LOUISIANA D.A.R.E. RESEARCH PROJECT
Winter/Spring 2000-2001
Overview:
The
Louisiana D.A.R.E. Evaluation Project was conducted in the winter of 2000 and
the spring of 2001. The project was planned and developed by Research and Educational
Services in conjunction with the Red River Delta Law Enforcement Planning
Center and their governing board. The purpose of the project was to identify
outcomes associated with the implementation of the Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (D.A.R.E.) program in the State of Louisiana. This was accomplished by examining the
differences in outcomes between subjects that are not served by the D.A.R.E.
program and those that have participated in the program at some level. There
was further interest in the contributions associated with the core curriculum
delivered in the elementary grade and what is gained by having reinforcement in
place in the form of the Junior High program. The resulting questions were
developed.
1)
What differences
exist between ninth grade students who are served by D.A.R.E. and students who
do not receive these services?
2)
What differences
exist between ninth grade school populations comparing students who received
D.A.R.E. Core programming and students who were never involved in D.A.R.E?
3) What differences exist between ninth grade
school populations
comparing students who completed only D.A.R.E. Core
programming and students who were involved in both D.A.R.E. Core and the Junior
High D.A.R.E. Program?
There
was a need to be able to generalize the results as much as possible to the area
served by Louisiana D.A.R.E. and the Red River Law Enforcement Planning Center.
The curriculum and method of delivery is standardized for all programs in the
state. The methodology used in delivery of the lessons is controlled and not
subject to change or differences from one location to the next. Programs that were selected to serve as
treatment groups had been monitored to insure the integrity of the program. The instructional techniques of the officers
involved in the curriculum presentation adhered to the prescribed methodology
demonstrated in the D.A.R.E. officer training.
Methodology:
Sample:
The
sample for the study consisted of over 40 schools in approximately 17 parishes
around the state of Louisiana. This included representation across urban,
suburban, and rural areas as well as all racial and economic groups. The
identity of schools that volunteer to participate will be kept anonymous. Prior
experience using this methodology to collect data from sites has been and once
again was successful. The Louisiana D.A.R.E. Research Project was designed as a
quasi-experimental study. The intent was to develop as much rigor as possible
in the design, to be able to generalize results across the entire state, and to
control for extraneous variables. The state of Louisiana was divided into five
geographic regions. The groups selected for participation were developed around
both the geographic regions and population centers within those regions. The
school districts representing each of the regions in the research were
selected randomly from programs in the
region that implemented the D.A.R.E. curriculum exactly as trained. The
distribution also reflected the ethnic/racial distribution of the state. The distribution
of the sample group was as follows:
Table 1:
Ethnicity
|
Ethnicity |
Percentage |
Ethnicity |
Percentage |
|
White |
58.6% |
Spanish |
3.1% |
|
Black |
27.3% |
Asian |
1.6% |
|
Alaskan |
.4% |
Puerto Rican |
1% |
|
Ethnicity |
Percentage |
Ethnicity |
Percentage |
|
Indian |
2.0% |
Other |
2.9% |
|
Mexican |
1.0% |
Unknown |
2.1% |
The
original sample size for the project was
5,032. The sample consisted of
45.7% males. The sample size included
in the study was reduced to 4052. Of the
original sample, 10.3% or 518 subjects were removed due to invalid and
inconsistent responses. There was an
additional 462 surveys that arrived too late to meet deadlines. The exclusion
of some subjects was based on a number of factors. All subjects included in the
study were in grade nine. Subjects
identified in other grades were excluded.
Holding the grade level constant was utilized to examine the
intermediate effects of the program. Grade nine was also chosen to maximize the
variance associated with the behaviors tested. It has been noted that studies
using a grade 12 sample are too far removed from the program efforts to
identify residual effects. Studies that focus on subjects in elementary grade
levels are impacted by the lack of sufficient variance to identify behavior
change. By utilizing a grade nine
sample, it is possible to maximize the variance and remain in fairly close
proximity to program delivery and outcomes.
In the majority of the sample schools, the grade nine population
represents a time when students are faced with transition. Transition has been
shown to be a risk factor associated with the onset of alcohol and drug use.
All
subjects were double-checked for participation in the D.A.R.E. program. The
fact that a school district had D.A.R.E. was not enough evidence for
identifying a student as belonging in a specific group in the D.A.R.E. research
project. Careful inspection of the data
allowed for identification of subjects in the non-D.A.R.E. category at all
locations or sites. All data associated with subjects were carefully
scrutinized to uncover inconsistent or invalid responses. Subjects identified by this process were
dropped from the sample. The resulting sample was comprised of 135 non-D.A.R.E.
subjects, 1907 D.A.R.E. Core subjects, and 2010 Junior High D.A.R.E. subjects.
The
following Parishes were used to collect the sample:
Ascension Beauregard Caddo Calcasieu Concordia Franklin Jefferson LaFourche Natchitoches Rapides St. James St.
Johns
St.
Marys Tangipahoa Vernon Vermillion Winn
Instrument and Outcomes:
The
study was constructed to examine the immediate and intermediate outcomes of the
D.A.R.E. program. Many studies conducted in the past have examined the results of
the program in terms of impact on the community. The focus of this study was
not to determine if D.A.R.E. alone could generate community-wide impact but to
determine what differences existed between the populations that were exposed to
D.A.R.E. and those that were not. Inspection of these differences should be
identified by examining the constructs associated with risk and protective
factors, rather than the individual use or prevalence of drugs and alcohol in
the community. The use and prevalence of drugs and alcohol is an indicator of
the impact of the total community effort to address these issues. In the past, D.A.R.E. has borne the
responsibility to demonstrate that as a single strategy it could generate significant
changes in drug use. The truth is, that like other prevention programs,
D.A.R.E. is a contributor to the changes that take place in the community and
should be responsible for outcomes that are directly related to the objectives
of the D.A.R.E. program. The recognition that the study should focus on risk
and protective factors limited the number of instruments available to gather
data. The American Drug and Alcohol Survey was used to conduct
the data collection in this study. The instrument was developed by and is
published by the Rocky Mountain Behavioral Sciences Institute of Fort Collins
Colorado. The American Drug and Alcohol Survey has an insert
available that examines a number of factors that could reflect the student
perception of peer groups, media influence, community bonding, school bonding,
and a number of other risk and protective factors. This insert was included for
use in this study to help establish a better picture of the outcomes associated
with the D.A.R.E. program across Louisiana.
Information related to validity and reliability issues is available from
the Rocky Mountain Behavioral Sciences Institute. Further studies associated with the validity of the use of this
instrument for the specified purposes of this project are also available. The outcomes, once identified, were aligned
with the risk and protective factors. The purpose is to link the findings to
previous research conducted on the potential impact that can be generated by
the presence of these outcomes.
Data Collection:
Data collection for the project was handled
by a collaborative effort between the school district, the local Parish Sheriff
and Research and Educational Services. Red River Delta Law Enforcement Planning
Center was not involved in the project in any fashion. The majority of the
survey work was conducted with staff of Research and Educational services on
site. Due to the difficulty in trying
to obtain a sample on such short notice, two strategies were implemented:
1) The Parish Sheriff’s Office was
offered the results of county data for needs assessment purposes in return for
their assistance in contacting the local school districts. 2)
Because there is a parochial elementary school population that has not
been exposed to D.A.R.E., it was possible that enough non-D.A.R.E. students
could be located in the grade nine public school population even though
D.A.R.E. is taught in public elementary schools. Due to transfers from parochial schools to public schools at the
junior high and high school level, there is a population that moves to the
local junior high or high schools without being associated with D.A.R.E.
The
surveys were shipped to the participating districts and on the test day
representatives of Research and Educational Services were present to pick up
the surveys once they were completed.
In most cases a representative of Research and Educational Services was
present to observe that protocol for the test was followed and that the
classroom teacher was present during testing. The tests were sealed at the test
site and all envelopes remained sealed until opened at Research and Educational
Services for counting and shipping to the Rocky Mountain Behavioral Sciences
Institute. Data collection was
completed in a short time span so that the duration of data collection would
not be a factor in the student response.
All surveys were conducted between January 8 and February 21, 2001. All surveys were completed utilizing the
standardized process as designated for use of the survey. The data were divided into three groups for
processing. Group 1 consisted of data
from subjects that had never participated in a D.A.R.E. program. Group 2 represented data from subjects who
had participated in D.A.R.E. Core programs only. Group 3 was data collected from subjects with both the Core
program and programs at the junior high or intermediate level as well. The data
for all three groups were examined prior to analysis. The responses were
examined for inconsistencies in reporting. The purpose was to establish a
sample that truly represented the groups identified for analysis. Subjects were sorted by the three categories
after the examination of the data was complete. The data was also scrutinized
to identify cases where inconsistencies were found in the data associated with
use or prevalence.
Analysis:
The
data were analyzed using a two-step process. The data were first sorted by the
three groups; analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics to compare
the frequency of the responses to the survey by groups. The descriptive measures used were frequency,
mode and mean. These measures provided
information about how the response patterns were arranged, the average response
to each item and the most frequently indicated choice. The use of the mean provided a quick
inspection to determine if differences exist in the variables tested and which
direction the differences may point.
The second step was to complete analysis, which may provide evidence
that a significant difference does exist between the groups identified in the
data. Several procedures were examined
as a possibility for analysis of the data for these purposes. The decision was made to use test for
homogeneity. The decision was based on
a reference from Kirk (1984) who states that the inspection of variables that
have more than two categories require a test of homogeneity. The distribution of the responses is judged
on the assumption that the proportions in all rows are equal across all
columns. The test of homogeneity
inspects for deviation from this expected proportion. Once this deviation was identified, a second procedure was
conducted to verify how the relation between the groups was ordered. This procedure was conducted to identify
differences that exist between the three groups in response to survey items.
The level of significance was established at .05 for all analysis.
Conclusion: Question 1
The following differences were identified between subjects that had
D.A.R.E. programs and subjects that had never been exposed to the D.A.R.E.
curriculum. The following results were found in response to question one, “What
differences exist between ninth grade school populations comparing students who
received D.A.R.E. and students who were
never involved in D.A.R.E.?” The results are presented here in a format
that reflects the impact of D.A.R.E. in terms of risk factor reduction.
FAMILY RISK FACTORS
Social Isolation of
Family
Families
of the D.A.R.E. students demonstrated significantly more involvement in the
school and “knowing what goes on at school”.
Family Disorganization
The D.A.R.E. participants reported a significantly higher rate of
communication with parents, teachers and others as relates to alcohol and drug
issues.
Parental Attitudes and
Involvement in Drug Use, Crime and Violence
The
D.A.R.E. participants reported a significantly higher perception that their
families would intervene if they became involved in alcohol and drugs.
SCHOOL RISK FACTORS
Ambiguous, Lax or
Inconsistent Rules and Sanctions Regarding Drug Use and Student Conduct
Students
participating in D.A.R.E. programs reported significantly more often that they
felt students caught smoking, drinking or using drugs would be in trouble.
Lack of School Bonding
Students
who participate in D.A.R.E. programs are significantly more involved in school
activities than students who do not participate in D.A.R.E.
Students
who participated in D.A.R.E. programs reported fewer school failures and fewer
suspensions.
PEER RISK FACTORS
Association with Peers
who have Favorable Attitudes Toward
Problem Behavior
The
D.A.R.E. participants are significantly less likely to be approached for the
purpose of drug and alcohol use or sale. The D.A.R.E. students also reported
fewer violent acts associated with drugs and peer solicitation.
Susceptibility
to Peer Pressure
The
D.A.R.E. students were more likely to intervene in the drug use of a friend
than their peers who did not participate in the program.
INDIVIDUAL RISK FACTORS
Adequate
Life Skills
Students
who participated in D.A.R.E. programs indicated they were more likely to
intervene in peer substance use than students from non-D.A.R.E. schools.
School
Failure
Students
who had participated in D.A.R.E. programs indicated a significantly lower rate
of truancy than students from schools without D.A.R.E. programs.
Favorable
Attitudes toward Alcohol and Other Drug Use
The D.A.R.E. students had a significantly higher perception of harm
related to substance use and abuse of the following substances:
· Marijuana
· Cocaine
· Inhalants
· Uppers
· LSD
· Tobacco
· Meth
The D.A.R.E. participants
had a significantly lower reported use of the following substances:
· Marijuana
· Ritalin
· Stimulants
· Narcotics with the intent to get high
· Steroids
· Cocaine
· Crack
· LSD
· Other Psychedelics
· PCP
· Ecstacy
· Rohypnol
There
was also a difference in drug using behaviors. This reinforces the information
identified above. D.A.R.E. participants
reported significantly lower rates of drug use alone, use of paraphernalia,
binge behavior, and use of readily available over-the-counter drugs.
The D.A.R.E. students reported significantly more often that “they were
liked by their teachers” and that they respected the D.A.R.E. officer. The D.A.R.E. participants indicated they
felt safer in the area after dark and had a more positive attitude about
interaction with police. The students reported they were less likely to bring a
gun to school and less likely to injure another student with a weapon. The
D.A.R.E. students were also shown to be significantly less likely to be a
victim of a crime.
Conclusion: Question 2
The
results associated with question two were also reported in a format related to
risk factors. There were a number of
differences that were found between students that participated in the D.A.R.E.
Core programs and students that never participated in D.A.R.E. Core or Junior
High programs. The following results
were found in response to question two,
“What differences exist between students who were associated the
D.A.R.E. Core program and students who never participated in D.A.R.E.?” The following differences were
identified when comparing the two populations.
COMMUNITY RISK FACTORS
Lack of Community
Bonding
D.A.R.E.
Core students responded they felt safer in the area after dark.
· 44.8% of D.A.R.E. Core students indicated they felt
safe after dark
· 42.2% non-D.A.R.E. students indicated they felt safe
after dark.
FAMILY RISK FACTORS
Social Isolation of
Family
D.A.R.E.
Core students report their parents more frequently attend school events
· 33.4% of the Core students reported families
frequently attend
· 23.7% of non-D.A.R.E. students report families
frequently attend
SCHOOL RISK FACTORS
Ambiguous, Lax or Inconsistent
Rules and Sanctions Regarding Drug Use and Student Conduct
D.A.R.E.
Core students had a greater sense of consequences for smoking in school
· 62.8% of the Core students reported they would be in
a lot of trouble for smoking in school
· 50.4% of non-D.A.R.E. students reported they would be
in a lot of trouble for smoking in school
D.A.R.E.
Core students had a greater sense of consequences for drinking in school
· 74.9% of the D.A.R.E. Core students reported they would
be in a lot of trouble for drinking in school
· 62.2% of non-D.A.R.E. students reported they would be
in a lot of trouble for drinking in school
D.A.R.E.
Core students had a greater sense of consequences for using drugs in school
· 85.8% of the D.A.R.E. Core students reported they
would be in a lot of trouble for using drugs in school
· 74.1% of the non-D.A.R.E. students reported they
would be in a lot of trouble for using drugs in school
Favorable
Staff and Student Attitudes Toward Drug Use
D.A.R.E.
Core students reported they learned more frequently about alcohol from:
· Parents (57.8%--D.A.R.E., 54.8%%--non D.A.R.E.)
· Other family (40.6%--D.A.R.E., 40.0%--non D.A.R.E.)
· Teachers ( 39.9%--D.A.R.E., 33.3%--non D.A.R.E.)
· Program Leaders (36.8%--D.A.R.E., 21.5%--non
D.A.R.E.)
Core
students reported they learned more frequently about drugs from:
· Parents (63.2%--D.A.R.E., 57.8%--non D.A.R.E.)
· Friends (33.6%--D.A.R.E., 28.1% --non D.A.R.E.)
· Teachers (42.6%--D.A.R.E., 26.7%--non D.A.R.E.)
· Other leaders (39.4%--D.A.R.E., 21.5%--non D.A.R.E.)
Academic
Failure in School
D.A.R.E.
Core students had a lower rate of failure reported.
· 21.9% D.A.R.E. Core students reported failure
· 23% non-D.A.R.E. students reported failure
D.A.R.E.
Core students reported a lower rate of being expelled from school.
· 5.9% of D.A.R.E. students reported being expelled
· 7.4% of non-D.A.R. students reported being expelled
Lack of School Bonding
Core
students indicate more frequent involvement in other clubs on campus.
· 17.9% of D.A.R.E. students report involvement in
extracurricular clubs
· 11.9% of non-D.A.R.E. students report involvement in
extracurricular club
INDIVIDUAL RISK FACTORS
School
Failure
D.A.R.E.
Core students had a lower rate of failure reported.
· 21.9% D.A.R.E. Core students reported failure
· 23% non-D.A.R.E. students reported failure
There
are a number of items associated with the students’ perception of harm of
substance use. The perception of harm reflects
the work of the D.A.R.E. program in heightening the students’ awareness of the
dangers of these substances. There is a significant difference in how the
D.A.R.E. Core students and the non-D.A.R.E. students perceive the danger
associated with substance use. The following results demonstrate how the
D.A.R.E. Core program enhances the students’ awareness of these dangers:
D.A.R.E.
Core students had a lower perception that no harm was associated with getting
drunk 1-2 times.
· 9.6% of D.A.R.E. students had a perception of no harm
from getting drunk 1-2 times
· 14.1 % of non-D.A.R.E. students had a perception of
no harm from getting drunk 1-2 times
D.A.R.E.
Core students had a lower perception that no harm was associated with getting
drunk regularly.
· 4.3% of D.A.R.E. students had a perception of no harm
related to getting drunk regularly.
· 11.1% of non-D.A.R.E. students had a perception of no
harm related to getting drunk regularly
Core
students had a lower perception that no harm was associated with use of the
following:
|
Behavior |
D.A.R.E. Core students |
Non-D.A.R.E. students |
|
Regular marijuana use |
8.3% |
10.4% |
|
Cocaine use 1-2 times |
6.5% |
9.6% |
|
Regular Cocaine use |
4.9% |
8.1% |
|
Sniff 1-2 times |
6.5% |
12.6% |
|
Sniff regular |
4.8% |
8.9% |
|
Uppers 1-2 times |
7.1% |
9.6% |
|
Uppers regularly |
5% |
8.1% |
|
LSD 1-2 times |
5.6% |
8.9% |
|
LSD regularly |
4.5% |
8.1% |
|
Tobacco occasionally |
11.4% |
17% |
|
Tobacco regularly |
7% |
8.9% |
|
Meth. 1-2 times |
5.9% |
8.9% |
|
Meth. regularly |
4.6% |
9.6% |
As
a result of this heightened awareness, students are less likely to be involved
in substance use. The following demonstrates that this increased awareness actually
results in a lower rate of experimentation and use:
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have used Marijuana.
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have used sensimilla.
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students reported use of Downers
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students reported using Ritalin
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students reported use of legal stimulants
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students reported the use of other Narcotics to get high.
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students reported the use of steroids to increase strength.
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have tried Cocaine.
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have tried Crack.
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have tried LSD.
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have tried psychedelics.
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have used uppers in the past 12 months.
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have used crystal meth in the past 12 months.
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have smoked cigarettes in the last month
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have used smokeless tobacco in the past month.
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have ever used Nitrous Oxide
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have ever used rush
Fewer
D.A.R.E. Core students have ever used Quaaludes.
There
appears to be a strong impact on the youth of Louisiana by the D.A.R.E. Core
program. The program appears to have produced outcomes related to reducing a
number of risk factors and has given the students a sense of the danger
involved in alcohol and drug use. To observe statistical data for the above
please see Appendix A.
Conclusion:
Question 3
The
third question in the research was “What differences exist between ninth
grade school populations comparing students who completed both Core and Junior
High D.A.R.E. program and students who completed the D.A.R.E. Core program
only?” The intent of this question
was to establish differences that exist between student populations that were
subject to the Core curriculum in elementary school and reinforcement in Junior
High Programs and student populations that only received the Core program in
elementary school and NO reinforcement at the Junior High level. The
result of this comparison is reflected in terms of risk factors associated with
student populations. These are as follows:
COMMUNITY RISK FACTORS
Community
Disorganization
Junior
High participants responded they felt safer:
· In the area after dark.
· At school
· At home
· In the community
· On the way to school
The
chart reflects the percentage of students who responded with the highest
indicators for feeling safe.
(School
= at School, Dar = In area after dark, Comm = In the community, Way = On the
way to school, Home = At Home)
Junior
High participants had significantly stronger responses in reply to the
following issues:
· Students respect D.A.R.E. officers
· Students respect other officers
· Teachers care about kids
· Police interaction with kids
· Teacher interaction with kids
FAMILY RISK FACTORS
DARE Impacts Family
dynamics in a variety of ways:
|
Family Impacts of DARE |
Non-D.A.R.E. |
Core |
Junior High |
|
Family goes to school
events |
23.7% |
33.4% |
34.8% |
|
Family goes to school
meetings |
14.8% |
17.7% |
20.5% |
|
Family knows what goes
on at school |
25.9% |
32.4% |
31.1% |
|
Family cares about
student |
84.4% |
88.3% |
89.6% |
|
Student cares about
family |
87.4% |
91.0% |
91.6% |
|
Family cares about what
student does |
80% |
81.4% |
84% |
|
Family would stop
student Cigarette smoking |
76.3% |
75.2% |
79.3% |
|
Family would stop
student marijuana use |
80% |
85.1% |
88.3% |
|
Family would stop
student other drug use |
82.2% |
86.3% |
91.2% |
|
Family would stop
student inhalant use |
80% |
85.3% |
89.0% |
Studies
show that D.A.R.E. increases communication within the family. The above table demonstrates
the fact that as a result of D.A.R.E. families get more involved in school and
intervening in their child’s behavior. Families pull together and are sensitive
of each other’s needs and issues.
Social Isolation of
Family
Junior
High participants responded significantly different than Core students in a
number of issues associated with the family. The Junior High participants
reported the following:
· Family goes to school meetings
· Family knows what is going on at school
Family
Management Problems
Junior
High Participants responded significantly different than Core students in a
number of issues associated with the family. The Junior High participants
reported the following:
· Family cares about what the student does
· Family cares about the student
Family Disorganization
Junior
High Participants responded significantly different than D.A.R.E. Core students
in a number of issues associated with the family. The Junior High participants
reported the following:
· Family would stop cigarette smoking
· Family would stop Inhalant use
· Family would stop Marijuana use
· Family would stop other drug use
Parental Attitudes and
Involvement in Drug Use, Crime and Violence
Junior
High Participants responded significantly different than Core students in a
number of issues associated with the family. The Junior High participants
reported the following:
· Family would stop cigarette smoking
· Family would stop Inhalant use
· Family would stop Marijuana use
· Family would stop other drug use
Lack of Family Cohesion
Junior
high D.A.R.E. students reported a significantly higher perception of caring for
their family than did D.A.R.E. Core students.
SCHOOL RISK FACTORS
Ambiguous, Lax or
Inconsistent rules and Sanctions Regarding Drug Use and Student Conduct
Junior
High participants reported they had a stronger sense of social consequences for
the following:
D.A.R.E.
Junior High students had a greater sense of consequences for smoking in school
· 69.8% of the Junior High students reported they would
be in a lot of trouble for smoking in school
· 62.8% of the Core students reported they would be in
a lot of trouble for smoking in school
· 50.4% of non-D.A.R.E. students reported they would be
in a lot of trouble for smoking in school
D.A.R.E.
Core students had a greater sense of consequences for drinking in school
· 79.5% of the Junior High students reported they would
be in a lot of trouble for drinking in school
· 74.9% of the D.A.R.E. Core students reported they
would be in a lot of trouble for drinking in school
· 62.2% of non-D.A.R.E. students reported they would be
in a lot of trouble for drinking in school
D.A.R.E.
Core students had a greater sense of consequences for using drugs in school
· 89.6% of the Junior High students reported they would
be in a lot of trouble for using drugs in school
· 85.8% of the D.A.R.E. Core students reported they
would be in a lot of trouble for using drugs in school
· 74.1% of the non-D.A.R.E. students reported they
would be in a lot of trouble for using drugs in school
Favorable Staff and
Student Attitudes Toward Drug Use
Students
who were participants in the Junior High D.A.R.E. program had significantly
higher ratings of what they learned from teachers, counselors, program leaders
and D.A.R.E. officers about drugs and alcohol than did D.A.R.E. Core students.
D.A.R.E. Core students reported they learned
more frequently about alcohol from:
· Teachers (42.1%--Jr. Hi, 39.9%--Core, 33.3%--non
D.A.R.E.)
· Program Leaders (38.1%--Jr. Hi, 36.8%--Core,
21.5%--non D.A.R.E.)
· D.A.R.E. Officer (73.5%--Jr. Hi, 67.5%--Core,
14.1%--non D.A.R.E.)
Core
students reported they learned more frequently about drugs from:
· Teachers (43.3%--Jr. Hi, 42.6%--Core, 26.7%--non
D.A.R.E.)
· Other leaders (41.0%--Jr. Hi, 39.4%--Core, 21.5%--non
D.A.R.E.)
· D.A.R.E. Officer (72.4%--Jr. Hi, 67.7%--Core,
15.6%--non D.A.R.E.)
Poor Student
Management Practices
Junior
High participants responded they felt safer:
· In the area after dark.
· At school
· At home
· In the community
· On the way to school
Lack of School Bonding
Junior
High participants had significantly stronger responses in reply to the following
issues:
· Students respect D.A.R.E. officers
· Students respect other officers
· Teachers care about kids
· Police interaction with kids
· Teacher interaction with kids
D.A.R.E. students show a
greater sense of bonding to the school.
|
Program Type |
Ever Suspended |
Ever Expelled |
Ever Flunked |
|
Non-D.A.R.E. |
27.4% |
7.4% |
23.0% |
|
D.A.R.E. Core |
31.1% |
5.9% |
21.9% |
|
Junior High |
21.8% |
3.0% |
15.2% |
PEER RISK FACTORS
Friends Who Engage in
Problem Behavior
Junior
High participants were approached less by their friends to get drunk
Junior
High participants indicated they had fewer friends who used marijuana.
Junior
High participants indicated they were less likely to be approached by a friend
to use the following:
· Marijuana
· Cocaine
· Sniff
· Uppers
· Downers
Students who participated
in D.A.R.E. reported a higher response related to avoidance of gang membership.
Association with Peers
who have Favorable Attitudes Toward the Problem Behavior
Junior
High students indicated they felt significantly stronger that friends would
stop them from:
· Smoking Cigarettes
· Using uppers
· Using downers
· Using cocaine
INDIVIDUAL RISK FACTORS
Lack of
Self Control, Assertiveness, Peer Refusal Skills
Junior
High Participants indicated lower rates of marijuana use in each of the
following situations:
· At night with friends
· Before school events
· At school events
· On the way to school
· During school at school
· During school away from school
Favorable
Attitudes toward Alcohol and Other Drug Use
Junior
High Participants Had a greater perception of harm related to:
· Alcohol 1-2 times
· Alcohol regular use
· Getting drunk regularly
· Uppers 1-2 times
· Uppers regularly
· LSD 1-2 times
· LSD regularly
· Tobacco occasionally
· Tobacco regularly
· Meth 1-2 times
· Meth Regularly
·
Students
in the Junior High D.A.R.E. program demonstrated a significant increase in the perceived
harm associated with the following substances. Numbers represent % of students
responding “a lot.”
(# represent perception of harm/ mar=marijuana, inh = inhalants,
coc = cocaine, Up = Uppers, tob = tobacco Meth = Crystal Meth.)
The
above information demonstrates that the D.A.R.E. program is delivering a
message that definitely impacts the youth involved. The above findings indicate
that the Junior High program is producing the effects it was designed to
produce. The youth participating in the Junior High program exhibit the impact
of reinforcement. The students who have participated in the program demonstrate
enhanced skills and effects that are not present in the Core-only group. This
dramatically displays the need for the Junior High program. A reduction in several negative behaviors
can be observed as associated with the Junior High program.
Junior High Participants reported lower use of
marijuana in the past 12 months.
Junior
High Participants reported lower incidents of trying the following:
· Downers
· Ritalin
· Legal Stimulants
· Steroids
· Amphetamines
· Cocaine
· Crack
· Other psychedelic
· PCP
· Ketamine
· Heroin
· Crystal Meth
· Ecstacy
· Rohypnol
· GHB
· Smokeless Tobacco
· Cigars and Little cigarettes
DARE students reported a
lower rate of experimentation with several categories of drugs.
(amp
= Amphetamines, Coc = Cocaine, cra = Crack, lsd = LSD, psy = Psychedelics, her
= Heroin, Meth = Crystal Meth. Ecs =
Ecstacy, alc = Alcohol)
Junior
High participants reported lower rates associated with the following:
· Scaring someone
· Beaten someone
· Taking a gun to school.
· Taking something by force.
· Vandalizing something.
· Destroying something.
· Robbery.
Junior
High participants reported lower rates of being a victim of the following:
· Beaten by kid
· Been Sexually assaulted
· Been Hurt with a weapon
· Been beaten
· Been Robbed
· Been hurt by a weapon
Junior
High participants indicated they were significantly less likely to belong to a
gang than students who had the Core program only.
The three questions addressed above were
primarily targeted at identifying how the D.A.R.E. programs were reducing the
risk factors and the variance of these factors associated with the use of
reinforcement provided by the Junior High program. As a result of the
comparisons being completed, information related to the protective factors was
also generated. The following is a synopsis of how the protective factors were
impacted by the level of participation in D.A.R.E..
PROTECTIVE FACTORS
Individual Characteristics
Positive Social Orientation
Students who participate in either Core or junior
high programs or both demonstrate a higher level of involvement in school
activities. They also report the ability to intervene in friends’ use and a
greater level of attentiveness to adults in the school environment.
Bonding Opportunity, Skills and Recognition
To Positive Families,
To Friends, To School, To Community
Students who are involved in D.A.R.E. programs report
a greater frequency of involvement with parents and other adults in the school
setting. The students also indicate a more healthy relationship with peer
groups that are based on interaction directed to express the individual opinion
about the peer’s behavior. Students indicate a greater respect for school and
teachers as well as more active participation.
Healthy Beliefs and Clear Standards
From Parents, From
Schools, From Communities
Students from the groups that were identified as
D.A.R.E. participants reflected clearer standards from the schools and
consequences of use at school. These students also reflected a clearer set of
standards and expectations related to the parental respond to use.
Caring and Support
Students from both D.A.R.E. groups reported a sense
of caring and support from the family.
Involvement and Participation
The involvement and participation appears to be
directly correlated to the participation in D.A.R.E. Student involvement
increases with participation.
A
study “Key influences on Youth Drug Use Identified” was released
by the
Substance
Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) on March 7, 2001. The
study focuses on peer behavior and peer influence. Peer groups that intervene or disapprove are one of the strongest
influences on teen drug use. In this current study it was found that one of the
outcomes of the D.A.R.E. program is that youth are willing to intervene as a
result of D.A.R.E. participation. This can be further supported by the fact
that the D.A.R.E. students are less frequently approached for substance use or
sale. The article cited provides support that D.A.R.E. students by the nature
of their knowledge and attitude are likely to experience less pressure to use
and are less likely to do so. This conjecture is supported completely in this
research.
The
second major influence associated with youth is related to parental attitudes.
The article states, “Strong anti-drug messages by the parents are one of the
most powerful inhibitors of drug use.”
In this research, the D.A.R.E. program has demonstrated the ability to
increase the students’ perception of this parental attitude. The SAMHSA article
further states, “Young people are more likely to use marijuana if they do not
talk to their parents about serious problems, were not enrolled in school, did
not attend religious services, and were not involved in music or arts
activities.” The D.A.R.E. program has demonstrated here that it has the ability
to enhance parental participation in school, enhance the student’s chance for
success in school, and increase participation in activities. These are all
contributors to reduction of substance use.
This
newest release by SAMHSA and the conclusions found here are mutually
supportive. The findings of SAMHSA are truly explanatory of why D.A.R.E.
reduces drug use.
Bibliography
Kirk, R. E. (1984). Elementary
Statistics, 2nd Edition, Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company. A Division of Wadsworth Inc.. Monterey, California.
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric
Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw
-Hill Series in Psychology, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York.
Substance Abuse Mental
Health Administration ( 2001) “Key Influences on Youth Drug Use
Identified” March 7, PRNewswire, Washington D.C.
Appendix A
Differences between Core
participants and students who never participated in D.A.R.E.:
All are Significant
Differences
Core
Students had a greater perception of harm associated with regular alcohol use.
LS = 19.824, Sig .000
Core
students had a greater perception of harm from getting drunk 1-2 times LS =
7.269, Sig .007
Core
students had a greater perception of harm related to getting drunk regularly.
LS = 64.445, Sig .000
Core
students had a greater perception of harm for the following:
· Regular marijuana use. LS = 5.706, Sig. .017
· Cocaine use 1-2 times. LS = 5.15, Sig. .023
· Regular Cocaine use. LS = 13.964, Sig. .000
· Sniff 1-2 times. LS = 5.748, Sig. 017
· Sniff regular. LS = 9.995, Sig. .002
· Uppers 1-2 times. LS = 6.041, Sig. 014
· Uppers regularly. LS = 9.799, Sig. .002
· LSD 1-2 times. LS = 8.043, Sig. .005
· LSD regularly. LS = 12.892, Sig. .000
· Tobacco occasionally, LS= 8.472, Sig. .004
· Tobacco regularly, LS = 5.773, Sig. .016
· Meth 1-2 times. LS = 6.1, Sig. .014
· Meth regularly. LS = 17.362, Sig. .000
Fewer
Core students have used Marijuana. LS = 11.405, Sig. .001
Fewer
Core students have used sensimilla. LS = 13.633, Sig . 000
Fewer
Core students reported use of Downers LS = 26.598, Sig . 000
Fewer
Core students reported using Ritalin LS = 18.915, Sig .000
Fewer
Core students reported use of legal stimulants LS = 6.563, Sig .010
Fewer
Core students reported the use of other Narcotics to get high. LS = 5.986, Sig.
.015
Fewer
Core students reported the use of steroids to increase strength. LS = 7.341,
Sig .007
Fewer
Core students have tried Cocaine. LS = 11.015, Sig .001
Fewer
Core students have tried Crack. LS = 13.456, Sig .000
Fewer
Core students have tried LSD. LS = 32.465, Sig .000
Fewer
Core students have tried psychedelics. LS = 7.811, Sig .005
Fewer
Core students have tried PCP LS = 5.906, SIG .015
Fewer
Core students have tried Ecstacy. LS = 6.111, Sig .013
Fewer
Core students have used uppers in the past 12 months. LS = 6.851, Sig .009
Fewer
Core students have used crystal meth in the past 12 months. LS = 5.150, Sig
.023
Fewer
Core students have smoked cigarettes in the last month. LS = 3.916, Sig .048
Fewer
Core students have used smokeless tobacco in the past month. LS = 22.483, Sig
.000
Fewer
Core students have ever used Nitrous Oxide. LS = 14.719, Sig .000
Fewer
Core students have ever used rush. LS = 13.592, Sig .000
Fewer
Core students have ever used Quaaludes. LS = 11.939, Sig .001
Fewer
Core students ever shared a needle. LS = 23.250, Sig .000
Fewer
Core students ever used a needle to take any drug. LS = 13.412, Sig .000
Fewer
Core students ever got drunk alone. LS = 17.954, Sig. .000
Fewer
Core students ever used another drug when alone. LS = 16.525, Sig. .000
Core
students indicated they were more likely to try to stop a friend from using
Cocaine. LS = 5.976, Sig. .015
Core
students indicated they were more likely to try to stop friends from using
downers. LS = 4.357, Sig. .037
Core
members reported they learned more frequently about alcohol from:
· Parents LS = 15.372, Sig. .000
· Other family LS = 4.029, Sig. .045
· Teachers LS = 12.235, Sig. .000
· Program Leaders LS = 11.447, Sig. .000
Core
students reported they learned more frequently about drugs from:
· Parents LS = 19.568, Sig. .000
· Friends LS = 13.764, Sig. .000
· Teachers LS = 12.751, Sig. .000
· Other leaders LS 16.004, Sig. .000
Core
students had a greater sense of consequences for:
· Smoking in school LS = 17.021, Sig. .000
· Drinking in school LS = 37.338, Sig. .000
· Using drugs in school LS = 38.662, Sig. .000
Core
students report their parents more frequently go to school events LS = 8.605,
Sig. .003
Core
students indicate a strong sense of care for their family. LS = 7.667, Sig.
.006
Core
students indicate more frequent involvement in other clubs on campus. LS =
3.870, Sig. .049
Core
students had a lower rate of failure reported. LS = 4.339, Sig. .037
Core
students reported a lower rate of being expelled from school. LS = 6.087, Sig.
.014
Core
students reported less intent to use the following substance in the future:
· Inhalants LS = 11.552, Sig. .001
· Other drugs LS = 10.804, Sig. 001
Core
students responded they felt safer in the area after dark. LS = 5.668, Sig.
.017
Core
students reported lower rates associated with the following:
· Scaring someone LS = 6.035, Sig. .014
· Taking a gun to school. LS = 3.908, Sig. .048
· Taking something by force LS = 5.353, Sig. 021
· Vandalizing something. LS = 4.112, Sig. .043
· Robbery. LS = 7.633, Sig. .006
Core
students reported lower rates of being a victim of the following:
§ Beaten by kid LS = 6.299, Sig. .012
§ Been Sexually assaulted LS = 6.526, Sig. .011
§ Been Hurt with a weapon LS = 6.153, Sig. .013
§ Been beaten LS = 6.181, Sig. .013
LS = Levene Statistic for
Homogeneity of Variance
APPENDIX B
Differences between Core
students and students who participated in the Junior High program.
All are significant
differences
Junior
High Participants were approached less by their friends to get drunk LS =
4.725, Sig. .030
Junior
High Participants Had a greater perception of harm related to:
· Alcohol 1-2 times LS = 6.606, Sig. .001
· Alcohol regular use LS = 9.301, Sig. .002
· Getting drunk regularly LS = 17.080, Sig. 000
· Uppers 1-2 times LS = 31.134, Sig. .000
· Uppers regularlyLS = 88.599, Sig. .000
· LSD 1-2 times LS = 22.809, Sig. .000
· LSD regularly LS = 80.183, Sig. .000
· Tobacco occasionally LS = 28.259 Sig. .000
· Tobacco regularly LS = 61.991, Sig. .000
· Meth 1-2 times LS = 43.829, Sig. .000
· Meth Regularly LS = 75.046, Sig. .000
Junior
High Participants reported lower use of marijuana in the past 12 months. LS =
4.406, Sig. .036
Junior
High Participants report their perceived use as lower the Core students. LS =
4.804, Sig. .028
Junior
High Participants reported lower incidents of trying the following:
· Downers LS = 8.593, Sig. .003
· Ritalin LS = 34.884, Sig. .000
· Legal Stimulants LS = 13.672, Sig. .000
· Steroids LS = 9.310, Sig. .002
· Amphetamines LS = 26.339, Sig. .000
· Cocaine LS = 9.878, Sig. .002
· Crack LS = 15.348, Sig. .000
· Other psychedelic LS = 19.471, Sig. .000
· PCP LS = 20.085, Sig. .000
· Ketamine LS = 21.361, Sig. .000
· Heroin LS = 31.258, Sig. .000
· Crystal Meth LS = 17.395, Sig. .000
· Ecstacy LS = 6.592, Sig. .010
· Rohypnol LS = 33.510, Sig. 000
· GHB LS = 33.865, Sig. .000
· Smokeless Tobacco LS = 17.227, Sig. .000
· Cigars and Little cigarettes LS = 9.422, Sig. .002
Junior
High Participants reported lower use of the following substances:
· Cocaine LS = 20.550, Sig. .000
· Crack LS = 21.595, Sig. .000
· Psychedelic LS = 16.280, Sig. 000
· PCP LS = 25.704, Sig. .000
· Ketamine LS = 8.746, Sig. .003
· Heroin LS = 21.967, Sig. .000
· Other narcotics LS = 5.055, Sig. .025
· Amphetamines LS = 15.614, Sig. .000
· Smokeless tobacco LS = 10.549, Sig. .001
Junior
High Participants indicated lower rates of marijuana use in each of the
following situations:
· At night with friends LS = 4.55, Sig. .033
· Before school events LS = 4.36, Sig. .037
· At school events LS = 10.83, Sig. .001
· On the way to school LS = 8.95, Sig. .003
· During school at school LS = 13.49, Sig. .000
· During school away from school LS = 8.65, Sig. .003
Junior
High Participants reported lower incidents associated with the following:
· Used marijuana Alone LS = 22.80, Sig. .000
· Used other drugs alone LS = 30.35, Sig. .000
· Used needles for steroids LS = 47.57, Sig. .000
· Sharing needles
LS = 46.15, Sig. .000
· Using needles for any drugs LS = 57.21, Sig. .000
· Using Nitrous Oxide LS = 38, Sig. .000
· Using Rush LS
= 59.04, Sig. .000
· Using Quaaludes
LS = 66.77, Sig. .000
Junior
High Participants demonstrated they felt much stronger that their friends and
peers would intervene in the use of the following:
· Cocaine LS =
11.56, Sig. .001
· Uppers LS =
6.75, Sig. .009
· Downers LS =
6.18, Sig. .013
· Cigarettes LS
= 19.24, Sig. .000
Junior
High Participants indicated they had fewer friends who used marijuana. LS =
9.058, Sig. .003
Junior
High Participants indicated they were less likely to use alcohol and marijuana
together. LS = 29.609, Sig. .000
Junior
High Participants indicated they were less likely to use alcohol and other
drugs together. LS = 31.339, Sig. .000
Junior
High Participants indicated they were less likely to be approached by a friend
to use the following:
· Marijuana LS = 16.26, Sig. .000
· Cocaine LS =
62.01, Sig. .000
· Sniff LS = 54.26, Sig. .000
· Uppers LS = 58.52, Sig. .000
· Downers LS = 63.52, Sig. .000
Junior
High Participants reported more frequently they felt they learned about alcohol
from the following:
· Teachers LS =
15.82, Sig. .000
· Counselors LS = 7.36, Sig. .007
· D.A.R.E. officers LS = 60.21 Sig. .000
Junior
High Participants reported they more frequently that they learned about drugs
from the following:
· Teachers LS = 17.79, Sig. .000
· D.A.R.E. Officers LS = 32.82, Sig. .000
Junior
High Participants reported they had a stronger sense of social consequences for
the following:
· Smoking at school LS = 62.66, Sig. .000
· Drinking in school LS = 31.79, Sig. .000
· Using drugs in school LS = 24.85, Sig. .000
Junior
High Participants responded significantly different than Core students in a
number of issues associated with the family. The Junior High participants
reported the following:
· Family goes to school meetings LS = 5.70, Sig. .017
· Family knows what is going on at school LS = 15.23 Sig. .000
· Family would stop cigarette smoking LS = 34.16 Sig. .000
· Family would stop Inhalant use LS = 22.68, Sig. .000
· Family would stop Marijuana use LS = 33.78, Sig. .000
· Family would stop other drug use LS = 40.05, Sig. .000
· Family cares about what the student does LS = 20.68, Sig. .000
· Family cares about the student LS = 4.51, Sig. .034
Junior
High participants had a lower rate of failure reported. LS =95.38, Sig. .000
Junior
High participants reported a lower rate of being expelled or suspended from
school. LS = 74.50, Sig. .000
Junior
High participants reported fewer days of ditching school LS = 45.70,
Sig. .000
Junior
High participants reported a higher sense of being a successful student LS = 8.84,
Sig. .003
Junior
High participants responded they felt safer:
· In the area after dark. LS = 15.87, Sig. .000
· At school LS = 24.45, Sig. .000
· At home LS = 12.63,
Sig. .000
· In the community LS = 17.16, Sig. .000
· On the way to school LS = 11.47, Sig. .001
Junior
High participants had significantly stronger responses in reply to the
following issues:
· Students respect D.A.R.E. officers LS = 19.10, Sig. .000
· Students respect other officers LS = 9.49, Sig. .002
· Teachers care about kids LS = 4.86, Sig. .028
· Police interaction with kids LS = 30.41, Sig. .000
· Teacher interaction with kids LS = 20.40, Sig. .000
Junior
High participants reported lower rates associated with the following:
· Scaring someone LS = 17.14, Sig. .000
· Beaten someone LS = 24.04 Sig. .000
· Taking a gun to school. LS = 28.77, Sig. .000
· Taking something by force. LS = 328.57 Sig. .000
· Vandalizing something. LS = 8.66 Sig. .003
· Destroying something. LS = 21.75, Sig. .000
· Robbery. LS = 29.11,
Sig. .000
Junior
High participants reported lower rates of being a victim of the following:
· Beaten by kid LS = 12.30, Sig. .000
· Been Sexually assaulted LS = 33.93, Sig. .000
· Been Hurt with a weapon LS = 32.41, Sig. .000
· Been beaten LS = 9.17, Sig. .002
· Been Robbed LS = 19.09, Sig. .000
· Been hurt by a weapon LS = 32.41, Sig. .000
Junior
High participants indicated they were significantly less likely to belong to a
gang than students who had the Core program only. LS = 6.15, Sig. .013
LS = Levene Statistic for
Homogeneity of Variances