Program Profile: Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) (1983-2009)

This is a school-based drug use prevention program, taught by police officers, which was designed for students in the sixth through 12th grades. The primary goal was to teach peer resistance and refusal skills so that adolescents can say “no” to drugs. The program is rated Ineffective. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment and control group participants in drug use, attitudes toward drug use, or self-esteem.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

NOTE: The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program described below is not the current version of the curriculum. This version of the curriculum was available for schools between 1983 and 2009. See the program note below to learn about the DARE curriculum currently available.

Program Goals

The primary goal of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) was to teach effective peer resistance and refusal skills so that adolescents can say “no” to drugs and their friends who may want them to use drugs. The secondary goals of the program were to build students’ social skills and enhance their self-esteem, as these are believed to be linked to adolescent drug use. 

DARE was developed in 1983 as a joint effort between the Los Angeles County (Calif.) School District and the Los Angeles Police Department. In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act to promote drug abuse education and prevention programs across the country, and DARE spread rapidly, with many school districts adopting it for their students. By 1994, DARE was the most widely used school-based drug prevention program, showing up in all 50 states in the United States and spreading to six foreign countries.

Target Population/Eligibility
 

DARE was initially designed for elementary school students, specifically fifth and sixth graders. Over the years, curriculum was also developed for middle and high school students. The early focus of the program was to inoculate or strengthen children to resist the temptation of drug experimentation and the pressure of peers who want them to engage in drug use.  

Program Activities

The core curriculum of DARE consisted of 17 lessons, one given each week. These lessons were taught by police officers in school classrooms. Lessons lasted about 45 minutes to 1 hour. Following is a brief description ,of the 17 lessons (Rosenbaum et al. 1994):

• Lesson 1: Introduction and personal safety: Introduction and discussion of personal rights and general safety practices
• Lesson 2: Drug use and misuse: The harmful effects from misuse of drugs
• Lesson 3: Consequences: Consequences of using alcohol, cigarettes, and illegal drugs
• Lesson 4: Resisting pressures: Different types of pressures to use drugs are identified and discussed
• Lesson 5: Resistance techniques: Students learn refusal strategies to combat peer pressure
• Lesson 6: Building self-esteem: Importance of self-image and how to identify positive qualities in yourself and others
• Lesson 7: Assertiveness: Personal rights and responsibilities and situations that call for being assertive
• Lesson 8: Managing stress: Identifying stress and ways to cope with it without drugs
• Lesson 9: Media influences: Discussion of movies, television, and advertising techniques
• Lesson 10: Decision-making and risk-taking: Discussion of risky behavior and consequences of choices
• Lesson 11: Drug-use alternatives: Other activities students can engage in besides drug use
• Lesson 12: Role modeling: Role models that do not use drugs and older students that have stayed away from drugs
• Lesson 13: Support systems: Types of support groups and barriers to friendship
• Lesson 14: Gang pressures: Discussion of gangs and the consequences of gang activity
• Lesson 15: DARE summary: DARE review
• Lesson 16: Taking a stand: Discussion of how to stand up for yourself when pressured to use drugs
• Lesson 17: DARE culmination: Award assembly and encouragement of participants to stay away from drugs

Program Theory

DARE used the social influence approach to drug-use prevention. This psychosocial approach emphasized and aimed to strengthen children’s refusal skills so they can better resist social pressures to try and use drugs. It also builds general social competencies to help prevent or at least delay adolescent drug use. The core curriculum was built for and targeted children in their last years of elementary school, fifth and sixth grades. It is thought that this is the age where children are most receptive to antidrug messages and catches them before they experiment or are pressured to experiment with drugs by their peers. DARE officers received 80 hours of training in classroom management, teaching strategies, communication skills, adolescent development, drug information, and thorough instruction on DARE’s 17 lessons.

Program Note

In 2009, DARE America adopted the keepin’ it REAL (kiR) curriculum for middle school students (CrimeSolutions reviewed three studies evaluating the kiR program and rated all three as Class 5–Inconclusive Evidence). 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).

Study

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 the DARE treatment or the control group. 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 CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the differences between the treatment and control groups at the Wave 4, 2-year follow up.

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 dependent 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. Subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the differences in program effects between students in urban and rural areas.

Study

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 control groups. These 8 control group 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 CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on the differences between the treatment and control group schools at the 5-year follow up.

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 control 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. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Subgroup Analyses

Ennett and colleagues (1994) conducted subgroup analyses to examine the differences between students in urban and rural areas. They found no statistically significant differences between urban and rural students who participated in DARE in substance use, attitudes toward drug use, or self-esteem at the 2-year follow up.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

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.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Day, L. Edward, Michelle Miller-Day, Michael L. Hecht, and Desiree Fehmie. 2017. “Coming to the New D.A.R.E.: A Preliminary Test of the Officer-Taught Elementary keepin’ it REAL curriculum.” Addictive Behaviors 74:67–73.

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 84:1394–1401.

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 24:165–76.

Hecht, Michael L., Flavio Francisco Marsiglia, Elvira Elek, David A. Wagstaff, Stephen Kulis, Patricia A. Dustman, and Michelle Miller–Day. 2003. “Culturally Grounded Substance Use Prevention: An Evaluation of the keepin’ it R.E.A.L. Curriculum.” Prevention Science 4(4):233–48.

Ringwalt, L. Christopher, Susan T. Ennett, and Kathleen D. Holt. 1991. “An Outcome Evaluation of Project DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education).” Health Education Research 6:327–37.

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.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

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 31:3–31.

Rosenbaum, Dennis P. 2007. “Just Say No to D.A.R.E.” Criminology and Public Policy 6: 815–24.

Sigler, Robert T., and Gregory B. Talley. 1995. “Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program Effectiveness.” American Journal of Police 14:111–21.