, there are two caveats concerning completed rigorous D.A.R.E. outcome evaluations:
• Only three studies (Donnermeyer and Phillips 1995, Rosenbaum and Hanson 1998, and
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency 1999) have been conducted on
the effects of D.A.R.E. that include booster sessions beyond the core D.A.R.E.
curriculum.
• Only the 1999 evaluation by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency
reviewed effects of the D.A.R.E. program following major modifications to the
curriculum in 1994.
Within the limits of these caveats, the following positive effects of D.A.R.E. have been repeatedly
reported:
• Reduced rates of substance involvement, sometimes measured in reduced rates of
tobacco use, retained through seventh grade.
• More widespread positive perceptions of police [or of D.A.R.E. officers], retained for
one - five years, depending on the evaluation.
• Heightened awareness of media influence on alcohol and tobacco use and greater
acceptance of efficacy of refusal strategies, retained for two to five years, depending
on the evaluation.
The 1999 Pennsylvania study of the revised curriculum found statistically-significant D.A.R.E. effects
among eleventh grade students on intent to use all substances and on actual use rates of inhalants,
smokeless tobacco, and crack cocaine. Greatest differences were observed when the core D.A.R.E.
curriculum was combined with an age-appropriate curriculum for secondary school students. This
coincides with the findings of Donnermeyer and Phillips (1995) that more robust positive long-term
outcomes for D.A.R.E. result from combining the core curriculum with other prevention activities in
secondary school.”
-12-
EVIDENCE OF D.A.R.E. CURRICULUM EFFECTS ON BEHAVIOR
Independent evaluations of D.A.R.E. with designs that permit analysis of statistical significance of positive findings.
Evaluation Elements DeJong 1987* Donnermeyer &
Phillips 1995 *
PA Commission on
Crime and
Delinquency 1999
Rosenbaum &
Hanson 1998
Evaluation period Less than 1 year after
completion Five years Three-to four years Six years
Location of study Grade 7 students in four
LA schools
Grade 11 students in 34 Ohio
schools
Grade 9 students in 14 PA
schools
Grade 12 students in Illinois
Sample size 598 3,510 2,538 1,798
D.A.R.E. effects at p<.05 (a
measure of statistical
certainty)
D.A.R.E. reduced mean drug
use scores among boys only
D.A.R.E. increased the
likelihood of total abstinence or
nonrecurring use (i.e., “low-risk”
for drug problems
D.A.R.E. reduced use of
smokeless tobacco, inhalants,
and crack, and intent to use
other drugs
Significantly reduced tobacco
use; delayed onset of alcohol
intoxication and frequent
drinking
Retention of effects Not applicable At least 5 years At least 4 years 1 year for tobacco;
4 years for alcohol
Other findings Both D.A.R.E. and non-
D.A.R.E. 7th grade girls
reported lower mean drug use
scores than male D.A.R.E.
participants
Participation in at least one
D.A.R.E. booster session in
grades 7 through 9 increased
rates of “low risk” for future
drug problems
D.A.R.E. graduates who
participated in an additional
program reported use rates
lower than youth with no
program or youth with
D.A.R.E. alone
Assessment difficult because
most suburban youth in both
non-D.A.R.E. and D.A.R.E.
schools report strong
opposition to drug use
Citation Journal of Drug Education
17(4)
Ohio Office of Criminal Justice
Services
Justice Analyst 13(3) (State
government journal)
Center for Research in Law and
Justice University of Illinois -
Chicago
* Studies with an asterisk were based on the curriculum prior to the 1994 modifications.
EVIDENCE OF D.A.R.E. CURRICULUM EFFECTS ON
KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES
Independent evaluations of D.A.R.E. with designs that permit analysis of statistical significance of the findings.
Evaluation
Elements
Donnermeyer &
Phillips 1995 *
Dukes 1989 *
PA Commission
on Crime and &
Delinquency
1999
Rosenbaum &
Hanson 1998
Ringwalt, Ennett,
and Holt
1991 *
Evaluation period Five years Immediately after
program
Three-to-four years Six years Immediately after
program
Location of study Grade 11 students in 34
Ohio schools
Suburban and urban
Colorado school districts
Grade 9 students in 14
Pennsylvania schools
Grade 12 students in
Illinois
Two North Carolina
school districts
Sample size 3,510 1,250 2,538 1,798 1,270
D.A.R.E. effects at
p<.05 (a measure of
statistical certainty)
Increased likelihood of
positive attitude toward
police and of critical view
of televised information
about drugs
More widespread belief in
acceptability of refusal
skills; greater knowledge
of stress reduction
techniques
Increased likelihood of
positive attitudes toward
some police (i.e.,
D.A.R.E. officers)
More awareness of media
influence on alcohol and
tobacco use; greater
likelihood of positive
view of police
Greater awareness of
media influence on
tobacco and alcohol use;
less widespread belief that
peers favor drug use
Retention of effects At least five years Not applicable At least four years Two years for awareness of mass media influence;
shorter duration for other effects
Other findings D.A.R.E. graduates more
likely to score higher on
family communication
Both D.A.R.E. and non-
D.A.R.E. participants
overwhelmingly rejected
drug use
D.A.R.E. had strong
effects on intent to use
Most suburban students indicated high levels of self-esteem
regardless of participation. Many D.A.R.E.-
related changes in beliefs and knowledge were not
examined.
Citation Ohio Office of Criminal
Justice Services
Internal report for the
State of Colorado
Justice Analyst 13(3) Center for Research in
Law and Justice,
University of Illinois-
Chicago
Center for Social
Research and Policy
Analysis, Research
Triangle Institute
* Indicates study of pre-1994 curriculum
-13-
When examining D.A.R.E.’s effectiveness, the program should be viewed from a number of different
perspectives. This should include its measured effects on individual student’s attitudes and behavior; the
effect it has on attendance, discipline, and classroom management.
Other areas for review should include the effects it has on community awareness and involvement in
schools and other institutions that combat drug abuse. Perhaps most importantly, is the effect that
D.A.R.E. is having on the concept of community policing and on the perception of officers and their
departments regarding the importance of supply and demand reduction efforts in the fight against drug
abuse and violence in our society.
D.A.R.E. alone cannot ensure a drug-free future for our nation’s children. In fact, no single curriculum
provides a drug or violence-free community. School-based drug prevention and the D.A.R.E. program
must be a part of an overall national prevention strategy. This strategy must include continuous drug
education, strong community commitment and most importantly, parental involvement.
For the auditors to advise, “over a decade of research has proven that D.A.R.E. is relatively
ineffective,” is simply not true. D.A.R.E. has been holding the line with a clear, concise and
consistent message for years. The problem is not D.A.R.E. The problem is the void the children are
walking into when they leave that D.A.R.E. classroom. To quote the First Lady, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, it
truly “takes a village to raise a child.”
Anecdotal Information
While some academicians and others outside the D.A.R.E. program may be skeptical of D.A.R.E.’s
results, the children, parents, police officers, elected officials and others that have had a first-hand
experience with D.A.R.E. are overwhelmingly supportive. There are many stories from all over the
nation of kids who used what they learned in the D.A.R.E. program to get them out of dangerous
situations and turn down drug offers. How does one capture and quantify the unknown number of times
a student turns down a drug offer or a ride in a stranger’s vehicle?
In classes for younger children, the officers emphasize personal safety and the message is being received
and understood. For example, a ten year old girl from Newport Beach, California, named Amber,
escaped a would-be abductor near her home. She credited the D.A.R.E. officer at her school for
teaching her what to do.
One little girl in Massachusetts used what she learned in her D.A.R.E. class to first refuse and then report
a man who attempted to abduct her. As it turned out, the man was a wanted serial killer from another
state. These are only two examples of hundreds of positive outcome incidents as a result of the
D.A.R.E. Program that are received every year by D.A.R.E. America.
Future Directions
-14-
The D.A.R.E. program is systematically reviewed by the D.A.R.E. Scientific Advisory Board, the
D.A.R.E. America Law Enforcement Advisory Board, the D.A.R.E. America Youth Advisory Board,
D.A.R.E. officers, school and municipal administrators. Research findings and increased knowledge of
effective anti-drug, anti-violence, and anti-substance abuse prevention is continually evaluated for
incorporation into the curricula.
D.A.R.E. America maintains a constant commitment to refining and improving the D.A.R.E. program and
its demonstrated effectiveness. As previously stated, its independent Scientific Advisory Board reviews
and recommends research continuously and systematic ally.
The Scientific Advisory Board Chair, Dr. Herbert Kleber, now of Columbia University, was formerly
Deputy Director of Demand Reduction for the White House, Office of National Drug Control Policy. His
and other individual efforts have generated a series of rigorous scientific trials now under way involving
the D.A.R.E. curriculum. For example:
• The potential synergism between D.A.R.E.’s middle school program and the D.A.R.E.
+ Plus after school program is currently being examined by the University of Minnesota
Department of Public Health under a peer-reviewed grant from the National Institute on
Drug Abuse.
• A multi million dollar award from Robert Woods Johnson Foundation is allowing the
former Director of Prevention Research at the National Institute on Drug Abuse to
supervise a refinement of the D.A.R.E. middle school curriculum, based upon the most
recent findings in substance abuse and violence prevention and intervention research.
• The D.A.R.E. elementary and Sr. High curricula will soon begin still another review and
revision process at the University of Akron Institute for Health and Social Policy,
incorporating the most recent findings in substance abuse and violence prevention and
intervention research.
The D.A.R.E. sequential curric ulum is in its ninth generation of improvement and, more importantly, it is
the only prevention program that includes elementary, middle, and high schools. Thus students receive
vital reinforcement of the principles behind the knowledge and skills to avoid not only drugs, but also
alcohol, tobacco, and violence.
“Overall, drug use is down substantially among youth.” These were the words voiced by National Drug
Czar, General Barry McCaffrey as he and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Donna Shalala
released the results of the annual HHS National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. The survey, which is
one of the very few credible national measures of drug abuse, reports a statistically significant decline in
teen drug abuse during 1999.
The year 2000 marked the third consecutive year that teen drug usage dropped, although it is still at an
unacceptable level. D.A.R.E., the prevention education program that teaches children to avoid drugs,
alcohol, tobacco, and violence, has played a key role in the overall national strategy which has helped
enable America to reach this important milestone. The future will be challenging, but bright, and
D.A.R.E. will continue to play an active role in community partnerships to combat the scourge of drug
abuse and violence in society today.
Conclusion: The Bottom Line On D.A.R.E.
Joseph F. Donnermeyer, Ph.D., Ohio State University
-15-
“The Bottom Line is this: All the research on D.A.R.E. indicates that it has a positive impact on the
behaviors and attitudes of students. However, like all prevention education programs, the elementary
school D.A.R.E. program is subject to its effects wearing off if it is not reinforced with additional
educational efforts. Practice is essential to long-term learning.
In 1987-88, D.A.R.E. stood, practically alone, on the front lines of America’s efforts to reduce
adolescent substance abuse. Back then, a prevention education program was viewed as a “magic bullet”
that was expected to take care of the problem, all by itself.
This is not true today. The D.A.R.E. elementary program provides a valuable first step toward
continuous quality education for young people about the dangers of drug use. The middle and senior
school D.A.R.E. programs are attempts to strengthen that investment, and the same can be said of Red
Ribbon Week, Just Say No Clubs and the other prevention education programs that are now available to
schools throughout the country. Parent drug education programs have started in many communities.
Media campaigns help as well.
We are beginning to see results. Data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and the
nationally representative Monitoring the Future Study indicated that illicit substance abuse has leveled off
and is beginning to decline. What a shame it would be if the most successful prevention education
program in the country loses support now because of political infighting among prevention educators and
the desire by some critics to cash in at D.A.R.E.’s expense.
More so than in 1987-88, children growing up today are continuously exposed to peer pressure and
messages from movies, radio and television which say that consuming alcohol, marijuana, inhalants,
cocaine, and other drugs is “cool” and will not cause harm.
School officials, parents, and community leaders need to be part of a comprehensive strategy of
educational efforts within each school system that begins in the early grades and continues through high
school. Keeping in mind the analogy of piano lessons, we need to recognize the positive benefits when
prevention programs, including D.A.R.E., work together to form a powerful partnership in the fight
against drugs.”
Other Performance Audit Reports Issued Within
the Last 12 Months
00-5 Arizona Department of Agriculture—
Licensing Functions
00-6 Board of Medical Student Loans
00-7 Department of Public Safety—
Aviation Section
00-8 Arizona Department of Agriculture—
Animal Disease, Ownership and
Welfare Protection Program
00-9 Arizona Naturopathic Physicians
Board of Medical Examiners
00-10 Arizona Department of Agriculture—
Food Safety and Quality Assurance
Program and Non-Food Product
Quality Assurance Program
00-11 Arizona Office of Tourism
00-12 Department of Public Safety—
Scientific Analysis Bureau
00-13 Arizona Department of Agriculture
Pest Exclusion and Management
Program
00-14 Arizona Department of Agriculture
State Agricultural Laboratory
00-15 Arizona Department of Agriculture—
Commodity Development Program
00-16 Arizona Department of Agriculture—
Pesticide Compliance and Worker
Safety Program
00-17 Arizona Department of Agriculture—
Sunset Factors
00-18 Arizona State Boxing Commission
00-19 Department of Economic Security—
Division of Developmental
Disabilities
00-20 Department of Corrections—
Security Operations
00-21 Universities—Funding Study
00-22 Annual Evaluation—Arizona’s Family
Literacy Program
01-01 Department of Economic Security—
Child Support Enforcement
01-02 Department of Economic Security—
Healthy Families Program
Future Performance Audit Reports
Department of Public Safety—Telecommunications
Board of Osteopathic Examiners in Medicine and Surgery