The logistic regression adjusted odds ratios show that Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) had no statistically significant impact on students’ initiation of alcohol use, cigarette smoking, or heavy drinking. This result was evident immediately after the completion of DARE, one year after completion, and two years after completion. Additionally, DARE did not affect students’ alcohol use during the study period (Ennett et al. 1994).
There were some positive impacts of DARE on students. Analyses show that DARE students, compared to control students, were half as likely to increase their cigarette use from pretest (Wave One) to the posttest (Wave Two). Rural students that received DARE were half as likely to increase alcohol use upon posttest. There was, however, no protective effect for alcohol evident for suburban or urban students receiving DARE. That is to say, although DARE did not prevent adolescents from using cigarettes or alcohol, those participating in DARE were not as likely to increase their use of cigarettes or alcohol compared to students in the control condition. This effect was only evident from Wave One to Two, meaning that this small protective effect wore off after a year.
Attitudes Toward Drug Use
The only significant effect found was on students’ self-esteem. At posttest, immediately after the 17 DARE lessons were completed, there was a significant positive effect on students’ self-esteem. However, DARE had no immediate or long-term effects on students’ attitudes toward drugs or their social skills, and the boost to self-esteem did not last over the study period.
For the overall sample, Clayton, Cattarello, and Johnstone (1996) found an increase in drug use. Specifically, over the 5-year study, there was a 130 percent increase in cigarette use for both the treatment and comparison groups. Analyses looking at the specific impact of the DARE intervention revealed similarly null results. There were no significant differences by intervention status present for any of the drug use outcomes. Thus, for cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana, there was no discernable difference between students receiving DARE and the comparison group.
Attitudes Toward Drug Use/Refusal Skills
Over the 5-year evaluation period, negative attitudes toward drug use declined for the whole sample. This included a decline in negative attitudes toward general drug use and specific use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. Students on average felt their ability to resist peer pressure declined strongly, about 25 percent between baseline and year five. Additionally, students perceived that more of their peers were using drugs. Both treatment and comparison groups experienced a significant change in their drug-related behavior.
Examining the treatment group (DARE) and the comparison group (other drug education) separately reveals for the early follow-up measurements, DARE students maintained negative attitudes toward drug use and moderately strong refusal skills. After the full five years, however, these small effects wear off, and there was no discernable difference between DARE students and comparison students.
Ennett and colleagues (1993) used a quasi-experimental research design to evaluate the effect of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) on initiation of drug use. The data used in this study comes from the Illinois DARE study, which was a convenience sample of 18 pairs of elementary schools in northern and central Illinois. These schools were matched closely on racial composition; number of English as a second language (or ESL) students; percentage of students from low-income families; and metropolitan status (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural). Six pairs of schools, 12 schools total, in urban and suburban areas were randomly assigned to DARE or the control condition. In the rural settings, six pairs of schools were assigned to DARE or the control condition using a nonrandom procedure to minimize travel time and accommodate DARE officers’ busy schedules in the more urban locations. DARE schools were selected out of schools already planning to implement the program. Comparison schools were drawn from nearby counties.
This resulted in 1,803 students participating in the pretest or baseline data collection. The first round of data collection, Wave 1, occurred just before the implementation of DARE when students were in either the fifth or sixth grade. Wave 2 happened right at the end of DARE programming. Waves 3 and 4 occurred 1 year after the pretest and 2 years after the pretest, respectively. By the end of data collection, students were in seventh or eighth grade. Analyses were conducted on students that were present and provided information for all four waves of data collection, reducing the sample size to 1,334 students.
The sample consisted of roughly one third fifth graders and two-thirds sixth graders, 33 percent and 67 percent respectively, and was almost equally divided by gender, with 51 percent male. The majority of the sample (54 percent) was white, followed by African American (22 percent), and Hispanic (9 percent). Percentages for Native American, Asian, and “other” were not reported. Most children (67 percent) had both parents at home, and the sample was fairly evenly divided amongst the three different community types: 35 percent urban, 38 percent suburban, and 27 percent rural.
The data collected measured drug use behaviors as well as social and psychological variables believed to be related to drug use. Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol were the two behaviors focused on in this evaluation, as they are the two substances most commonly used by adolescents. Attitude toward general and specific (i.e., cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana) drug use, perceived benefits and costs of drug use, self-esteem, assertiveness, and peer-resistance skills comprise the social and psychological variables measured. Also collected and used in later analyses were sociodemographic variables, such as gender, race/ethnicity, community structure, and family type.
The researchers used a nested cohort strategy to analyze the collected data. The nested strategy takes into account that schools were randomly assigned to receive DARE, not individuals. Students within schools were followed over time as a cohort to assess the effects of DARE at each posttest wave of data collection. Ordinary least squares (OLS) and logistic regression were both used, depending on whether the dependant variable was continuous or categorical, respectively. In the logistic regression models, the effect of DARE is in adjusted odds ratios, and for the OLS models, the coefficients are reported.
Clayton, Cattarello, and Johnstone (1996) used a quasi-experimental design to determine the effectiveness of DARE on adolescent drug use. Of 31 elementary schools in Lexington, Ky., 23 were randomly assigned to receive DARE, and the remaining 8 schools were selected as comparison groups. These 8 comparison schools received drug education lessons, but they were not part of the DARE curriculum. Since these schools could not be classified as “no treatment,” the evaluation looked at the DARE program versus another drug education program.
Pretests/baseline measures were obtained before DARE lessons or the comparison drug program was given in the sixth grade. The first posttest was taken 4 months after the completion of DARE. Follow-up data collections occurred every year for 5 years, with most students in the tenth grade at the final wave.
The final sample was 2,071 students who completed all 5 waves of testing. This sample was 51 percent male, 75 percent white, 22 percent African American, and 2 percent of another race/ethnicity. Most students were 11 to 12 years of age at baseline, making them 16 to 17 years of age at the end of the study period. A total of 1,550 students were in the treatment (DARE) group, and 551 students were in the comparison group.
Drug use was measured as the frequency of use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana in the past year. Students were asked how many cigarettes they had smoked, how many glasses of alcohol, and the number of times they had smoked marijuana in the past year. Drug-specific attitudes were measured, using a five-item scale to assess how negatively adolescents viewed drugs. General drug attitudes were measured, using a seven-item scale, with no specific drug mentioned in any of those questions. Peer pressure was measured with a nine-item scale that focused on the respondent’s ability to resist peer pressure. In addition, students were asked how many of their friends they believe use cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana. This perceptional measure was included as an additional peer pressure measure.
Mixed effects regression models were used to determine the short-term and long-term effectiveness of DARE. This method accounts for the clustered or hierarchical nature of the data, which are students clustered within schools and sequential measurements clustered within an individual. Individual trajectories of drug use are modeled first, then variation in status and change between persons within schools, and lastly, variation between schools.
In 2009, DARE America adopted the keepin’ it REAL (kiR) curriculum for middle school students, which is a substance use prevention program also included on CrimeSolutions.gov (https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=239). The primary difference between the original kiR curriculum and DARE’s version of the kiR curriculum is in who provides the program. DARE’s version of kiR for middle school students is taught exclusively by highly trained law enforcement officers, whereas the original kiR curriculum was delivered by teachers. DARE officers undergo an 80-hour training course, and are trained to deliver the curriculum exactly as written to ensure high fidelity to the kiR model.
Alternatively, for elementary students, DARE America worked with the kiR program developers to create an elementary school curriculum. DARE’s Elementary keepin’ it REAL (EkiR) curriculum is similar to the keepin’ it REAL curriculum, but with more focus on enhancing social–emotional learning in fifth and sixth graders. The EkiR curriculum is also implemented by trained DARE officers in the classrooms (Day et al. 2017).
Another important difference between the original kiR curriculum and DARE’s version of kiR and EkiR is the evidence base. There have been several published studies examining the effectiveness of the kiR curriculum (Hecht et al. 2003). In 2017, a study of DARE’s officer-taught EkiR curriculum was published in Addictive Behaviors (Day et al. 2017).
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:
Berman, Greg, and Aubrey Fox. 2009. “Lessons From the Battle Over D.A.R.E.: The Complicated Relationship Between Research and Practice.” Washington D.C.: Center for Court Innovation, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.http://www.bja.gov/pdf/CCI_DARE.pdf
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado at Boulder. N.d. “Position Summary.”http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/publications/factsheets/positions/PS-001.pdf
Drug Abuse Resistance Education. 1996. “Home.” Accessed February 2011.http://www.dare.com/home/default.asp
Ennett, Susan T., Nancy S. Tobler, Christopher L. Ringwalt, Robert L. Flewelling. 1994. “How Effective Is Drug Abuse Resistance Education? A Meta-Analysis of Project DARE Outcome Evaluations.” American Journal of Public Health
Hansen, William B., and Ralph B. McNeal Jr. 1997. “How D.A.R.E. Works: An Examination of Program Effects on Mediating Variables.” Health Education Behavior
Ringwalt, L. Christopher, Susan T. Ennett, and Kathleen D. Holt. 1991. “An Outcome Evaluation of Project DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education).” Health Education Research
Ringwalt, L. Christopher, Jody M. Greene, Susan T. Ennett, Ronaldo Iachan, Richard R. Clayton, and Carl G. Leukefeld. 1994. “Past and Future Directions of the D.A.R.E. Program: An Evaluation Review.” Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/152055.htm
Rosenbaum, Dennis P., Robert L. Flewelling, Susan L. Bailey, Chris L. Ringwalt, Deanna L. Wilkinson. 1994. “Cops in the Classroom: A Longitudinal Evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE).” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
Rosenbaum, Dennis P. 2007. “Just Say No to D.A.R.E.” Criminology and Public Policy
Sigler, Robert T., and Gregory B. Talley. 1995. “Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program Effectiveness.” American Journal of Police