Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry
| Sign the Petition to Let Us Pay Taxes | Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry |
| US Government Publications on Drugs | ||||
| General Accounting Office Publications |
|
|
Past and Future Directions of the D.A.R.E. Program:An Evaluation Review Draft Final Report by Research Triangle Institute September 1994 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii SECTION 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=20 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-13 SECTION 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-10 Chapter 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=20 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 . . . . . . . . . . 6-5 Chapter 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-14 SECTION 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=20 to Other Drug Use Prevention Programs=20 for Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-11 Methodological Considerations . . . . . . . . . .7-17 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-19 SECTION IV: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 Implementation Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1 Outcome Assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-12 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-21 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-1 Appendices A Sampling for School District Drug Prevention Coordinators Survey B 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=20 Core Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-14 3.1 Jurisdictions of D.A.R.E.'s Regional=20 Training Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 4.1 Percentage of State D.A.R.E. Programs Primarily =20 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.=20 Educational Advisors Reporting to the=20 Employers of These Advisors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 4.4 Percentage of State D.A.R.E. Coordinators=20 and Policy Advisory Boards Performing=20 Various Functions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 4.5 Funding Received in 1991-1992 School Year=20 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=20 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=20 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,=20 and Urbanicity of the School District. . . . . . . . .5-14 5.7 Substances Targeted by, and Types of=20 Instructor of, the Three Most Frequently Mentioned Alcohol and Drug=20 Prevention Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-15 5.8 Sources of Funding for D.A.R.E. and=20 Other Alcohol and Drug Prevention Programs=20 in the 1991-1992 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-17 5.9 Components of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol=20 and Drug Prevention Programs Rated as=20 Very Satisfactory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-17 5.10 Components of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol=20 and Drug Prevention Programs Rated as=20 Very Satisfactory, by Minority Status=20 of School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-18 5.11 Components of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol=20 and Drug Prevention Programs Rated as=20 Very Satisfactory, by Urbanicity of=20 School District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-19=20 Number Page 5.12 Individuals, Groups, and Agencies Very Supportive of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol and Drug Prevention=20 Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-19 5.13 Individuals, Groups, and Agencies Very Supportive of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol=20 and Drug Prevention Programs, by=20 SES of School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-20 5.14 Individuals, Groups, and Agencies Very Supportive of D.A.R.E. and Other=20 Alcohol and Drug Prevention=20 Programs, by Size of School District . . . . . . . . .5-20 5.15 Adaptations of D.A.R.E. and Other Alcohol=20 and Drug Prevention Curricula to Meet=20 Specific Needs of District . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-21 5.16 Individuals Trained to Participate in=20 Student Assistance Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-23 5.17 Effectiveness in Implementing Student Assistance Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-23 7.1 D.A.R.E. Evaluation Studies (N=3D18) . . . . . . . . . . 7-4 7.2 Sample and Methodological Characteristics=20 of the D.A.R.E. Evaluations (N =3D 8). . . . . . . . . . 7-6 7.3 Unweighted Effect Sizes at Immediate=20 Posttest Associated with Eight=20 Evaluations of D.A.R.E.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9 7.4 Magnitude of D.A.R.E.'s Weighted Mean=20 Effect Size (and 95% Confidence Interval),=20 by Outcome Measures at Immediate Posttest. . . . . . .7-10 7.5 Comparison Drug Use Prevention=20 Programs (N=3D25). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-12 7.6 Weighted Mean Effect Size (and=20 95% Confidence Interval), by Outcome=20 for D.A.R.E. and Other Drug=20 Use Prevention Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-14 7.7 Difference Between Mean Effect Sizes=20 (and 95% Confidence Interval),=20 by Outcome, for D.A.R.E. and=20 Other Drug Use Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . .7-15 7.8 Weighted Mean Effect Size, by Drug, for D.A.R.E. and Other Drug Use=20 Prevention Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-16 7.9 Difference Between Mean Effect Sizes=20 (and 95% Confidence Interval),=20 by Drug, for D.A.R.E. and Other=20 Drug Use Prevention Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 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
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.=20 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. =20 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.=20 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.=20 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=20 o number of grade levels with substance abuse curricula, o school-wide emphasis on substance abuse prevention,=20 o number of teachers and staff involved, and=20 o number of students involved. =20 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:=20 (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. =20 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.=20 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).=20 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.=20 A detailed examination of the roles of national, regional, and State D.A.R.E. organizations is presented in Section II, Chapter 3.=20 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,=20 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. =20 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.=20 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.=20 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.=20 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 Descript= ion 1 First visit/personal safety Introduction of D.A.R.E. and law enforcement officer; safety practices; discussion of personal rights 2 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 =20 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=20 17 D.A.R.E. culmination Reinforces the values and skills learned; recognizes individual achievement of all participants=20 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=20 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:=20 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 communication 2 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). =20 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. =20 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.=20 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. =20 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. =20 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.=20 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.=20 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 Curriculum Curricular Strategies Session Social Skills Topic Cognitive=20 Affective Skills 1 Introducing D.A.R.E. X 2 Understanding the effects of mind- X altering drugs 3 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 drugs 9 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 alternatives 13 Positive role modeling X X 14 Resisting gang and group X violence 15 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. =20 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.=20 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.=20 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.=20 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. =20 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.=20 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.=20 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.=20 Exhibit 3.1 Jurisdictions of D.A.R.E.'s Regional Training Centers Southeast Midwest =20 Southwest East RTC RTC RTC RTC West RTC Connecticut Alabama Arkansas =20 Alaska California* Delaware Florida Illinois* =20 Arizona* Hawaii District of Columbia Georgia Indiana =20 Colorado Idaho Maine Louisiana Iowa =20 Kansas Montana Maryland Mississippi Kentucky =20 Nebraska Nevada Massachusetts North Carolina* Michigan New Mexico North Dakota New Hampshire South Carolina Minnesota =20 Oklahoma Oregon New Jersey Tennessee Missouri South Dakota Washington New York Ohio Texas =20 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. =20 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."=20 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.=20 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.=20 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.=20 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.=20 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.=20 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.=20 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. =20 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. =20 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.=20 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.=20 We, therefore, did not delete these responses from our analysis. It should be noted, however, that because of skip patterns in the survey instrument, these four respondents did not complete survey items specifically directed to the State D.A.R.E. coordinator. =20 Findings Administration To address issues raised in the NIJ solicitation concerning management of the D.A.R.E. program, we asked a series of questions about the agencies involved in D.A.R.E.'s administration at the State level, the functions of each agency, and the relationships among them. Findings from these questions are presented below. Agencies Involved. We first asked respondents to report the agency with primary responsibility for managing the State D.A.R.E. program. As shown in Exhibit 4.1, the great majority of States indicated that a law enforcement or criminal justice agency was entrusted with this responsibility. =20 Exhibit 4.1 Percentage of State D.A.R.E. Programs Primarily Managed by Various State and Local Agencies Agency (N=3D39) % State Department of Public Safety 17.8 State Police 15.4 State Investigative Agency 7.7 State Highway Patrol 5.1 Other State Criminal Justice Agency 10.3 Governor's Office 7.7 State Attorney General's Office 10.3 State Department of Education/ Public Instruction 2.6 City/County Law Enforcement Agency 12.8 D.A.R.E. Agency 5.1 Board on Public Safety Training=20 and Standards 2.6 Association of Chiefs of Police 2.6 100.0 States are encouraged to establish statewide boards that will help ensure that the State D.A.R.E. program accommodates competing points of view, remains responsive to the needs of its constituency, and continues as a permanent component of State prevention activities (BJA, 1988). We asked coordinators if the State had a policy advisory board (PAB), and 15 States (38%) reported affirmatively. To explore PAB membership, we asked the 15 coordinators with PABs to indicate the agencies/individuals who held memberships on these boards and to indicate the representative who chaired it.=20 Exhibit 4.2 shows that 65% or more of the States with PABs listed State and local educational agencies, local law enforcement agencies, and State D.A.R.E. officer associations among their members. The leadership role of the PABs was primarily held by law enforcement representatives. The board was chaired by State law enforcement agencies in six States, by local law enforcement in three States, by local education agencies in two States, by the State Department of Education in one State, by another State agency in one State, and by an Association of Chiefs of Police in one State. =20 Exhibit 4.2 Percentage of States with D.A.R.E. Policy Advisory Boards Having Representation of Various Agencies and Individuals on Such Boards Agency/Individual (N=3D15) %1 State Law Enforcement Agency 60.0 Local Law Enforcement Agency 80.0 Representatives for Other Criminal Justice 13.3 Agencies State D.A.R.E. Officers' Association 73.3 Police Associations 20.0 State Department of Education/Public Instruction 86.7 Regional, County, or Local Education 66.7 Associations of Educators 26.7 University Representative 6.7 State Alcohol/Drug Abuse Agency 46.7 Governor's Office 26.7 State Legislature 20.0 State Judiciary 13.3 Other State Agency 33.3 Parents 26.7 Community-Based Organizations 26.7 Citizens-at-Large 13.3 Business Representatives 13.3 1Column percents will total more than 100.0% because multiple responses could be indicated by the same respondent. Yet another agency encouraged to become involved in D.A.R.E. is the State Department of Education. States are encouraged to retain an educational consultant to act as a liaison between the State Department of Education, local school administrators, and D.A.R.E. instructors (BJA, 1988). We, therefore, asked if the State had an educational consultant. Twenty-five (64%) of the 39 respondents reported having an educational advisor, and two States reported two advisors. Further, we inquired about the employers of these consultants and found that educational systems employed 17 of the 27 educational advisors and law enforcement agencies employed 4 (Exhibit 4.3). Exhibit 4.3 Percentage of States with D.A.R.E. Educational Advisors Reporting to the Employers of These Advisors Employer (N=3D25) %1 State Department of Education 20.0 Local School Systems 36.0 Boards of Education 12.0 College/University 4.0 State Highway Patrol 8.0 Other Law Enforcement Agencies 8.0 Other State Agencies 12.0 Private Consultants 8.0 1Column percents will total more than 100.0% because multiple responses could be indicated by the same respondent. Functions. Next, we sought to examine the responsibilities of both the State D.A.R.E. coordinators and the PABs by asking respondents to indicate the functions of each agency (Exhibit 4.4). The most fre- quently mentioned roles of State D.A.R.E. coordinators were D.A.R.E. advocacy and officer training within the State. The most frequently mentioned roles of PABs were formulating State policy, exploring funding sources, and advocating for D.A.R.E.=20 We also asked respondents to list functions performed by the State D.A.R.E. coordinators and the PABs that were not provided as close-ended response options.=20 Additional duties mentioned for State D.A.R.E. coordinators included=20 o acting as liaison to other D.A.R.E. agencies (three States), o distributing D.A.R.E. materials (three States), o making and managing grant applications (two States), o training D.A.R.E. officers for schools on military bases (one State), o recertifying officers (one State), o selecting officers (one State), and o serving as a clearinghouse for information (one State). Other duties performed by the PABs included long-term planning (two States) and the selection and supervision of the State D.A.R.E. coordinator (one State). Exhibit 4.4 Percentage of State D.A.R.E. Coordinators and Policy Advisory Boards Performing Various Functions State D.A.R.E. Policy Advisory Coordinator=20 Board Functions (N=3D35)=20 (N=3D15) Formulating State policy 82.9=20 86.7 Advocating D.A.R.E. 97.1=20 66.7 Exploring funding sources 80.0=20 73.3 Distributing funds 34.3=20 33.3 Training D.A.R.E. officers within the State 91.4=20 26.7 Training D.A.R.E. officers from other States 68.6=20 26.7 Follow-up in-service training 77.1=20 33.3 Direct student instruction 48.6=20 20.0 Implementation/development of local sites 80.0=20 26.7 On-site monitoring of D.A.R.E. officers activities 71.4=20 33.3 Program evaluation 77.1=20 53.3 Approving school districts' involvement with D.A.R.E. 45.7=20 60.0 Approving local law enforcements' involvement with D.A.R.E. 71.4=20 26.7 D.A.R.E. officer certification 82.9=20 60.0 D.A.R.E. officer decertification 68.6=20 53.3 Communication. As mentioned earlier, State D.A.R.E. programs are strongly encouraged to develop relationships with State Departments of Education.=20 Having an educational consultant, however, does not guarantee communication between the agencies. We, therefore, asked the State coordinators about how well they communicate with the Department of Education. Most of the State D.A.R.E. coordinators reported having a great deal (35%) or some (47%) communication with the State Department of Education. In six States, coordinators reported little communication, and only one reported none. Seven coordinators (20%) reported having a signed agreement between the State D.A.R.E. coordinator and the Department of Education. =20 We also asked coordinators about the level of communication between the PABs and the State Department of Education. Most of the coordinators reported that PABs had a great deal of communication with the Depart- ment of Education. Eight of the 15 States with PABs reported that their boards had a great deal of communication, three reported some communication, three reported little, and one reported none. =20 Only one State reported that both the State D.A.R.E. coordinator and the PAB had little communication with the Department of Education. Funding The NIJ solicitation also requested information on funding arrangements for D.A.R.E. To this end, we asked respondents to report the amount of funding received by the primary managing agency. Exhibit 4.5 presents ranges of funding received for D.A.R.E. at the State level. Four States reported that no funds were received for State-level D.A.R.E. operations, and two State coordinators were unable to provide this information. =20 The mean amount of funds received by the primary managing agency for operating D.A.R.E. at the State level in the 1991-1992 school year (excluding $0 values) was $273,657; funding ranged from $25,000 to $2,635,000. The total amount received by the responding States was $9,260,700. Exhibit 4.5 Funding Received in 1991-1992 School Year for State-Level D.A.R.E. Operations Funding Range (N=3D39) % $ 0 10.3 $ 25,000 - 49,000 12.8 $ 50,000 - 99,999 28.2 $100,000 - 299,999 25.6 $300,000 + 17.9 Data Unavailable 5.1 We asked the 33 respondents who reported the amount of funding for State-level operations to identify the sources of this funding (Exhibit 4.6). Four of the 33 respondents did not answer this question. We also asked coordinators to indicate the percentage of funds received from each source. Fifteen States indicated that all funds were received from one source (six from the BJA, four from State governors' grants, two from the State Department of Education, two from legislative funds, and one from other sources). Eight States reported that funding was received from two sources, and eight States reported receiving funding from three or more sources. =20 Additionally, we asked respondents to report other sources of funding not mentioned in the close-ended response options. Responses included State and local matching funds, special education trust funds, State penalty assessment funds, funds from the Exhibit 4.6 Number of States Receiving Funds for State- Level Operations from Sources in 1991-1992 School Year Funding Source (N=3D31) % Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant 58.1 Grant from Governor's Office 29.0 State Department of Education 12.9 Legislative Funds 25.8 Grant from Other State Agency 29.0 Local Funds 9.7 Corporate Donations 9.7 Individual Donations 3.2 Civic or Community Groups 3.2 D.A.R.E. America 3.2* *As indicated by Question 2 of the State D.A.R.E. coordinator survey, this information refers to funding of State-level D.A.R.E. programs only. D.A.R.E. America has informed us that all State-level programs receive support from D.A.R.E. America (Glenn Levant, personal communi- cation, August 9, 1994). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), fund-raisers, and Federal forfeiture funds. State Training Centers As mentioned in Chapter 3, one goal of the RTCs has been to develop STCs in their geographic areas.=20 Increasingly, RTCs have adopted a "train the trainer" model to prepare STCs in their jurisdiction to conduct their own D.A.R.E. officer training and certification procedures. We, therefore, asked coordinators whether their State had its own STC. About 87% (34 States) reported affirmatively. One of the five States without a training center reported that the State was in the process of establishing a training center. Implementation To obtain a general idea of the level of implementation of each of D.A.R.E.'s curricula, we asked respondents to indicate each curriculum used in the State during the 1991-1992 school year. All respondents reported that the core curriculum and the K-4 visitations were used in at least one school in the State.=20 Furthermore, 28 States (72%) implemented the junior high curriculum, 26 States (67%) implemented the senior high school curriculum, and 9 States (23%) implemented the parent curriculum in at least one school. Challenges and Problems To acquire an understanding of the challenges and problems facing D.A.R.E. and the State D.A.R.E. coordina- tor in the coming years, we asked two open-ended questions about these issues. We categorized the responses and counted the number of State coordinators indicating each category. (We advise caution in using these findings to make recommendations given the small number of coordinators mentioning each category.) =20 First, we asked respondents to identify the most significant issues they face in working with the State's Department of Education. The two most common responses were improving communication between agencies (mentioned by eight States) and acquiring a full-time educational advisor (mentioned by seven States). Most of the other responses were specific actions that coordinators wanted the State Department of Education to undertake, such as o assisting with program evaluation and monitoring D.A.R.E. officers (six States), o formally mandating the D.A.R.E. program (three States), o understanding the role of law enforcement in education (three States), o assisting with funding for D.A.R.E. (three States), o providing greater support for the D.A.R.E. program (two States), o assisting in training programs (one State), and o helping resolve problems between officers and teachers (one State). We then asked respondents to indicate the most significant issues facing the State D.A.R.E. coordinator. It should be noted that most of these issues could be mentioned by coordinators of other drug prevention programs, as well as coordinators of D.A.R.E.=20 Most of the responses centered on funding, communication, evaluation, and training. The responses, by category, were as follows:=20 Funding o maintaining or increasing funding (13 States) o locating funding sources (8 States) o locating funding specifically for training (6 States) Communication o increasing communication between D.A.R.E. agencies at the local, regional, and national levels (10 States) o improving relations with State Department of Education (4 States) o coping with the disorganization of the program (4 States) o improving public relations (3 States) o keeping up with constantly shifting policies of the D.A.R.E. America RTC Advisory Board (2 States) Evaluation o monitoring officers in the classroom (8 States) o evaluating the program (4 States) Training o improving training (3 States) o handling problem officers (2 States) o obtaining STC certification (1 State) Staffing o increasing staffing (6 States) o formally establishing a State D.A.R.E. coordinator position (2 States) o forming a PAB (2 States) Expansion o expanding D.A.R.E. to other grades or schools (7 States). Summary This chapter focused on a survey of the administrators of the State D.A.R.E. programs. Thirty- nine of the 44 States with State D.A.R.E. coordinators responded to the survey. =20 We found that most of the State D.A.R.E. programs are managed by law enforcement or criminal justice agencies and that most retain educational consultants.=20 About two-fifths of the States had PABs. Most of the coordinators reported high levels of communication between themselves and the State Department of Education.=20 They also reported high levels of communication between the PABs and the Department of Education. Most States received at least $50,000 in funding for training and administrative purposes, and most States had their own STC. Findings from this chapter and resulting recommendations are discussed fully in Chapter 8. CHAPTER 5 SCHOOL DISTRICT DRUG PREVENTION COORDINATOR SURVEY A survey of school district drug prevention coordinators was the main component of our implementation assessment. This component of the assessment was conducted to fulfill NIJ's request for information about the implementation of D.A.R.E. and other school-based drug prevention programs at the local level. NIJ specifically requested information on the following questions: o Who usually manages the D.A.R.E. program at the local level? o How involved in D.A.R.E. are classroom teachers, churches, and community groups? o How extensively are D.A.R.E. and other school-based alcohol and other drug (AOD) prevention programs implemented nationwide in terms of geography, target populations (such as ethnic groups, economic strata, and urbanicity), and grade levels? o How do other AOD programs compare with D.A.R.E. and D.A.R.E. with them? o What are local funding arrangements for D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs? How do these resources affect implementation? A careful reading of these questions reveals that NIJ had three primary objectives: (a) to secure information about the administration of D.A.R.E., (b) to develop estimates of the national prevalence of D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs, and (c) to make comparisons between D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs on a variety of issues. =20 RTI staff developed and conducted a comprehensive survey of school district drug prevention coordinators that addressed each of the above-mentioned objectives and questions. We selected drug prevention coordinators as respondents, as opposed to classroom teachers or police officers, because we believed that drug prevention coordinators were the school district staff members best able to provide us with a broad perspective on all drug prevention activities in the district, including both D.A.R.E. and other AOD prevention programs. This chapter presents the methodology and findings for this survey. We should note that for this chapter the results we display will be descriptive, as opposed to explanatory, in nature. That is, our purpose is to report what the school district drug prevention coordinators have told us, and not attempt to explain why they responded as they did. Although efforts to explain our respondents' answer are feasible, we believe they would ultimately prove unsatisfactory because our explanatory variables (e.g., the school districts' racial balance or percentage of youth in poverty) are very limited, and any differences we find may be misleading. The findings section first presents information we received from districts with D.A.R.E., followed by estimates of the numbers of districts with D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs, and comparisons of D.A.R.E. with other AOD programs. At the end of the findings section, we also provide some general information about drug policies in all the districts surveyed. Methodology Sample Design The sample design for the school district drug prevention coordinators' survey was a two-phased stratified random sample. The two-phases of the sample design was necessary to meet the multiple goals of this survey. The goal of the first-phase sample was to produce estimates by region, district size, socioeconomic status (SES) categories, ethnicity categories, and urbanicity. The goal of the second-phase sample was to enable comparisons between districts with and without D.A.R.E. A detailed discussion of each phase of the sample design is discussed below. Sampling frame. The first step in our sampling design was to obtain a list of public school districts nationwide. We obtained such a list from Quality Educational Data (QED) Inc., of Denver, Colorado. The QED file, which is updated every summer, lists all public school districts nationwide and contains a wealth of useful information for each school district. We used this file as our sampling frame. Information that we used from this file included the school district's o SES (defined as the percentage of children in the district below poverty level), o urbanicity (defined as urban, suburban, or rural), o ethnicity (defined as the percentage of children in the district who were black or Hispanic), and o district size (defined as the number of students enrolled in the district). =20 For each of the 14,715 districts on the QED file, we created five new variables that we later used for stratification and weighting purposes. First, we created a region variable that was based on the jurisdictions of D.A.R.E.'s five RTCs (see Chapter 3, Exhibit 3.1). Next, to keep the total number of stratum cells within reasonable bounds, we dichotomized urbanicity, SES, ethnicity, and district size. We first collapsed the urban and suburban categories on the QED file into one category. We computed percentiles for minority status, SES, and district size within each region-by-urbanicity group. We then used the median of each variable to define two categories (low/high) for each of the three variables. The number and percentage of school districts in the sampling frame in each of the strata are presented in Appendix A, Exhibit A.1. First-Phase Sampling. The goal of the first-phase of our sampling design was to ensure that we selected a nationally representative sample of school districts.=20 Additionally, we wanted to ensure that districts in each region, urbanicity category, SES category, minority status category, and district size category were adequately sampled. Therefore, our first-phase sample was a stratified random sample. =20 The first step in selecting our first-phase sample was to define each strata. We initially constructed 10 region-by-urbanicity strata by crossing the 5 regional strata with the 2 urbanicity strata. We then crossed each of these 10 strata with 2 SES categories (resulting in 20 strata). We then crossed each of those 20 strata by minority status (resulting in 40 strata). Finally, we crossed each of those 40 strata by district size (resulting in 80 strata). The number of school districts in the sampling frame in each of the 80 strata is presented in Appendix A, Exhibit A.2. The next step in our sampling design was to determine how districts from each strata would be selected for inclusion in the first-phase sample. We assayed two methods of allocating the sample to strata.=20 In the first method, we assigned equal sample sizes across strata (i.e., we sampled 15 districts from every stratum regardless of whether the stratum in the sampling frame contained 15 or 200 districts). This method would have ensured good precision across strata. In the second method, we assigned sample sizes proportional to the frame size within each stratum. For example, if 5% of the districts in the sampling frame were in a particular stratum, proportional sampling would have ensured that 5% of the first-phase sample would be allocated to that same stratum. Unlike equal allocation, proportional allocation yields approximately equal sampling weights, reduces variance, and thus provides better precision for overall survey estimates. =20 Because of its clear advantages, we chose proportional sampling. Thus, we randomly selected a proportional number of school districts within each of the 80 strata. The first-phase sample consisted of 1,500 school districts. Exhibits displaying the sample allocation to strata are provided in Appendix A, Exhibits A.3 and A.4. Second-Phase Sampling. The goal of the second- phase of our sampling design was to ensure that the second-phase sample included both D.A.R.E. and non- D.A.R.E. school districts. To make this determination, we asked State D.A.R.E. or DFSCA coordinators to classify the 1,500 school districts in the first-phase sample as either D.A.R.E. or non-D.A.R.E. districts (see Chapter 4). Because some State coordinators did not return this information or only partially completed the information, we created a third category of school districts with an unknown D.A.R.E. status. State coordinators reported that 43% of the sampled districts used D.A.R.E. and 40% did not; D.A.R.E. status was unknown for 17% of the districts. Exhibit A.5 in Appendix A displays the responses of the State coordinators on the D.A.R.E. status of the first-phase sample by region. The next step in selecting our second-phase sample was to determine the number of districts to be selected.=20 Calculations to determine the number of districts needed in the second-phase sample were based first on the type of analysis we planned to conduct and second on an anticipated 80% response rate. Because we calculated that 400 responding school districts were necessary to achieve sufficient statistical power and precision, we selected a second-phase sample of 500 school districts. Finally, we used the classifications provided by the State coordinators to select proportional numbers of school districts with D.A.R.E., without D.A.R.E., and with unknown D.A.R.E. status across the five regions.=20 Thus, we selected 215 school districts with D.A.R.E., 200 without D.A.R.E., and 85 with unknown D.A.R.E. status.=20 Exhibit A.6 in Appendix A displays the second-phase sample by region and D.A.R.E. status. Survey Estimation. All survey estimates were computed using software developed at RTI specifically for the analysis of surveys based on complex sample designs.=20 We computed analysis weights that took into account the two-phase stratified sample design. Weighted data provides a less biased estimate than unweighted data because the weighted data more accurately represents the true population. The weights varied across strata based on region, ethnic composition, urbanicity, SES, and size of the school district. Analysis weights were computed as the product of the first-phase sample weight and the second-phase sample weight. Sampling weights were also adjusted for nonresponse. We performed quality checks on the analysis weights to ensure that the sum of the analysis weights coincides with the number of districts in the frame. We also examined the variability of the analyses weights and their impact on survey variances. Instrument Design RTI staff determined the contents of the school district drug prevention coordinators' survey based on the research issues raised in NIJ's solicitation, discussions with NIJ personnel, a review of the literature, and examination of the studies of drug education programming previously conducted at RTI. We used close-ended items whenever possible to minimize ambiguity and burden. A few open-ended questions were included to encourage respondents to provide detailed information. =20 All drug prevention coordinators completed a set of core items that were designed to provide background information about the district and about the specific drug prevention curricula used. Additionally, coordinators in districts using D.A.R.E., alone or in combination with other drug prevention curricula, completed a set of items concerning the D.A.R.E. program only. Coordinators in districts using other AOD prevention programs, alone or in combination with D.A.R.E., completed a set of items concerning other AOD (i.e., non-D.A.R.E.) programs only. Therefore, school districts implementing D.A.R.E. and other AOD programs answered both sets of items. After submitting the data collection instrument to our NIJ program manager for comment and discussion, we formally pretested all data collection materials and procedures. Both regional and State DFSCA coordinators assisted in identifying pretest subjects. Seven school district drug prevention coordinators (two in New York, two in South Dakota, one in North Carolina, one in Rhode Island, and one in South Carolina) completed a pretest questionnaire in early April 1992. We used the responses of pretest participants, as well as the comments of our NIJ program manager and other AOD prevention program experts, to make final decisions on the data collection procedures and instruments. A copy of the survey instrument and other data collection materials for this component of the study can be found in Appendix D. Data Collection On May 1, 1992, we mailed a cover letter, questionnaire, and prepaid return envelope to school district drug prevention coordinators in each of the 500 selected school districts. The cover letter included a brief statement of study objectives, information on how the data would be used, and confidentiality assurances.=20 Approximately 2 weeks after the initial mailing, we sent postcards to coordinators who had not responded. The postcard asked if the initial packet had been received, reminded the coordinator of the importance of the study, and offered the RTI toll-free number in case assistance was needed. Upon request, we provided duplicate mailouts. Four packages were returned as undeliverable. Each of these was followed up by telephone inquiry to ascertain the correct address. We obtained correct addresses for three of the four returned packages and remailed the material. The remaining school district had recently merged with another school district. Because this merged district was already included in the sample, the duplicate was dropped. We began making follow-up telephone calls to nonresponders approximately 2 weeks after the reminder postcards were mailed. Follow-up phone calls were made by trained RTI telephone interviewers between June 2 and July 15, 1992. Interviewers encouraged coordinators to complete and return their instruments as soon as possible. Those coordinators who indicated to interviewers that they would not otherwise complete the instrument were asked to complete the survey over the telephone. The survey instrument was exactly the same for |