THE PROGRESSIVE VOICE
OF REFORM
|
|
|
|
Past and Future Directions of the D.A.R.E. Program: An Evaluation Review. Draft Final Report September 1994 Past and Future Directions of the D.A.R.E. Program: An Evaluation Review by Research Triangle Institute Christopher L. Ringwalt Jody M. Greene Susan T. Ennett Ronaldo Iachan University of Kentucky Richard R. Clayton Carl G. Leukefeld Supported under Award # 91-DD-CX-K053 from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. Past and Future Directions of the D.A.R.E. Program: An Evaluation Review Draft Final Report by Research Triangle Institute Christopher L. Ringwalt Jody M. Greene Susan T. Ennett Ronaldo Iachan University of Kentucky Richard R. Clayton Carl G. Leukefeld September 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
List of Exhibits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiSECTION I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Study Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Description of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Strengths and Limitations of the Study . . . 1-3
Overview of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 2 OVERVIEW AND HISTORY OF SCHOOL-BASED DRUG
PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . 2-1
History of School-Based Drug
Prevention Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Drug Use Prevention Strategies . . . . . . . 2-2
History of D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
D.A.R.E. Curricula. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
D.A.R.E. Officers and Training. . . . . . . .2-12
D.A.R.E. in the Context of Other
School-Based Drug Use
Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-13SECTION II: IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT 3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 4 STATE-LEVEL OPERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Instrument Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Agencies Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
State Training Centers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Challenges and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-10Chapter Page
5 SCHOOL DISTRICT DRUG PREVENTION
COORDINATOR SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Sample Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Sampling frame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
First-Phase Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
Second-Phase Sampling . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
Survey Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
Instrument Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
Administration of D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . 5-7
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
Participation of Teachers
and Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
Integration and Coordination. . . . . . .5-10
Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-11
Future Use of D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . .5-12
National Prevalence Estimates of
D.A.R.E. and Other AOD Programs . . . . . . .5-13
Prevalence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-13
Grade Levels Targeted . . . . . . . . . .5-14
Substances Targeted . . . . . . . . . . .5-15
Type of Instructor. . . . . . . . . . . .5-15
Comparison of D.A.R.E. and Other
AOD Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-15
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-16
Satisfaction with Curricula . . . . . . .5-16
Support for Curricula . . . . . . . . . .5-18
Adaptations of Curricula. . . . . . . . .5-21
General Drug Policies . . . . . . . . . . . .5-22
Anti-Drug Policies. . . . . . . . . . . .5-22
Student Assistance Programs . . . . . . .5-22
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-24 6 SITE VISITS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
Urban Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
Urban School with D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . 6-2
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
Problems and Improvements . . . . . . . . 6-5
Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . 6-5Chapter Page Urban School Without D.A.R.E. . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
Problems and Improvements . . . . . . . . 6-8
Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
Rural Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
Rural School with D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . 6-9
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-10
Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-10
Problems and Improvements . . . . . . . .6-10
Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . .6-11
Rural School Without D.A.R.E. . . . . . . . .6-12
Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-12
Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-12
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-12
Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-12
Problems and Improvements . . . . . . . .6-13
Classroom Observation . . . . . . . . . .6-13
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-14SECTION III: OUTCOME ASSESSMENT 7 D.A.R.E. OUTCOME ASSESSMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
The D.A.R.E. Core Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
Meta-Analysis Background and Study
Selection Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2
Studies Selected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
D.A.R.E. Effect Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
Comparison of D.A.R.E.'s Effectiveness
to Other Drug Use Prevention Programs
for Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-11
Methodological Considerations . . . . . . . . . .7-17
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-19SECTION IV: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
Implementation Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
Outcome Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-12
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-21REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-1 Appendices A Sampling for School District Drug Prevention
Coordinators SurveyB Individual Study Descriptions C Bibliography of Comparison Program Evaluations D Data Collection Materials for Implementation
AssessmentLIST OF EXHIBITS
Number Page 2.1 D.A.R.E.'s Original Core Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2.2 D.A.R.E.'s Updated Core Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.3 D.A.R.E.'s Junior High School Curriculum . . . . . . . 2-9
2.4 D.A.R.E.'s Senior High School Curriculum . . . . . . .2-10
2.5 D.A.R.E.'s Parent Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-11
2.6 Curricular Strategies Used in D.A.R.E.'s
Core Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-14 3.1 Jurisdictions of D.A.R.E.'s Regional
Training Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 4.1 Percentage of State D.A.R.E. Programs Primarily
Managed by Various State and Local Agencies. . . . . . 4-3
4.2 Percentage of States with D.A.R.E. Policy
Advisory Boards Having Representation of
Various Agencies and Individuals on Such Boards. . . . 4-4
4.3 Percentage of States with D.A.R.E.
Educational Advisors Reporting to the
Employers of These Advisors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.4 Percentage of State D.A.R.E. Coordinators
and Policy Advisory Boards Performing
Various Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.5 Funding Received in 1991-1992 School Year
for State-Level D.A.R.E. Operations. . . . . . . . . . 4-7
4.6 Number of States Receiving Funds for State-
Level Operations from Sources in 1991-1992
School Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 5.1 Final Sample Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6
5.2 Use of D.A.R.E., by Grade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
5.3 Agencies Administering the D.A.R.E. Program
at the Local Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
5.4 Agencies with Primary Responsibility for
Coordination of D.A.R.E. Activities. . . . . . . . . . 5-9
5.5 Problem Areas That Are Barriers to
Implementing D.A.R.E. in All Schools . . . . . . . . .5-11
5.6 Percentage and Estimated Number of School
Districts in the Nation Using Top Three
Packaged Curricula During the 1991-1992
School Year, by Minority Status, SES,
and Urbanicity of the School District. . . . . . . . .5-14
5.7 Substances Targeted by, and Types of
Instructor of, the Three Most Frequently
Mentioned Alcohol and Drug
Prevention Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-15
5.8 Sources of Funding for D.A.R.E. and
Other Alcohol and Drug Prevention Programs
in the 1991-1992 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-17
5.9 Components of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol
and Drug Prevention Programs Rated as
Very Satisfactory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-17
5.10 Components of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol
and Drug Prevention Programs Rated as
Very Satisfactory, by Minority Status
of School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-18
5.11 Components of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol
and Drug Prevention Programs Rated as
Very Satisfactory, by Urbanicity of
School District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-19 Number Page 5.12 Individuals, Groups, and Agencies Very
Supportive of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol and
Drug Prevention
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-19
5.13 Individuals, Groups, and Agencies Very
Supportive of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol
and Drug Prevention Programs, by
SES of School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-20
5.14 Individuals, Groups, and Agencies Very
Supportive of D.A.R.E. and Other
Alcohol and Drug Prevention
Programs, by Size of School District . . . . . . . . .5-20
5.15 Adaptations of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol
and Drug Prevention Curricula to Meet
Specific Needs of District . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-21
5.16 Individuals Trained to Participate in
Student Assistance Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-23
5.17 Effectiveness in Implementing Student
Assistance Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-23 7.1 D.A.R.E. Evaluation Studies (N=18) . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.2 Sample and Methodological Characteristics
of the D.A.R.E. Evaluations (N = 8). . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.3 Unweighted Effect Sizes at Immediate
Posttest Associated with Eight
Evaluations of D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
7.4 Magnitude of D.A.R.E.'s Weighted Mean
Effect Size (and 95% Confidence Interval),
by Outcome Measures at Immediate Posttest. . . . . . .7-10
7.5 Comparison Drug Use Prevention
Programs (N=25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-12
7.6 Weighted Mean Effect Size (and
95% Confidence Interval), by Outcome
for D.A.R.E. and Other Drug
Use Prevention Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-14
7.7 Difference Between Mean Effect Sizes
(and 95% Confidence Interval),
by Outcome, for D.A.R.E. and
Other Drug Use Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . .7-15
7.8 Weighted Mean Effect Size, by Drug, for
D.A.R.E. and Other Drug Use
Prevention Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-16
7.9 Difference Between Mean Effect Sizes
(and 95% Confidence Interval),
by Drug, for D.A.R.E. and Other
Drug Use Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-16
CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) is currently the Nation's predominant school-based drug prevention program, and both its prevalence and popularity continue to expand. The D.A.R.E. program, designed to prevent students' use of tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs, uses trained, uniformed police officers in the classroom to teach a highly structured curriculum. Developed by the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) as a collaborative venture, the primary or core D.A.R.E. curriculum is directed toward pupils in the final grade of elementary school (usually grade 5 or 6). Additional curricula for students in kindergarten through fourth grade, junior high school, senior high school, and for parents have been developed and implemented. Purpose of the Study D.A.R.E.'s popularity, as demonstrated by the extraordinary growth in its rate of dissemination and by abundant anecdotal reports of its success, is self-evident. In part because of its preeminent position, policymakers, researchers, educators, and parents are asking a number of fundamental questions about the program: o How effective is D.A.R.E. in preventing
drug use? o What are D.A.R.E.'s effects compared
with those of other school-based drug
prevention programs? o What are some of the basic features
common to most D.A.R.E. programs?o Who usually manages the D.A.R.E. program? o How extensively is D.A.R.E. implemented
nationwide? o How do other alcohol and drug prevention
programs compare with D.A.R.E. and
D.A.R.E. with them?To address these and other questions, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded the research team of the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) and the University of Kentucky's Center for Prevention Research (CPR) a grant to conduct an extensive review of the D.A.R.E. program and to assess its place within the context of the broad spectrum of school-based drug prevention efforts. Study Objectives The research team proposed and carried out two distinct types of assessments, the first pertaining to implementation and the second to outcomes or effectiveness. The primary objectives of the implementation assessment were to o assess the organizational structure and
operation of representative D.A.R.E. programs
nationwide; o review and assess factors that
contribute to the effective
implementation of D.A.R.E. programs
nationwide; and o assess how D.A.R.E. and other
school-based drug prevention programs
are tailored to meet the needs of
specific populations.The first two objectives for the implementation assessment relate exclusively to D.A.R.E. The third targets D.A.R.E. but also includes other drug use prevention programs. The primary objectives of the outcome assessment were to o identify all outcome evaluations of
D.A.R.E.'s core curriculum conducted to
date in the United States and Canada; o assess the methodological rigor of
those evaluations; o examine the nature and extent of the
effects of D.A.R.E.'s core curriculum;
and o compare the effectiveness of D.A.R.E.'s
core curriculum with that of other
school-based drug use prevention
programs targeting 5th- and 6th-grade
pupils.Although the first three objectives of the outcome assessment focus exclusively on D.A.R.E., the fourth places D.A.R.E. in a larger context by comparing it with other drug prevention programs. In this report, we synthesize the most important findings from both of the assessments and present overall conclusions, and some recommendations. Description of the Study To achieve the study's goals and objectives, the research team designed a set of research strategies that would yield data pertinent not only to a review and critique of D.A.R.E., but also to an assessment of how D.A.R.E. compares with other school-based drug prevention programs, and of future directions for these programs. For the implementation assessment, we collected original data by conducting o informal interviews and discussions with
the coordinators and/or educational
advisors of D.A.R.E.'s Regional Training
Centers (RTCs); o a survey of State D.A.R.E. coordinators;
and o a survey of drug prevention coordinators
in a representative, stratified sample of
school districts that included districts
with and without D.A.R.E.We also conducted site visits to two pairs of schools (one school in each pair had D.A.R.E. and the other did not). We discuss the methodologies used for each component of the implementation assessment in Section II of this report. For the outcome assessment, the research team conducted a review and assessment of the published and unpublished evaluations of D.A.R.E.'s core curriculum conducted to date. We collected no primary data, but instead studied prior D.A.R.E. evaluations using meta- analytic techniques. The methodologies we used for the outcome assessment are presented in Section III of this report. At the conclusion of our data collection and analysis efforts, the research team joined Tom Colthurst of the University of California at San Diego Extension Program in March 1993 to host a conference in San Diego, California, titled "Evaluating School-Linked Prevention Strategies Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs." Almost an entire day of this 3-day conference for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners centered on the preliminary results from this study. This conference provided an opportunity to disseminate early study findings from both the implementation and outcome assessments, and to incorporate participants' responses (including responses from D.A.R.E. America as well as D.A.R.E. and other drug prevention researchers) to the findings in this final report. Strengths and Limitations of the Study We believe our approach to this study was fully responsive to NIJ's solicitation. Among the many strengths of this approach are the following: o a multifaceted study methodology that
collected information from the national,
regional, State, and school district
levels of D.A.R.E. and reviewed all short-
term evaluations of the D.A.R.E. core
curricula conducted to date; o a rigorous examination and synthesis of
the results of previous evaluations of
D.A.R.E.; and o incorporation into this final report of
both formal and informal feedback from
researchers and practitioners attending
the dissemination conference. However, we recognize that there are limitations to our study, due primarily to limitations in the resources available to us. For example, our study budget would not allow us to survey local D.A.R.E. officers and classroom teachers, or monitor the delivery of D.A.R.E. in the classroom. Additionally, some questions raised in NIJ's solicitation, such as issues relating to the effectiveness of the regional and State D.A.R.E. training centers, could be answered only in part. A complete answer would have required a many-layered study that examined training centers' objectives, how these objectives are put into effect through training received both by trainers and by D.A.R.E. officers, and ultimately how the officers perform in the classroom. This was clearly outside the scope of this study. We also were limited in assessing certain questions, such as variability in effectiveness of the D.A.R.E. curriculum by the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents because of the lack of research in this area (see Chapter 8 for further details). Given the level of resources available for this study, the research design required some compromises among the multiple objectives invoked in NIJ's stated purposes, goals, objectives, and program strategies. However, the research team believes that the study represents an optimal mix of data collection methods and sources. Discussions with members of the D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board and other officials associated with the D.A.R.E. training centers, when combined with information gathered from the survey of State D.A.R.E. coordinators, provided answers to the questions relating specifically to the structure and operations of the D.A.R.E. program. The survey of school district drug prevention coordinators yielded information about D.A.R.E. and its relationship to other school-based drug prevention programs. The site visits provided an illustrative, if unrepresentative, snapshot of D.A.R.E.'s implementation in two schools. A rigorous examination of past D.A.R.E. evaluations provided information on the effects of the program on students. Overview of the Report This report is organized into four sections and four appendices. Section I contains the first two chapters, which provide an overview and history of school-based drug prevention programs, with detailed information about the curricula and teachers of D.A.R.E. Section II has four chapters that present the methodologies and results of each of the four components of the implementation assessment. In these four chapters, we present information about the national/regional-level operations of D.A.R.E. (Chapter 3), State-level operations of D.A.R.E. (Chapter 4), and the implementation of D.A.R.E. and other drug prevention programs at the local level (Chapters 5 and 6). Section III (Chapter 7) presents the methodology and results of the outcome assessment. In Section IV (Chapter 8), we synthesize and discuss findings from both the implementation and outcome assessments, and present recommendations. Appendix A contains sampling information for the school district drug prevention coordinators survey. Appendix B contains descriptions of each study utilized in the meta-analysis conducted for the outcome assessment. Appendix C presents a bibliography of comparison program evaluations, and Appendix D contains data collection materials for the implementation assessment. CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW AND HISTORY OF SCHOOL-BASED DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND D.A.R.E. History of School-Based Drug Prevention Programs School-based educational programs are the most common approach to drug prevention aimed at young people. Prevention efforts are located in educational settings both because drug use typically begins during adolescence and because classrooms provide the best opportunity for reaching a large number of youth simultaneously. Although rates of drug use among U.S. students generally have been declining over the past few years (University of Michigan, 1994), these rates are still higher than rates of all other Western industrialized nations. The U.S. Congress reacted to concerns about youth drug use by enacting the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (DFSCA) of 1986. The DFSCA was designed to establish programs of drug abuse education and prevention throughout the Nation. A key part of the DFSCA is Subtitle B of Title IV, which provides Federal money to States, schools, and communities to initiate or expand drug prevention programs. Actions resulting from Subtitle B of Title IV quickly resulted in the single largest drug prevention activity offered by the Federal Government, reaching $498,565,000 in FY 1993. Research conducted by RTI staff concerning the implementation of State and local programs of the DFSCA found that in the 1988-1989 school year all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have actively participated in programs funded by the DFSCA at the State and local levels. Of all the school districts in the Nation, 78% reported that they received DFSCA funding, either directly or through regional or county education organizations (Thorne, Holley, Wine, Hayward, & Ringwalt, 1991). The DFSCA funds appear to have had a positive effect on the school-based prevention programs of school districts. To be eligible for DFSCA funding, schools must implement a comprehensive drug prevention program. More than half of the districts receiving DFSCA funding reported that since the advent of such support, they had been able to expand or increase numerous aspects of their programs, including o number of grade levels with
substance abuse curricula, o school-wide emphasis on substance
abuse prevention, o number of teachers and staff
involved, and o number of students involved. A total of 25% of these districts had increased their curriculum development activities, and 48% had increased their degree of involvement with other groups in the community. The availability of DFSCA funds may be more limited in the future. Drug Use Prevention Strategies A variety of school-based intervention programs have been developed over the past three decades for preventing drug use among youth (Botvin, 1990; Flay, 1985; Hansen, 1992; Moskowitz, Malvin, Schaeffer, & Schaps, 1983; Tobler, 1986). The types of programs differ both in terms of what they teach as well as in how they are taught (Tobler, in press, 1994). Program content generally reflects assumptions about why young people use drugs. For example, activities to boost self- esteem reflect the belief that low self-esteem is a risk factor for drug use; strategies that teach youth how to refuse offers of drugs from friends assume that peer pressure leads to drug use. Similarly, teaching methods implemented in various strategies reflect beliefs about the most effective means for teaching young people not to use drugs. Programs that use didactic methods reflect a traditional expert model for learning; programs that emphasize group activities reflect the belief that participatory activities enhance understanding and learning more effectively. Although hundreds of individual school-based prevention programs have been developed, they generally fall into three broad categories: (a) knowledge/information programs, (b) affective programs, and (c) social influences programs. A fourth category of prevention programs, alternative programs, includes those usually offered outside the school setting. Knowledge/information and affective education programs have sometimes been grouped together as more traditional approaches, while social influences programs represent newer approaches (Bruvold, 1993; Tobler, in press, 1994). These three types of programs tend to differ in content, in methods, and in their effectiveness. Even so, there is overlap among them. Knowledge/information programs were the earliest school-based prevention efforts to be developed. These strategies are based on the assumption that youth begin using drugs because they are not sufficiently knowledgeable about adverse consequences. Once youth have adequate and accurate knowledge about drugs, it is assumed that they will behave rationally and choose not to use drugs. It is also assumed that changes in knowledge about drugs will promote more negative attitudes toward drug use, which in turn will be a deterrent to using drugs. Knowledge programs typically present factual information about the legal, biological, and psychological effects of drug use. Some of these programs have adopted scare tactics to present the risks of drug use to youth in a dramatic fashion. The methods used by knowledge/information programs typically include didactic presentations, discussion, and audiovisual presentations. Affective programs were developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s and are based on the assumption that young people use drugs because of personal and social deficits. These programs emphasize increasing self- esteem, enhancing self-awareness, clarifying values, making responsible decisions, and improving interpersonal skills. Affective programs often do not mention drug use at all. By enriching personal and social development, it is assumed that youth will make responsible decisions about drug use. These programs typically are taught by the same types of methods as for knowledge/ information programs, but they also may include group activities. Social influences programs are the most recent approach to drug use among youth. These programs are based on the assumption that youth use drugs because they do not have the social competencies needed to resist social pressures to use drugs. Some programs focus specifically on teaching youth the skills needed for resisting drug use influences. Other programs emphasize developing more general social competencies, such as increasing decisionmaking, improving communication, and reducing anxiety, in addition to enhancing drug-specific social skills. They may also include activities to correct misperceptions about the prevalence and acceptability of drug use among peers, as well as activities that seek to establish conservative group norms about drug use. Social influences programs typically include active, participatory learning experiences, such as modeling, role-playing, and practicing behavioral skills. Social influence strategies also frequently and actively involve "peers leaders" as teachers, in role-playing, or to facilitate discussion. Despite the differences across program categories, there is actually much overlap among school-based prevention programs in their components. Affective programs share similarities with some social influences programs in their emphasis, for example, on developing personal competencies. Social influences programs frequently include information about drugs and adverse consequences. Some programs include elements of all three categories of programs and have been labeled comprehensive programs. Indeed, many school-based curricula, including D.A.R.E., combine strategies that reflect knowledge/information, affective, and social influences programs. Research on the effectiveness of school-based prevention programs suggests that all three program strategies are not equally successful in preventing adolescent drug use (Bangert-Drowns, 1988; Bruvold, 1993; Tobler, 1986, in press, 1994). Knowledge/information programs generally have not been effective in preventing drug use among youth. The evidence suggests that, although information-based programs may increase students' knowledge of drugs, they are unlikely to result in positive changes in either attitudes or behavior. In fact, some research indicates that these programs may lead to undesirable changes in attitudes (Bruvold & Rundall, 1988). Affective strategies also have not performed well in previous evaluations and meta-analyses (Botvin, 1990; Tobler, 1986). For example, Hansen, Johnson, Flay, Graham, and Sobel (1988) found that students who received an affective education program reported significantly more drug use than students in a comparison group and that these differences increased over time. In contrast, the results of evaluation of social influences programs have been generally more positive (Botvin, 1990; Bruvold, 1993, 1986; Bruvold & Rundall, 1988; Flay, 1985; Hansen, 1992; Moskowitz, 1989; Pentz et al., 1989; Tobler, 1986, in press, 1994). In comparison with knowledge/information and affective programs, social influences programs have been more effective at preventing adolescent drug use. History of D.A.R.E. D.A.R.E. is a school-based drug prevention program designed to prevent students' use of tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs. Most D.A.R.E. activities are directed toward pupils in the last grade of elementary school (grade 5 or 6), which is thought to be the age at which youth are most receptive to an anti-drug message, and before they begin experimenting with drugs (Bureau of Justice Assistance [BJA], 1991b). The original D.A.R.E. core curriculum, which was implemented in 1983, was developed by Dr. Ruth Rich, health education specialist from the LAUSD. Dr. Rich based the D.A.R.E. core curriculum on a review of other prevalent drug prevention programs, particularly Project SMART (Self-Management and Resistance Training), a prevention program designed by the Health Behavior Research Institute of the University of Southern California. From its inception, D.A.R.E. was designed to be a continuing education program for kindergarten through high school. To that end, junior high and senior high curricula were developed in 1986 and 1988, respectively. Additionally, D.A.R.E. designers created a parent curriculum to teach parents how to recognize and prevent drug use among youth and to provide them with information about the program. D.A.R.E. is distinctive among school-based drug prevention programs in that it uses trained, uniformed police officers in the classroom to teach a highly structured curriculum. D.A.R.E. officers enter the classroom not only because of a cooperative agreement between the local school district and law enforcement agency, but also because the community is willing to forgo or replace the time that D.A.R.E. officers lose to other police duties. During D.A.R.E.'s first year, 1983- 1984, 10 officers taught the curriculum to around 8,000 students in 50 Los Angeles elementary schools (BJA, 1991a). D.A.R.E. is now widely implemented throughout the Nation and parts of Europe and Asia. According to the BJA (1991b), some 6 million students in the United States received D.A.R.E. in the 1991-1992 school year, and D.A.R.E. is currently implemented in 8,000 cities across the Nation (Glenn Levant, personal communication). Indeed, the D.A.R.E. workbooks are currently available in Japanese, Vietnamese, Spanish, and Braille. In addition, D.A.R.E. has been adopted by several governmental agencies that sponsor schools, including the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Capitol police, the National Park Service, and all overseas branches of the Department of Defense. D.A.R.E. combines an essentially local, grass-roots effort with a high degree of centralized program control asserted by coordinating mechanisms at the national, regional, and State levels. At the national level, D.A.R.E. America assumes the primary responsibility for implementing and managing D.A.R.E., assisted by five RTCs that constitute the D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board. A detailed examination of the roles of national, regional, and State D.A.R.E. organizations is presented in Section II, Chapter 3. D.A.R.E. Curricula The primary purposes of all the D.A.R.E. curricula for students are to o teach students to recognize pressures
to use drugs from peers and from the
media, o teach students the skills to resist
peer inducements to use drugs,o enhance students' self-esteem, o teach positive alternatives to
substance use, and o increase students' interpersonal,
communication, and decision-making
skills (BJA, 1991a).Each of the curricula is periodically updated; an updated version of the core curriculum is currently being pilot tested and will be implemented in September 1994. A brief summary of each of the five D.A.R.E. curricula follows. The D.A.R.E. core curriculum, which is taught in the 5th or 6th grade, comprises 17 hour-long weekly lessons. The D.A.R.E. officers have sole responsibility for teaching all of the lessons, although classroom teachers are encouraged to participate. Officers use a variety of teaching approaches, including the presentation of facts, group discussions, role-playing, and workbook exercises. The core curriculum was updated in 1993 and will be fully implemented in 1994. The updated curriculum differs from the previous version in a variety of ways. The new curriculum, which has been renamed "D.A.R.E. to Resist Drugs and Violence," o includes specific lessons concerning
tobacco and inhalants, o emphasizes normative beliefs and
protective factors, o adds violence prevention/conflict
resolution strategies, o uses more participatory learning
activities, and o employs a more collaborative
partnership between the D.A.R.E.
officer and the teacher in the
classroom (Charles Dunn, personal
communication, June 22, 1993).In both the old and new versions of the core curriculum, the lessons are cumulative, building upon concepts introduced in previous lessons. With the exception of lesson 14 in both versions, the lessons are implemented in sequence and without variation. The data collection for the implementation assessment and the evaluations studied in the outcome assessment occurred before the introduction of the new curriculum. We, therefore, believe it is important to provide information on both versions. Exhibit 2.1 presents a summary of the original version of the core curriculum upon which the outcome evaluation was based, and Exhibit 2.2 displays a summary of the updated curriculum. In elementary schools that receive the D.A.R.E. core curriculum, officers may also visit students in kindergarten through 4th grade to teach brief introductory (15- to 20- minute) lessons. Topics in this curriculum include personal safety, the consequences of taking medicine and using drugs, saying "no" when asked to engage in antisocial activities, and learning about feelings. The D.A.R.E. junior high school curriculum was originally developed to provide or reinforce information and skills that help students resist pressure to use drugs. Revisions were made in 1989 to include violence reduction, conflict resolution, and anger management. The 10 lessons are taught cooperatively by the officer and the classroom teacher. The lessons and activities (summarized in Exhibit 2.3) are implemented over a 10-day period as part of a required course, such as health, science, or social studies. The senior high school curriculum also focuses on drug abuse and its effect on communities and young people (see Exhibit 2.4 for a summary of the lessons). The senior high school curriculum was designed to be taught over an 11-day period during health or another appropriate class. Responsibility for teaching the lessons is divided between the officer and the classroom teacher. Officers and teachers are trained together and are encouraged to be present during the entire 11-day period. Because of the difficulties educators have continually faced persuading parents to attend school educational functions, the D.A.R.E. parent curriculum was designed to be implemented where parents live and work. This curriculum consists of four or five 2-hour Exhibit 2.1 D.A.R.E.'s Original Core Curriculum Session Topic Description 1 First visit/personal safety Introduction
of D.A.R.E.
and law
enforcement
officer;
safety
practices;
discussion of
personal
rights2 Drug use and misuse Harmful effects from misuse of drugs 3 Consequences Consequences
of using and
choosing not
to use
alcohol,
marijuana,
and other
drugs 4 Resisting pressures Sources of
pressure;
types of
pressure to
use drugs 5 Resistance techniques Refusal
strategies
for different
types of peer
pressure 6 Building self-esteem Identifying
positive
qualities in
oneself;
giving/
receiving
compliments;
importance of
self-image 7 Assertiveness Personal
rights/respon
sibilities
discussion;
situations
calling for
assertiveness
skills 8 Managing stress without
Identification of sources of stress; when stress
drugs can be
helpful or
harmful; ways
to manage
stress; deep
breathing
exercise 9 Media influences Media
influences on
behavior;
advertising
techniques 10 Decisionmaking and risk Risk-taking
behaviors;
reasonable
and
taking harmful
risks;
consequences
of various
choices;
influences on
decisions 11 Drug use alternatives Reasons for
using drugs;
alternative
activities 12 Role modeling Meet older
student
leaders/role
models who do
not use drugs 13 Forming support system Types of
support
groups;
barriers to
friendships;
suggestions
for
overcoming
these
barriers 14 Ways to deal with gang Types of gang
pressure; how gangs differ from
pressures groups;
consequences
of gang
activity
(optional) 15 D.A.R.E. summary D.A.R.E.
review 16 Taking a stand Taking
appropriate
stand when
pressured to
use drugs 17 D.A.R.E. culmination Award
assembly;
recognition
of
participants
Exhibit 2.2 D.A.R.E.'s Updated Core Curriculum Lesson TopicDescription 1 Introducing D.A.R.E. Acquaints
students with
the D.A.R.E.
officer;
defines roles
and
responsibilit
ies of
students
2 Understanding the effects of Presents
basic facts about mind-altering
mind-altering drugs drugs and
harmful
effects from
misuse
3 Consequences Presents
consequences
of using and
choosing not
to use
alcohol and
other drugs
4 Changing beliefs about drug use Teaches
students to identify sources and
kinds of
pressure;
compares
students'
estimates of
drug use with
estimates
reported in
national
surveys
5 Resistance techniques: Ways to Presents
refusal strategies for different
say "NO" types of peer
pressure
6 Building self-esteem Teaches
students to
recognize
positive
qualities in
themselves
7 Assertiveness: A response style Teaches
students to
respond
assertively
in refusing
offers to use
drugs
8 Managing stress without drugs Identifies
stressors in
students'
lives
9 Reducing violence Identifies
nonviolent
ways to deal
with anger
and
disagreement
10 Media influences on drug use and Teaches
students to recognize media influ-
violence ence in
presentations
about
tobacco,
alcohol,
other drugs,
and violence
11 Making decisions about risky Teaches
students decisionmaking skills
behavior to evaluate
risks in
situations
involving
using drugs
and using
weapons
12 Say "YES" to positive alternatives
Teaches students to identify and participate in
positive alternative activities
13 Positive role modeling Teaches
students to
identify ways
high school
students
avoid drug
use
14 Resisting gang and group violence
Identifies negative consequences of gang and group
violence and ways to avoid becoming involved
(optional)
15 Project D.A.R.E. summary Summarizes
D.A.R.E.;
asks students
questions
about drug
use and
violence
16 Taking a stand Puts
student's
commitment to
be drug-free
and to avoid
violence in
writing
17 D.A.R.E. culmination Reinforces
the values
and skills
learned;
recognizes
individual
achievement
of all
participants
Exhibit 2.3 D.A.R.E.'s Junior High School Curriculum Lesson TopicDescription 1 Drug use and abuse Helps
students
understand
how drugs can
change the
way the mind
and body
function 2 Drugs, violence, and the law Informs
students
about laws
and school
behavior
codes
regarding
possession of
substances
and acts of
violence;
helps
students
understand
their role in
following
these
expected
standards of
conduct 3 Consequences Explores how
drug use
affects every
person living
in a
community 4 Assertive resistance Makes
students
aware of
pressures
that
influence
people to use
drugs;
teaches
assertiveness
as a way to
resist these
pressures 5 Forming positive friendships Helps
students
recognize
ways
individuals
can reach out
to form
positive
relation-
ships 6 Resolving conflicts without Explores ways
of dealing
with anger
and
violence conflict
without
resorting to
acts of
violence 7 Destructive ecology: Tagging and
Helps students understand how destruc-
trashing tive acts of
vandalism
against
personal or
public
property or
living things
affect
everyone 8 Pressure from gangs and gang Makes
students aware of kinds of pres-
violence sures and
violence they
may encounter
from gangs;
helps them
evaluate the
consequences
of choices
available to
them 9 Project D.A.R.E. review activities
Provides an opportunity for students to review and
strengthen what they learned in D.A.R.E. 10 D.A.R.E. to Be Helps
students act
in their own
best interest
Exhibit 2.4 D.A.R.E.'s Senior High School Curriculum Day TopicDescription 1 Pretest/Introduction Pretests
students to
measure
knowledge and
understanding
of drug abuse
and its
effects on
communities 2 Reducing the demand for drugs: Officer
taught:
Focuses on
drug abuse
and
A shared responsibility its
correlation
with
increased
risk for
problem
behaviors
that result
in negative
consequences 3 Day 2 follow-up Teacher
taught:
Focuses on
the conse-
quences of
drug use for
individuals,
as well as
the community 4 Communicating choices assertively
Officer taught: Teaches skills to communi-cate
choices assertively in situations involving
substance abuse 5 Drug-related behaviors and the Officer
taught:
Focuses on
the purpose
of
law laws and how
drug-related
behaviors can
affect the
balance
between the
need to
maintain
order and the
right of an
individual 6 Day 5 follow-up Teacher
taught:
Focuses on
blood-alcohol
levels; uses
cooperative
learning
groups and
case studies
to
demonstrate
risks
involved in
drug abuse 7 Drugs, media, and violence Officer
taught:
Focuses on
how drug
abuse and the
media can
increase
violent
behavior 8,9 Managing anger and resolving Officer
taught:
Identifies
positive ways
conflict without drugs of expressing
and managing
anger without
the use of
drugs 10 Day 8, 9 follow-up Teacher
taught:
Focuses on
the use of
"I-message"
statements 11 Evaluation/Posttest Posttest of
students:
Evaluation of
the program
by students
Exhibit 2.5 D.A.R.E.'s Parent Curriculum Lesson TopicDescription 1 Effective communication Helps parents
understand
that self-
esteem,
listening,
and
communication
skills are
critical in
adult-child
communication2 Risk Factors (two options): Parents select Section A, B, or both (2A) Risk factors (yrs 0-8) Addresses the
risk factors
of children
from birth to
age 8;
provides an
awareness of
safety
measures that
can be used
in the home
to reduce
likelihood of
dangerous
exposure to
drugs;
introduces
strategies
parents can
use to reduce
the
likelihood
that young
children will
be at risk of
drug abuse (2B) Risk factors (early adolescents)
Introduces risk factors of substance use in early
adolescents; introduces parents to basic drug
identification and stages of adolescent chemical
dependency 3 Youth pressure resistance skills Helps parents
in awareness
and under-
standing of
life skills,
particularly
in areas
dealing with
peer pressure
and media
influence;
assists in
strengthening
the family
network 4 Panel discussion Initiates
discussion by
members of
the community
from a
variety of
backgrounds
on the scope
of local
substance
abuse;
provides an
exchange of
ideas on
resources and
referrals
sessions generally held in the evenings (see Exhibit 2.5
for a summary of these lessons). Topics covered in this
curriculum include developing better skills to interact
with children, learning about peer pressures, and
identifying signs and reducing risks of potential
substance abuse.D.A.R.E. Officers and Training Law enforcement agencies exercise considerable discretion in identifying qualified, motivated police officers to be trained as D.A.R.E. officers. D.A.R.E. officers must be full-time, uniformed officers with at least 2 years of experience. When selecting candidate officers, local police departments are encouraged to consider the officer's ability to interact with children, ability to organize, and ability to handle the unexpected, as well as whether the officer would provide an exemplary role model and refrain from sexual, racial, stereotypical, or inappropriate remarks (BJA, 1991b). Selected officers undergo an intensive, 2-week course of at least 80 hours of training. Officers are trained not only in the core curriculum, but also in public speaking, teaching skills, and classroom management. Their performance is directly critiqued by assigned mentors, who are experienced and specially trained D.A.R.E. officers. Outside speakers and consultants are also used to instruct the officers in areas requiring special expertise (e.g., a psychologist may present information on the stages of child development). The core curriculum training course includes opportunities to practice lessons both with peers and in an actual classroom setting. Additional training is provided for officers teaching the junior and senior high school and parent curricula. Officers teaching these curricula are required to be certified as a D.A.R.E. officer and to have taught the core curriculum at least two semesters. In-service training is provided to review what officers have previously learned in light of their actual classroom experiences and to acquaint them with changes to the curricula. The time that D.A.R.E. officers commit to the program varies considerably from one law enforcement jurisdiction to the next. For some officers, particularly those in large urban departments, teaching D.A.R.E. is a full-time occupation. In departments that serve rural communities, D.A.R.E. officers administer the program on a part-time basis, devoting the remainder of their time to other law enforcement tasks. Once in the field, D.A.R.E. officer performance is monitored by mentors who observe classroom presentations and evaluate performance. Mentors may also use input from school administrators, classroom teachers, health education coordinators, and advisory committees to provide officers with feedback on their presentations. D.A.R.E. in the Context of Other School-Based Drug Use Prevention Programs Considering that the D.A.R.E. curricula were based on several preexisting school-based drug prevention curricula (primarily Project SMART), it is not surprising that the curricula closely resemble other programs in content. Exhibit 2.6 show that D.A.R.E.'s core curriculum includes lessons that represent all three curricular strategies discussed earlier. D.A.R.E. differs from most other school-based drug prevention programs in the structure by which it is organized and implemented. First, D.A.R.E. is implemented by law enforcement officers; most other programs are taught by teachers. Second, D.A.R.E. officer training lasts 2 weeks and is highly intensive; most drug prevention program training for teachers is of a shorter duration. Third, D.A.R.E. officers are strongly encouraged to deliver their lessons in sequence, departing only minimally (if at all) from their lesson plans; teachers are much more free to adapt curricula at will, emphasizing those areas they believe to be most salient or useful or integrating the drug prevention material into their general education curriculum. Fourth, D.A.R.E. officer performance is often carefully monitored and evaluated; generally, the accountability mechanisms for teachers' implementation of their curricula are less structured. Fifth, the mission of D.A.R.E. officers in the school is exclusively drug prevention; to most teachers, drug prevention is often only part of a larger curriculum. Exhibit 2.6 Curricular Strategies Used in D.A.R.E.'s
Core CurriculumCurricular Strategies Session Social Skills Topic Cognitive Affective Skills 1 Introducing D.A.R.E. X 2 Understanding the effects of mind- X
altering drugs3 Consequences X 4 Changing beliefs about drug use XX 5 Resistance techniques: Ways to X
say "NO"6 Building self-esteem X 7 Assertiveness: A response style X 8 Managing stress without taking X
drugs9 Reducing violence X 10 Media influence on drug use X
and violence 11 Making decisions about risky X
behaviors 12 Saying "YES" to positive X
alternatives13 Positive role modeling X X 14 Resisting gang and group X
violence15 Project D.A.R.E. summary XXX 16 Taking a stand X 17 D.A.R.E. culmination X CHAPTER 3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL OPERATIONS In any consideration of the organization of D.A.R.E. at the national and regional levels, it is important to remember that D.A.R.E. is very much a grass- roots program. In essence, it is a product of memoranda of understanding between community law enforcement and local public school districts across the Nation. The primary purposes of the D.A.R.E. hierarchy described in this chapter are to ensure the integrity of the D.A.R.E. curriculum and the fidelity with which it is delivered; to develop and uphold standards for the integrity, coordination, and quality of D.A.R.E. operations; and to provide support to D.A.R.E. at the community level. As we have said, in its degree of organization at the national and regional levels, D.A.R.E. differs greatly from other school-based drug use prevention programs, most of which limit their activities to delivering packaged curricula to school districts and offering some level of training to teachers. In contrast, the D.A.R.E. organization oversees all aspects of the prevention program, including the consistency with which it is implemented in the classroom. In this chapter, we discuss the functions of D.A.R.E. America, the preeminent D.A.R.E. organization, and its relationship with the o D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board; o State Training Centers, State Charter
Organizations; and State D.A.R.E.
Coordinators; o Los Angeles United School District
(LAUSD); and o D.A.R.E. America Scientific Advisory
Board.We obtained much of the information for this chapter from an interview conducted in August 1994 with Glenn Levant, Executive Director of D.A.R.E. America. This information is supplemented by relevant D.A.R.E. documents. We also summarize a series of loosely structured interviews conducted in 1992 with representatives of the D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board. D.A.R.E. at the national, regional, State, and local levels is promoted, monitored, and overseen by D.A.R.E. America, which is chartered as a nonprofit organization. As specified in its charter, D.A.R.E. America has responsibility for a variety of key func- tions, including o administering the D.A.R.E. program, o providing educational materials to
communities implementing D.A.R.E.,
o overseeing D.A.R.E. officer training
and ensuring its consistency,o improving the curriculum, and o providing support to D.A.R.E. both
nationally and internationally.
In 1988, the BJA awarded four grants to establish
the RTCs that constitute the D.A.R.E. America RTC
Advisory Board, and a fifth RTC was established the
following year. The RTCs are located in Arizona,
California, Illinois, Virginia, and North Carolina, and
the States associated with each are presented in Exhibit
3.1. The responsibilities of the RTCs include making
recommendations to D.A.R.E. America concerning the
accreditation of State-level training centers. In
addition, the RTCs provide oversight to the local
D.A.R.E. programs to ensure that the copyrighted
curriculum is taught as specified. Educational
specialists representing the five RTCs, together with
staff of the LAUSD, are charged with curricular
development, taking advice from the Scientific Advisory
Board and other specialists. In Federal FY 1994, it is
expected that the BJA grant, which in the past has flowed
to the RTCs, will come directly to D.A.R.E. America to
support the RTCs.D.A.R.E. is also organized at the State level. In more than one-third of the States, D.A.R.E. America has helped charter a nonprofit (501C3) organization, over which D.A.R.E. America has oversight, and which is designed to support the program in that State. The board of the chartered organization typically comprises the State's attorney general, the superintendent of education, and prominent business and education people. The board of directors may also include a representative of the State's D.A.R.E. Officers' Association (described below) as well as, in some States, a D.A.R.E. coordinator whose prominence and position may vary considerably. It is expected that in time there will be D.A.R.E. charter organizations in the remaining States. In those States that currently lack a charter organization, there is typically some individual identified as the State D.A.R.E. coordinator who often is a State employee. This person's responsibilities include coordinating candidate selection and scheduling training for D.A.R.E. officers, obtaining State funds to support D.A.R.E. programs, providing local technical assistance, and overseeing policy development and implementation at the State level. D.A.R.E. America meets with these individuals, and with the State charter organizations, on a quarterly basis. In addition to D.A.R.E. State charter organizations at the State level, a total of 42 States currently have developed State Training Centers (STCs), the purpose of which is to conduct training for prospective D.A.R.E. officers. These centers are differentially accredited; all conduct training for prospective D.A.R.E. officers in the core curriculum, while only some are accredited to teach the other curricula or to train D.A.R.E. mentors. The STCs are supported both by the States and by D.A.R.E. America. The level of activity of these centers varies considerably given the size of the State and demand for D.A.R.E. officer training. At present, there are some 20,000 certified D.A.R.E. officers. D.A.R.E. America also owns and protects the copyright to the D.A.R.E. name, logo, and associated slogans. D.A.R.E.'s name is considered a valuable intellectual property. D.A.R.E. America approves all materials (e.g., bumper stickers) and celebrities used to promote the D.A.R.E. program. In addition, the organization screens sponsors for fund-raising events to exclude companies manufacturing alcohol or tobacco products. Together with the LAUSD, D.A.R.E. America owns the copyright to the core curriculum. The superintendent of the LAUSD has been represented on the board of D.A.R.E. America since 1983. Through the RTCs, D.A.R.E. America monitors the implementation of D.A.R.E. in each community and may withdraw its permission to use D.A.R.E. if a local school district has improperly modified the curriculum. To fulfill its responsibility of improving the curriculum, D.A.R.E. America established in 1993 a Scientific Advisory Board, which is chaired by Dr. Herb Kleber of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University. Dr. Kleber was formally the chief official for demand reduction in the Bush Administration's White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). The board includes prevention specialists from across the Nation. The National D.A.R.E. Officers' Association, which D.A.R.E. America helped to found in 1987, serves to improve communications among police officers within D.A.R.E. The association now has a State D.A.R.E. Officers' association in each of the 50 States. Each of the 18 other countries that have adopted the D.A.R.E. program also has an association of D.A.R.E. officers, although those association are not formally a part of the national association. However, all associations, both domestic and foreign, look to D.A.R.E. America for guidance in matters of policy. Finally, D.A.R.E. America provides considerable support to communities implementing D.A.R.E. in the form of the educational materials that support the curriculum. In some cases, D.A.R.E. America offers communities direct financial support as well. We collected further information by means of informal interviews and discussions we conducted with the coordinators and/or educational advisors of each of the five RTCs in January 1992. The RTC coordinators/advisors discussed with us a number of their needs and recommendations for the D.A.R.E. program. Summaries of their discussions with us are presented below. An increasing need for in-service training. RTC coordinators/advisors indicated that a substantial number of officers have received D.A.R.E. training in the past decade. However, they stressed that the original training of many officers may now be several years old. RTC coordinators/advisors indicated that although mechanisms for providing in-service training do exist, these mechanisms may not be sufficient. Furthermore, they suggested that because training of new officers already stretches available resources, the increasing need for in-service training for existing D.A.R.E. officers will strain D.A.R.E.'s budget further. Exhibit 3.1 Jurisdictions of D.A.R.E.'s Regional
Training Centers Southeast Midwest
Southwest
East RTC RTC RTC RTC
West RTCConnecticut Alabama Arkansas Alaska California* Delaware Florida Illinois* Arizona* Hawaii District of Columbia Georgia Indiana Colorado Idaho Maine Louisiana Iowa Kansas Montana Maryland Mississippi Kentucky Nebraska Nevada Massachusetts North Carolina* Michigan New Mexico North Dakota New Hampshire South Carolina Minnesota Oklahoma Oregon New Jersey Tennessee Missouri South Dakota Washington New York Ohio Texas Wyoming Pennsylvania Wisconsin Utah Rhode Island Vermont Virginia* West Virginia *Indicates location of Regional Training Center. The increasing need to train State D.A.R.E. coordinators. RTC coordinators/ advisors indicated that most States now have State D.A.R.E. coordinators (see Chapter 4). However, they reported that many are relatively new in these positions or have received little formal information about how to conduct their jobs. They stated that coordinator training should include the responsibilities and roles of State D.A.R.E. coordinators, as well as how they can effectively interact both with their RTC and the schools in their States. RTC coordinators/advisors reported that plans are currently under way to establish procedures to accredit State D.A.R.E. coordinators. The need to improve lines of communication and clarify lines of authority. RTC coordinators/advisors indicated that because of the lack of formal training and the lack of communication among State coordinators, many State D.A.R.E. coordinators have had to learn their jobs by trial and error. They stated that although a certain amount of communication occurs among State D.A.R.E. coordinators (especially among coordinators in neighboring States), increasing communication would greatly enhance efficiency by enabling coordinators to draw on the experiences of others instead of "reinventing the wheel." RTC coordinators/advisors also indicated that State coordinators may need assistance with getting local programs to recognize developing lines of authority. For example, they stated that in the past, local programs worked directly with RTCs; they said that many local programs will need to be prompted to now work with the STC instead. The need for increased D.A.R.E. officer mentoring. At present, RTC coordinators/ advisors reported that there is a well-developed system for monitoring D.A.R.E. officer performance in the classroom. They reported that D.A.R.E. mentors periodically monitor and evaluate officer performance by observing classes taught by the officer. They also indicated that teachers are given the opportunity to rate officer performance. They reported that D.A.R.E. officers are informed of any problem areas, told how to correct these problems, and later reevaluated to ensure that the problem has been corrected. However, to be truly useful, RTC coordinators reported that these mentors should have the time and resources necessary to work closely with D.A.R.E. officers to improve their performance. The need for increased collaboration between education and law enforcement. RTC coordinators/advisors indicated that because D.A.R.E. was created as a close partnership between the LAUSD and the Los Angeles Police Department, the program is dependent on a strong and continuing relationship between education and law enforcement at every level. At the State level, RTC coordinators/advisors see close collaboration between the department of education and the organization administering D.A.R.E. (typically related to law enforcement) as essential. They indicated that the institutional commitment of State Departments of Education to D.A.R.E. is essential, in part, to help resolve any community-level problems. Further, they indicated that as administrators of DFSCA funds, State Departments of Education have an increasing role to play in providing guidance concerning the various components of a school district's comprehensive K-12 curriculum (including D.A.R.E.) and how these components should be integrated to ensure a comprehensive approach. RTC coordinators indicated that ways in which State Departments of Education could play a role in assisting with the evaluation of D.A.R.E. officer performance should be examined. At the local level, RTC coordinators indicated that D.A.R.E. is initiated when a school district invites a police department to teach the program. They reported that the police department nominates a candidate for D.A.R.E. officer training, and the candidate must be acceptable to the school district administration. In the classroom, they stated, the role of the teacher is evolving from an observer and monitor of the officer's performance to an active partner in D.A.R.E. instruction. The need to maintain limits to the D.A.R.E. "bureaucracy". RTC coordinators/ advisors stressed that pressures on D.A.R.E. to expand its operations are considerable. They indicated that as an institution, D.A.R.E. remains committed to maintaining high standards at the community level. They reported that as the role of the State coordinator continues to become more important in this regard, the need for the RTCs to provide technical assistance and to monitor State activities becomes even more crucial. RTC coordinators/advisors reported that because existing RTC resources are already strained by current demands, further growth at the national level seems inevitable. They indicated that even if support for such growth exists, however, there is concern that a bureaucracy will develop that may weaken the "grass-roots" nature of the enterprise. Coordinators/advisors indicated that it will be a challenge to increase the size and capabilities of the D.A.R.E. bureaucracy to manage and control this burgeoning program with the need to keep the bureaucracy streamlined and responsive to the needs of the communities that D.A.R.E. serves. The need to locate permanent funding sources. RTC coordinators/advisors indicated that D.A.R.E. currently receives substantial support from DFSCA. However, they feel that Federal DFSCA funds appear to have reached a plateau in the past 3 years and are likely to be subjected to budget cuts in the future. RTC coordinators/advisors fear that D.A.R.E. could be reduced or even eliminated as a line item. Regardless, they reported that Federal funding may have been a mixed blessing, insofar as Federal support may displace local efforts to secure the resources necessary to implement the program. Summary In this chapter, we focused on the national- and regional-level operations of D.A.R.E. We conducted unstructured interviews with the executive director of D.A.R.E. America and representatives from each of the RTCs. We also reviewed available documents. D.A.R.E. is a grass-roots program that operates through memoranda of understanding between community law enforcement agencies and local schools. D.A.R.E. America, a nonprofit organization, coordinates, promotes, monitors, and assumes ultimate responsibility for the D.A.R.E. program at all levels. The D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board, which is composed of staff from the RTCs, serves in an advisory capacity to D.A.R.E. America. In addition to making recommendations to D.A.R.E. America, RTCs are responsible for oversight of the local D.A.R.E. programs and coordinating and conducting D.A.R.E. officer training. Organizations and individuals working to promote and coordinate the D.A.R.E. program at the State levelinclude State-chartered nonprofit organizations, State D.A.R.E. officers' associations, and State D.A.R.E. coordinators. Also at the State level are STCs that provide training to D.A.R.E. officers. Curriculum development and changes are the responsibility of educational specialists from each of the RTCs, together with staff from the LAUSD. A Scientific Advisory Board, composed of leading prevention specialists, assists in these endeavors. Our interviews with the RTC coordinators indicated the following key issues: a need for increased in- service training and mentoring, providing training to State D.A.R.E. coordinators, improving communication and collaboration between agencies, maintaining limits on the D.A.R.E. bureaucracy, and locating permanent funding sources. Findings from this chapter and resulting recommendations are discussed fully in Chapter 8. CHAPTER 4 STATE-LEVEL OPERATIONS In this chapter, we present the second component of the implementation assessment, a survey of those individuals who generally manage the State-level D.A.R.E. operations: the State D.A.R.E. coordinators. This component was conducted to fulfill NIJ's request for information concerning: o features common to most D.A.R.E. programs,
o funding arrangements for D.A.R.E.,
o management of D.A.R.E. and supporting
organizations, and
o availability of the D.A.R.E. curricula.The primary objective of this component was, of course, to provide information concerning D.A.R.E.'s State-level operations. As a secondary objective, we collected preliminary information to facilitate sample selection for the school district drug prevention coordinators survey, the results of which we present in Chapter 5. This chapter covers both the methodology for and findings from the survey of State D.A.R.E. coordinators. The findings section presents data concerning the administration, funding, implementation, challenges, and problems of State-level D.A.R.E. operations. Methodology Instrument Design
We based the content of the State D.A.R.E.
coordinators' survey on the research issues raised in
NIJ's solicitation, discussions with NIJ personnel, a
review of the literature on D.A.R.E.'s structure and
operations, and an examination of prior studies of
school-based drug education conducted at RTI.
Recognizing that State D.A.R.E. coordinators have
considerable demands on their time, we designed the
instrument to be as brief and straightforward as
possible. To minimize ambiguity and burden, we used
mostly close-ended items. A few open-ended questions
were included to encourage respondents to provide
detailed information. The survey instrument was composed of two parts: a questionnaire and a list of school districts. The questionnaire contained items concerning administration, funding, and implementation of the State D.A.R.E. program. The list of school districts contained those districts we selected from that State for the first-phase sample of the school district drug prevention coordinators' survey (see Chapter 5). We asked State coordinators to indicate whether each district on their list used D.A.R.E., and we then used this information to draw the second-phase sample for the school district survey. We pretested the instrument on three State D.A.R.E. coordinators in early February 1992. We also shared the instrument with all five RTC coordinators and requested their feedback. We incorporated the responses of pretest participants, as well the comments of the RTC coordinators, the NIJ program manager, and other alcohol and drug prevention program experts into the final draft of the data collection instrument. A copy of the survey instrument and other data collection materials can be found in Appendix D. Data Collection
In January 1992, the RTC coordinators provided us
with lists of names and addresses of State D.A.R.E.
coordinators. Based on this information, we identified
44 States with D.A.R.E. coordinators. We mailed each
coordinator a package containing cover letters from the
D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board and RTI, a
questionnaire, and a list of school districts in the
coordinator's State. The cover letter from the RTC
Advisory Board expressed support for the research effort
and encouraged participation. The cover letter from RTI
explained the study, provided assurances that all
information would be kept strictly confidential, and
requested copies of any pertinent State documents
concerning the organization and/or administration of
D.A.R.E. We mailed the packages to the State D.A.R.E. coordinators on February 18, 1992. Two weeks after the initial mailout, we contacted nonresponders by telephone. We made repeated attempts by mail and telephone to secure the return of completed materials or to collect the information by phone. The RTCs were again of great assistance to us in urging coordinators to return surveys. Of the 44 respondents identified by the RTC coordinators, 39 completed the instrument. For purposes of verification, one question in the survey asked respondents to confirm that the State had a D.A.R.E. coordinator. Although four States responded that they did not have such a position, we determined after some investigation that they did have a person who performs a coordinator's role. Respondents from all four of these States reported that administration of the State D.A.R.E. program was one of several roles they performed as supervisors or directors in law enforcement agencies. We, therefore, did not delete these responses |
