Evaluation of the UK D.A.R.E. Primary programme

Abstract

Aims: Results from the first evaluation of the UK Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Primary programme, designed and undertaken by the (independent academic) authors on data collected in late 2015/early 2016 by the UK providers of the programme are presented. The evaluation assessed the programme against its learning outcomes (covering topics including pupils’ ability to communicate and listen, handle relationships and stress, make safe choices, get help from others) as well as their knowledge and use of substances.

Methods: Pre- and post- intervention online surveys of pupils aged 9–11 years from a randomly assigned group of state primary schools in the English East Midlands, split between trial and control samples. Responses from 1496 pupils from 51 schools were analysed and modelled via a set of ordinary least squares regression analyses, controlling for pupils’ and schools’ characteristics.

Findings: An overall positive change between the pre- and the post-survey was found, with significant differences in the extent of change between trial and control samples regarding four of the programme’s nine learning outcomes (getting help from others, improving communication and listening skills, knowledge about alcohol and drugs, and making safe choices).

Conclusions: This evaluation shows this version of D.A.R.E. to be effective regarding four of the programme’s learning outcomes. Further research is needed to measure the programme’s medium and long-term effects and the potential benefits of D.A.R.E. officers and teachers delivering the programme together, identified in this study.

Keywords:

• Drug abuse resistance education
• school intervention
• effectiveness of drug education
• quantitative research
• school

Acknowledgements

This work was commissioned by Life Skills Education C.I.C. In-kind contributions were received from the participating schools which allowed access and gave time to data collection, and Nottinghamshire Police which supported the business case for the evaluation. Any errors or omissions are the authors’ responsibility.

Disclosure statement

The authors report that they were paid as independent consultants to undertake the evaluation on which this article is based.

Notes

1 Personal communication with Stuart Longcroft, Business Manager, Life Skills Education C.I.C.

2 The briefing and information sheet issued to invigilators is available upon request.

3 Two classes participated from three control and 10 trial schools and three classes participated from two control and one trial school.

4 More information available from: http://www.sealcommunity.org/node/356. (Accessed 3 October 2016)

5 The Ofsted domains are: overall effectiveness (an overall judgement of the school from the other domains), leadership and management (including ambitions for and performance of the school and collaboration between all levels of management, governors and employees) behaviour and safety of pupils (including assessing whether pupils develop personal and social skills and are safeguarded and able to report concerns), teaching quality and pupil achievement (meaning that pupils of all abilities are supported to achieve goals by appropriately trained staff).

6 The individual variables which make up each measurement were first recoded for internal consistency. In particular, all individual components were checked and, if necessary recoded in order to show similar direction of desirable outcome.

7 Follow up behaviour questions to the last two of these questions – on whether pupils had controlled their anger in some way and whether they had felt comfortable sticking up for themselves in an argument – were answered only in cases of positive answers to the preceding questions. In order to include the answers to the follow-up questions in the index an additional point was given for these answers. Analysis was performed using the index with and without these two questions; the results did not essentially differ, and the findings presented here refer to the more encompassing index based on all the above questions.

8 The statistical analysis and modelling was undertaken using the SPSS package software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). All the control and independent variables which entered the models were retained in order for researchers and readers to make their own judgement of p values acceptable for statistical significance. In addition non-significant estimates may equally offer interesting findings. The sample consists of pupils nested within classes nested within schools. However, the sampling was not hierarchical: Classes were not randomly selected from each school and pupils were not randomly selected from each class. As discussed in the beginning of the Methodology section, all pupils in classes assigned to receive D.A.R.E. education in the school year 2015/2016 of the sample schools participated in the survey and the majority were pupils from only one class per school (see earlier endnote). Therefore, there is no theoretical basis to analyse the data via hierarchical statistical modelling. This was also evidenced in practice: As it will be seen in the following paragraph of the current section, preliminary analyses showed no significant school effects (even at a generous p value <.11), therefore it was not considered necessary to conduct hierarchical modelling statistical analysis.

9 Pupils in the test schools of this study who received the programme via this delivery model were roughly twice as able to deal with peer pressure regarding substance use and improved managing personal stress 5.2 times more than those in the control sample. These effects however are not statistically significant and cannot be generalised beyond this study.

10 The respective p values equal .11 and .06 and indicate not statistically significant coefficients at the standard level of p value < .05.

11 An interaction effect between Year 6 group and intervention was non-statistically significant and it is not shown here.

12 These results are not discussed further and are available upon request.

Additional information

Funding

The authors were paid as independent consultants for this work by Life Skills C.I.C., who were supported by the College of Policing.