GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 

January 15, 2003 

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin 

United States Senate 

Subject: Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention: DARE Long-Term Evaluations and 

Federal Efforts to Identify Effective Programs 

Dear Senator Durbin: 

The use of illicit drugs, particularly marijuana, is a problem among our nation’s 

youth. The adverse effects of illicit drug use play a role in school failure, violence, 

and antisocial and self-destructive behavior. A recent national survey1

 showed that 

for 1996 through 2002, more than 30 percent of tenth and twelfth grade students 

reported using marijuana in the past year. Further, about 20 percent of high school 

seniors reported using marijuana within the past 30 days. In fiscal year 2000, the 

federal government spent over $2.1 billion on illicit drug use prevention activities for 

youth, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). 

Many programs are designed to help prevent and reduce illicit drug use among youth. 

Often, these programs also address the use of other substances, such as alcohol and 

tobacco. Youth drug abuse prevention programs are implemented in school, family, 

and community settings. School-based prevention programs are the most prevalent 

because schools provide easy access to children and adolescents. The most widely 

used school-based substance abuse prevention program in the United States is the 

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program,2

 which is funded by a variety of 

sources, including private, federal, and other public entities. DARE’s primary mission 

is to provide children with the information and skills they need to live drug- and 

violence-free lives through programs at the elementary school, middle school, and 

high school levels. The DARE program is usually introduced to children in the fifth or 

sixth grade. According to research literature, concerns have been raised about the 

effectiveness of the DARE fifth and sixth grade curriculum in preventing illicit drug 

use among youth. As agreed with your staff, this report contains information you 

requested on (1) the results of evaluations on the long-term effectiveness of the 

 

1

Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick M. O’Malley, and Jerald G. Bachman, Monitoring the Future National 

Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings, 2001, NIH Publication No. 02-5105 

(Bethesda, Md.: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2002). 

2

The DARE program is administered by DARE America—a nonprofit foundation. 
2 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention

DARE elementary school curriculum in preventing illicit drug use among children 

and (2) federal efforts to identify programs that are effective in preventing illicit drug 

use among children. 

To identify evaluations on the effectiveness of DARE at preventing illicit drug use 

among children, we searched social science, business, and education databases, 

which included the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) National 

Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Library of Medicine, for evaluations of DARE 

published in professional journals. We identified articles published in the 1990s on six

evaluations of the DARE elementary school curriculum that included illicit drug use 

as an outcome measure and that also met key methodological criteria for our review, 

such as a long-term evaluation design and the use of intervention and control groups 

for comparisons. The six long-term evaluations that we discuss in this report were 

conducted at different times up to 10 years after student participants were initially 

surveyed. The six evaluations are based on three separate studies in three states. We 

reviewed each of the six evaluations and summarized the results of our review. We 

also held discussions with the researchers who conducted the evaluations. We did 

not independently validate the research designs or verify the results of evaluations on 

the effectiveness of the DARE program. (Enclosure I contains citations for the 

articles on evaluations of the DARE elementary school curriculum that we reviewed 

and enclosure II describes the methodology we used to select the evaluations). 

To determine federal efforts to identify programs that are effective in preventing 

youth illicit drug use, we interviewed federal officials and reviewed documentation 

on efforts by HHS and the Department of Education (Education) to recognize 

programs that demonstrate success in reducing illicit drug use among children and 

adolescents. We did not independently verify the results of prevention programs 

recognized by the federal agencies. We conducted our work from January through 

December 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

In brief, the six long-term evaluations of the DARE elementary school curriculum that 

we reviewed found no significant differences in illicit drug use between students who 

received DARE in the fifth or sixth grade (the intervention group) and students who 

did not (the control group). Three of the evaluations reported that the control groups 

of students were provided other drug use prevention education. All of the evaluations 

suggested that DARE had no statistically significant long-term effect on preventing 

youth illicit drug use. Of the six evaluations we reviewed, five also reported on 

students’ attitudes toward illicit drug use and resistance to peer pressure and found 

no significant differences between the intervention and control groups over the long 

term. Two of these evaluations found that the DARE students showed stronger 

negative attitudes about illicit drug use and improved social skills about illicit drug 

use about 1 year after receiving the program. These positive effects diminished over 

time. 
3 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention

HHS and Education have identified several programs that show evidence of 

effectiveness in preventing youth substance abuse and promoted their use in schools 

and communities. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

(SAMHSA) within HHS and Education use expert panels to review program 

information that the programs’ developers or others submit and rank the programs 

on several criteria, such as the scientific rigor of their evaluations and the overall 

usefulness of their findings for preventing substance abuse. Only those programs that 

produce a consistent pattern of positive results that have been verified scientifically 

are recognized as effective, according to SAMHSA. HHS has also identified other 

programs supported by HHS-funded research, that show evidence of effectiveness in 

preventing substance abuse among youth. Specifically, within NIH, officials from the 

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and scientists who conduct NIDA-funded 

research identified effective drug use prevention programs that were scientifically 

evaluated and have demonstrated positive results over time. HHS and Education 

disseminate descriptions of effective programs to practitioners, schools, and the 

general public. In addition to the effective programs, each of the agencies also has 

identified programs that, based on initial results, show promise in preventing 

substance abuse among youth. However, the outcomes of these programs either have 

not yet been verified scientifically or have not consistently demonstrated positive 

results in preventing or reducing substance use, according to the agencies. The 

agencies also disseminate lists of these programs. 

In response to HHS’s comments on a draft of this report, we revised the report’s title 

to better reflect the scope of our work. HHS and Education provided additional 

information about their efforts to identify effective substance abuse prevention 

programs that we incorporated as appropriate. 

Background 

A major goal of drug abuse prevention programs is to prevent the use of illicit and 

nonprescription legal drugs and other substances, such as alcohol and tobacco. Two 

drug prevention approaches show promise in reducing drug use and strengthening 

individuals’ ability to resist illicit drugs. The psychosocial approach emphasizes drug 

resistance skills, generic problem solving/decision-making training, and modification 

of attitudes and normative beliefs that encourage drug use. The comprehensive 

approach to prevention focuses on the setting in which programs are implemented, 

which involves the use of schools, families, and the community, working together.3

Drug abuse prevention programs are categorized by three different audiences for 

which they are designed. Generally, the programs are designed for (1) the general 

population, (2) individuals or subgroups that are at risk for drug abuse because of 

certain conditions such as being children of drug users, and (3) those individuals who 

are already experimenting with drugs or who exhibit other risk-related behavior. 

 

3

U.S. General Accounting Office, Drug Control: Observations on Elements of the Federal Drug Control 

Strategy, GAO/GGD-97-42 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 1997). 
4 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention

Established in 1983, DARE operates in about 80 percent of all school districts across 

the United States and in numerous foreign countries.4

 In addition to the DARE 

elementary school curriculum, the DARE program also includes middle school and 

high school curricula that reinforce lessons taught at the elementary school level. 

The elementary school curriculum consists of 17 lessons, taught by DARE-trained 

uniformed police officers, that focus on providing students with decision-making 

skills, showing them how to resist peer pressure, and teaching alternatives to illicit

drug use and violence. The majority of studies evaluating DARE focus on the 

elementary school curriculum in effect before 1994. According to researchers, in 

1994, modest changes were made to the elementary school curriculum, including 

revisions to the content and sequencing of the DARE lessons.5

In fiscal year 2000, the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, which 

supports various substance abuse prevention programs for youth, provided about 

$2 million for DARE regional training centers to support the training of new police

officers that help deliver the DARE program lessons. Also, in fiscal year 2000,

Education provided states about $439 million in grants for schools and communities 

under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) of 1994.6

Some of the SDFSCA grant funds could have been used to support DARE. However, 

Education has no estimate of the amount of SDFSCA fiscal year 2000 state grant 

funds that were used for DARE. 

 

4

Data obtained from the DARE America Web site at http://www.DARE.com (as of July 30, 2002) and 

information released by the University of Akron Institute for Health and Social Policy. 

5

The DARE middle and high school program curricula are being revised and will be evaluated, under a 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation research grant, by researchers from the University of Akron in 

cooperation with DARE America Foundation officials. According to the Akron researchers who are 

conducting the study, the revised middle school curriculum places more emphasis on and devotes 

more time to three prevention program areas (1) normative beliefs about drug use, (2) consequences 

of drug and alcohol use, and (3) drug use resistance skills. The curriculum also includes more 

interaction among students through small group discussions and role-play. The study is experimenting 

with using police officers as course facilitators rather than as instructors. The purpose of these 

changes is to improve the effectiveness of DARE. Revisions to the high school curriculum were not 

complete at the time of our review. The researchers plan to complete their evaluation of the revised 

DARE curricula in 2006. 

6

Pub. L. No. 103-382, §101, 108 STAT. 3518, 3672-3690 (classified to 20 U.S.C. §§ 7101-7144 (2000)). 
5 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention

Evaluations of the DARE Elementary School 

Curriculum Show No Significant Differences in Drug 

Use Between DARE and Non-DARE Students 

The six evaluations that we reviewed of the long-term effectiveness of the DARE 

elementary school curriculum found no statistically significant differences in illicit 

drug use between students who received DARE lessons in the fifth or sixth grade, 

referred to as intervention groups, and students who did not—the control groups.7

Three of the six evaluations reported that the control groups of students that did not 

receive DARE were provided other drug use prevention education. The six 

evaluations we reviewed were based on three separate studies in three states—

Colorado, Kentucky, and Illinois. Table 1 summarizes the information on the six 

evaluations that we reviewed. Each of the six evaluations, conducted at intervals 

ranging from 2 to 10 years after the fifth or sixth grade students were initially 

surveyed, suggested that DARE had no statistically significant long-term effect on 

preventing illicit drug use. Five evaluations also reported on students’ attitudes about 

illicit drug use and other nonbehavioral measures and found no significant 

differences between the DARE and non-DARE students over the long term. 

Table 1: Long-Term Evaluations on the Effectiveness of the DARE Elementary School Curriculum in 

Preventing Illicit Drug Usea

Evaluation/date of 

article Sample description Measures Prevention outcome 

Kentucky Studies 

1. Sensation Seeking as 

a Potential Mediating 

Variable for SchoolBased Prevention 

Intervention: A TwoYear Follow-Up of 

DARE, 1991 

Location: 

Lexington, Kentucky 

The initial sample included a 

total of 2,071 sixth graders 

from 31 elementary schools. 

Twenty-three schools and 

1,550 students were assigned 

to receive the DARE 

intervention and 8 schools and 

521 students were designated 

control groups that received 

drug use prevention education 

provided under a standard 

health curriculum. The sample 

size at the 2-year follow-up, 

when students were in the 

eighth grade, was 1,207,or 

about 78 percent of the 

baseline for the intervention 

group and 413,or about 79 

percent for the control group. 

Past year use of 

marijuana. 

No statistically significant 

differences were observed 

between the intervention and 

control schools on students’ 

past year marijuana use 2 years 

after the intervention. 

 

7

The studies surveyed individuals about their lifetime, past year, and past month marijuana, alcohol, or 

cigarette use. They were also asked about their attitudes towards drugs, peer pressure resistance, and 

self-esteem. 
6 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention

Evaluation/date of 

article Sample description Measures Prevention outcome 

2. The Effectiveness of 

Drug Abuse Resistance 

Education (Project 

DARE): 5-Year FollowUp, 1996 

Location: 

Lexington, Kentucky 

In the 5-year follow-up to the 

1991 study, students were 

surveyed each year during the 

sixth through tenth grades. 

The sample size at the 5-year 

follow-up, when students were 

in the tenth grade, was 858, or 

about 55 percent of the 

baseline for the intervention 

group and 285, or about 55 

percent, for the control group. 

Past year use of 

illicit drugs. 

Nonbehavioral 

measures included 

attitudes towards 

drugs, peer pressure 

resistance, and 

perceived peer 

substance use. 

No statistically significant 

differences were observed 

between intervention and 

control groups on marijuana use 

1 year after the intervention and 

at the 5-year follow-up. 

Although, significant positive 

DARE effects were observed 

during the seventh grade (about 

1 year after the intervention) for 

measures of students’ attitudes 

towards drugs, capability to 

resist peer pressure, and 

perceived peer drug use, these 

positive effects diminished over 

time and were not significant at 

the 5-year follow-up. 

3. Project DARE: No 

Effects at 10-Year 

Follow-Up, 1999 

Location: 

Lexington, Kentucky 

Follow-up to the 1991 and 

1996 studies. The final sample 

consisted of 1,002 young 

adults between the ages of 19 

and 21,who were in the 

original sixth grade sample of 

both intervention and control 

groups. Seventy-six percent of 

the participants had received 

DARE lessons. 

Lifetime, past year, 

and past month use 

of marijuana. 

Nonbehavioral 

measures included 

peer pressure 

resistance and selfesteem. 

No statistically significant 

differences were observed 

between the intervention and 

control groups for illicit drug 

use, peer pressure resistance, 

and self-esteem at the 10-year 

follow-up. 

Colorado Studies 

4. Three-Year Follow-up 

of Drug Abuse 

Resistance Education 

(DARE), 1996 

Location: 

Colorado Springs, 

Colorado 

The initial sample included 38 

elementary schools in 

Colorado Springs, Colorado—

21 schools received the DARE 

intervention and 17 control 

group schools did not. The 3-

year follow-up sample 

consisted of 940 ninth grade 

survey respondents from the 

initial sample of elementary 

school students. Excluding 

invalid responses, the final 

sample consisted of 849 ninth 

grade students (497 students 

in the intervention group and 

352 in the control group).

Use of illicit drugs 

and the delay of 

experimentation with 

illicit drugs. 

Nonbehavioral 

measures included 

self- esteem and 

resistance to peer 

pressure. 

No statistically significant 

differences were found between 

the intervention and control 

groups with regard to illicit drug 

use, delay of experimentation 

with illicit drugs, self-esteem, or 

resistance to peer pressure 

after 3 years. 

5. Long-Term Impact of 

Drug Abuse Resistance 

Education (DARE): 

Results of a 6-Year 

Follow-Up, 1997 

Location: 

Colorado Springs, 

Colorado 

Follow-up to the 1996 study. 

The 6-year follow-up sample 

consisted of 676 twelfth grade 

survey respondents from the 

initial sample of elementary 

school students. Excluding 

invalid responses, the final 

sample consisted of 620 

twelfth grade students (356 

students in the intervention 

group and 264 students in the 

control group). 

Use of illicit drugs 

and the delay of 

experimentation with 

illicit drugs. 

Nonbehavioral 

measures included 

self-esteem and 

attitudes toward 

drug use. 

No statistically significant 

differences were found between 

the intervention and control 

groups regarding the use of 

marijuana and the delay of 

experimentation with illicit 

drugs, self esteem, and 

attitudes toward drug use, at the 

6-year follow-up. 
7 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention

Evaluation/date of 

article Sample description Measures Prevention outcome 

Illinois Study 

6. Assessing the Effects 

of School-Based Drug 

Education: A Six-Year 

MultiLevel Analysis of 

Project DARE, 1998 

Location: 

Chicago, Illinois 

A total of 1,798 students from 

36 urban, suburban, and rural 

schools in Illinois were 

surveyed each year from the 

sixth through twelfth grade. 

Eighteen elementary schools 

received the DARE 

intervention and the 18 

elementary schools in the 

control group did not. 

The study measured 

past 30-day and any 

use of illicit drugs. 

Nonbehavioral 

measures included 

attitudes towards 

drugs, peer pressure 

resistance, and selfesteem. 

No statistically significant 

differences were observed 

between the intervention and 

control groups with regard to 

recent or any use of illicit drugs 

1 year after the intervention and 

at the 6-year follow-up. The 

DARE students were more 

likely to report stronger negative 

attitudes about drug use and 

improved social resistance skills 

immediately after the 

intervention. However, these 

positive effects eroded over 

time. 

a

These evaluations also measured the effects of DARE on other behavioral outcomes such as preventing alcohol 

and tobacco use. 

Source: GAO analysis of six evaluations. 

Two of the six evaluations (Lexington, Kentucky, 1996 and Chicago, Illinois, 1998) 

also reported information on the short-term effects of DARE. These evaluations 

found no significant differences in illicit drug use between the intervention and 

control groups within a year after completing the DARE lessons. They also found that 

DARE students showed stronger negative attitudes about illicit drug use and 

improved peer pressure resistance skills and self-esteem about illicit drug use about 1 

year after the intervention. These positive effects diminished over time. 

Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Identify Effective 

Substance Abuse Prevention Programs 

HHS and Education have identified several programs that show evidence of 

effectiveness in preventing or reducing the use of illicit drugs and other substances, 

such as alcohol and tobacco, among youth. Each agency identifies effective programs 

to recognize their success and promote their use in schools and communities in the 

United States. HHS and Education selected many of the effective prevention 

programs from among those submitted by the program developers for review and 

recognition. According to HHS and Education officials, the programs they selected 

through an expert panel process do not include all programs that could potentially be 

effective in preventing substance use among youth. Other effective programs that 

HHS identified were selected from those whose development was supported by HHSfunded research. 
8 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention

Specifically, within HHS, SAMHSA identified substance abuse prevention programs 

that based on rigorous evaluation, consistently demonstrate positive results. 

SAMHSA created the National Registry of Effective Prevention Programs (NREPP)8

to recognize many of these programs and help policymakers and those working in the 

field of substance abuse prevention learn more about science-based prevention 

programs. Under the NREPP process, teams of scientists who are expert in 

prevention research, review and assess information, such as evaluation 

methodologies and evaluation results, on prevention programs. Many of these 

programs are selected and submitted by the program developers. The programs are 

scored using established criteria and ranked on the scientific rigor of their evaluation 

and the overall usefulness of their findings for preventing substance abuse. The 

criteria that programs are evaluated on include factors such as design and 

implementation, data collection and analysis, program outcomes, and replication and 

dissemination capabilities. Only those programs that positively affect the majority of 

the intended populations and produce a consistent pattern of results are recognized 

as effective. HHS officials stated that the process of having program developers select 

their programs for review tends to encourage the submission of those programs that 

can be tested through conventional, low-cost evaluation procedures but discourages 

the submission of potentially effective interventions that result in broad changes in 

school or community activities. As of October 2002, SAMHSA had selected 41 

effective programs from among 718 submissions. SAMHSA promotes the use of these 

programs through dissemination, training, and collaboration activities with other 

substance abuse prevention partners. Table 2 contains examples of effective 

substance abuse prevention programs recently identified. 

 

8

NREPP incorporates the work of SAMHSA, Education, NIH, and the Department of Justice, as well as 

the work of foundations and other entities.
9 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention

Table 2: Examples of Effective Substance Abuse Prevention Programs HHS and Education Identified

1. Life Skills Training 

Program (LST) 

LST is a school-based substance abuse prevention program for children ages 10-

14. LST is designed to address a wide range of risk and protective factorsa

 to 

reduce illicit drug use by teaching general personal and social skills in 

combination with drug resistance skills and normative education. 

2 Child Development 

Project (CDP) 

CDP is a school improvement initiative designed to reduce the risk of alcohol and 

illicit drug use and bolster protective factors among elementary school children. 

3. Project ALERT Project ALERT is a program that is provided to middle school students. Its course 

content focuses on establishing no-drug use norms, developing reasons not to 

use illicit drugs, and resisting pro-drug pressures. 

4. Strengthening Families 

Program (SFP) 

SFP targets families that are at risk for drug abuse. The multicomponent, familyfocused program provides prevention programming for substance-abusing 

families with 6- to 10-year-old children. 

5. Project STAR, known as 

the Midwestern Prevention 

Project (MPP) 

MPP is a comprehensive, community-based drug abuse prevention program that 

uses school, mass media, parent education, community organization, and health 

policy programming to prevent and reduce alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug abuse 

among adolescents. 

Note: SAMHSA identified all five of the substance abuse prevention programs in 1999. In 2001, Education 

identified all of the programs except CDP and MPP. In 2002, NIDA identified all the programs except MPP. 

a

According to NIDA’s research-based guide, risk and protective factors encompass psychological, behavioral, 

family, and social characteristics. Risk factors, which include ineffective parenting, failure in school performance, 

affiliations with deviant peers, and aggressive behavior in the classroom, are associated with greater potential for 

drug use. Protective factors, such as strong family and community bonds, success in school performance, and 

adoption of normative beliefs about drug use, reduce the potential for drug use. 

Source: HHS and Education documents. 

Also, within HHS, NIDA officials and scientists who conduct NIDA-funded research, 

identify effective drug abuse prevention programs that have been studied over time 

and achieved positive results. The development of these programs is supported by 

NIDA. NIDA publishes a guide on preventing drug use among children and 

adolescents that describes research-based concepts for developing and implementing 

effective drug abuse prevention programs and several research-based programs that 

NIDA and the scientists identify.9

Education established the Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools Expert Panel to 

help identify programs effective in preventing and reducing substance abuse and 

violent behavior among students. The panel consisted of teams of experts in 

research, evaluation, and prevention programming. The expert panel used a 

multilevel review process to identify effective programs based on information 

submitted by entities or individuals applying for program recognition. The programs 

submitted for review must show evidence of effectiveness in reducing substance use, 

violent behavior, or other conduct problems for a year or longer based on at least one 

methodologically sound evaluation. Also, the programs must obtain a certain rating 

based on other criteria, such as whether the program’s content is appropriate for its 

target population and whether the program provides the necessary information and 

guidance for replication by others. Education officials stated that the programs 

identified as effective and designated “exemplary,” showed statistically significant 

differences in outcomes that were sustained for at least 1 year beyond the baseline. 

 

9

NIDA is having the 2003 edition of its guide reviewed before publication. 
10 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention

The expert panel makes recommendations to the Secretary of Education, who 

announces those programs recognized as effective. Education began making a list of 

these programs available to schools and others in 1999. 

Education has also developed guidance, referred to as “Principles of Effectiveness,” 

that identifies standards for state and local educational agencies to use in 

implementing research-based prevention programs. According to Education officials, 

SDFSCA funds can be used for programs that meet these standards and the effective 

programs identified by the expert panel process. 

HHS and Education also identify programs that show promise in preventing and 

reducing the use of illicit drugs and other substances among youth. These programs 

have shown positive initial results that have not yet been verified scientifically or 

have not consistently demonstrated a positive effect on the prevention or reduction 

of substance use. Each agency also publishes lists of the promising programs they 

identify to recognize the programs’ contributions, based on initial results, to 

preventing and reducing the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among youth. 

Comments from HHS and Education 

And Our Response 

HHS and Education provided comments on a draft of this report. (See enclosure III 

and enclosure IV, respectively.) Specifically, HHS commented that the title of the 

draft report implied that the scope of our work was broader than the report’s 

discussion. We revised the report title to better reflect the content of the report. With 

regard to the DARE elementary school curriculum that we reviewed, HHS 

commented that to evaluate DARE on the basis of a portion of the program may be 

equivalent to arbitrarily evaluating the effects of only 1 year of multiyear 

interventions of programs, such as Project STAR and Life Skills Training. We limited 

the scope of our work to reviewing published articles on long-term evaluations of the 

effectiveness of the DARE elementary school curriculum that included illicit drug use 

as an outcome measure because of concerns that had been raised about the 

effectiveness of DARE in preventing illicit drug use and because most of the research 

has focused on the DARE elementary school fifth and sixth grade curriculum. 

HHS also commented that the conclusions drawn in the draft report should not 

necessarily be applied to the future DARE program and suggested that we may want 

to incorporate more recent findings from the ongoing evaluation of DARE that were 

released by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. However, information from the 

ongoing evaluation of DARE that was released by the Robert Wood Johnson 

Foundation did not contain any interim findings on the effectiveness of the DARE 

program in preventing illicit drug use among youth. Moreover, according to the 

University of Akron researchers who are conducting this work, the focus of their 

study is on revising and evaluating the DARE middle school and high school curricula 

and not the elementary school curriculum that we discuss in this report. The 

researchers expect to have the final results of their study in 2006. 
11 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention

Education questioned the accuracy and source of the statement in our draft report 

that DARE operates in about 80 percent of school districts in the United States. We 

obtained this information from the DARE America Web site and information released 

by the University of Akron researchers related to their current evaluation of the 

DARE middle school and high school curricula. We added these sources of the data 

to the report. Education also questioned the basis for the estimate in the draft report 

of SDFSCA funds that the department made available to support DARE in fiscal year 

2000. The estimate in the draft report was obtained from ONDCP. ONDCP and 

Education staff developed the estimate using a formula that assumed a certain 

percentage of SDFSCA state grant funds could be used to support DARE. In response 

to Education’s comment, we contacted officials in Education’s Budget Office and the 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, 

to discuss the estimate that Education and ONDCP staff developed. According to 

Education officials, the assumptions that were used to estimate the amount of 

SDFSCA funds that could be used for DARE were hypothetical. Therefore, we deleted 

the estimate from our report. 

HHS and Education provided additional information about their efforts to help 

identify effective substance abuse prevention programs. Where appropriate, we made 

changes to the report to reflect the agencies’ comments, including technical changes 

that HHS provided. 

- - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of 

Education, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and others who 

are interested. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, 

the report is available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

7119 or James O. McClyde at (202) 512-7152. Darryl W. Joyce and David W. Bieritz 

made key contributions to this report. 

Sincerely yours, 

Marjorie E. Kanof 

Director, Health Care—Clinical 

 and Military Health Care Issues 

Enclosures - 4 
Enclosure I Enclosure I 

12 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention 

Articles on Evaluations of the Effectiveness of the DARE Elementary School 

Curriculum That GAO Reviewed 

1. Clayton, Richard, R., Anne M. Cattarelo, and Katherine P. Walden. “Sensation 

Seeking as a Potential Mediating Variable for School-Based Prevention 

Intervention: A Two-Year Follow-Up of DARE.” Health Communication 

(1991): 229-239. 

2. Clayton, Richard, R., Anne M. Cattarelo, and Bryan M. Johnstone. “The 

Effectiveness of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (Project DARE): 5-Year FollowUp Results.” Preventive Medicine Vol. 25, No. 3 (May 1996): 307-318. 

3. Dukes, Richard, L., Jodie B. Ullman, and Judith A. Stein. “Three-Year Follow-Up of 

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE).” Evaluation Review, Vol. 20, No. 1 

(February 1996): 49-66. 

4. Dukes, Richard, L., Judith A. Stein, and Jodie B. Ullman. “Long-Term Impact of 

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE): Results of a 6-Year Follow-Up.” 

Evaluation Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (August 1997): 483-500. 

5. Lynam, Donald, R., Richard Milich and others. “Project DARE: No Effects At 10-

Year Follow-Up.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology Vol. 67, No. 4 

(August 1999): 590-593. 

6. Rosenbaum, Dennis, P. and Gordon S. Hanson. “Assessing the Effects of SchoolBased Drug Education: A Six-Year MultiLevel Analysis of Project D.A.R.E.” 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 35, No. 4 (November 1998): 

381-412. 
Enclosure II Enclosure II 

13 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention 

Methodology GAO Used to Select Evaluations of the Effectiveness of the 

DARE Elementary School Curriculum at Preventing Illicit Drug Use Among 

Youth 

To identify evaluations of the effectiveness of the DARE elementary school 

curriculum at preventing illicit drug use among children, we searched social science, 

business, and education databases, which included NIH’s National Library of 

Medicine, within HHS, for evaluations of DARE published in professional journals. 

The majority of the published articles on evaluations of the effectiveness of DARE 

focused on the program’s fifth and sixth grade elementary school curriculum. We 

identified 27 articles on evaluations of the DARE elementary school curriculum that 

included illicit drug use as an outcome measure. Of these articles, we selected for 

review those evaluations that used at least three of the following four criteria for 

methodological design: (1) long-term study design (study period of 2 years or longer), 

(2) intervention and control groups for comparisons, (3) random assignment of study 

groups, and (4) pretest and post-test or surveys of study participants. These criteria 

are among the ones suggested by researchers as key components of rigorous 

experimental research design. Six evaluations met at least three of these criteria (see 

table 3). The six evaluations were based on three separate studies of the DARE 

elementary school program in three different states—Colorado, Kentucky, and 

Illinois. 

We reviewed the sample design, research results, and conclusions for each of the six 

evaluations and summarized the results of our review. We did not independently 

validate the research design or verify the results of evaluations on the effectiveness of 

the DARE elementary school curriculum. 
Enclosure II Enclosure II 

14 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention

Table 3: Six Evaluations of the DARE Elementary School Curriculum GAO Selected For Review

Evaluation/date of article 

Period 

evaluation 

covered 

(in years) 

Intervention and 

control groups 

Random 

assignment of 

study groups 

Pretest and 

posttest of study 

participants 

Sensation Seeking as a 

Potential Mediating 

Variable for School-Based 

Prevention Intervention: A 

Two-Year Follow-Up of 

DARE, 1991 

Location: 

Lexington, Kentucky

2 Yes Yes Yes 

The Effectiveness of Drug 

Abuse Resistance 

Education (Project DARE): 

5-Year Follow-Up, 1996 

Location: 

Lexington, Kentucky

5 Yes Yes Yes 

Project DARE: No Effects 

at 10-Year Follow-Up, 

1999 

Location: 

Lexington, Kentucky

10 Yes Yes Yes 

Three-Year Follow-up of 

Drug Abuse Resistance 

Education (DARE), 1996 

Location: 

Colorado Springs, 

Colorado

3 Yes a

 Yes

Long-Term Impact of Drug 

Abuse Resistance 

Education (DARE): Results 

of a 6-Year Follow-Up, 

1997 

Location: 

Colorado Springs, 

Colorado

6 Yes a

 Yes

Assessing the Effects of 

School-Based Drug 

Education: A Six Year 

MultiLevel Analysis of 

Project DARE, 1998 

Location: 

Chicago, Illinois 

6 Yes Yes Yes 

a Evaluation did not have initial random assignment of intervention and control groups. Random assignment 

allows for the development of experimental and control groups that are equivalent on all known and unknown 

variables. Instead of random assignment, the evaluation included periodic random tests that included checks of 

students’ demographic characteristics such as, age, gender, and ethnicity and students’ attitudes toward alcohol, 

tobacco, and other drugs to ensure equivalency among the groups. No statistically significant differences were 

found between the two study groups on those variables tested. 

Source: GAO analysis of six evaluations
Enclosure III Enclosure III 

15 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention 

Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 
Enclosure III Enclosure III 

16 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention
Enclosure III Enclosure III 

17 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention
Enclosure III Enclosure III 

18 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention
Enclosure IV Enclosure IV 

19 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention 

Comments from the Department of Education 
Enclosure IV Enclosure IV 

20 GAO-03-172R Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention

(290165)