This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Brown, J. H. Articles by Pollard, J. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Students and Substances: Social Power in Drug Education

Educational Research Consultants, Berkeley, CA

Marianne D’Emidio-Caston

University of California, Santa Barbara

John A. Pollard

Developmental Research and Programs, Seattle, WA

A statewide evaluation of a school-based substance use and drug education program called California Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Education (DATE) was conducted from 1991 to 1994 for the State Department of Education. Researchers used multiple methods to evaluate DATE programs such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) and Red Ribbon Weeks. Analysis of 143 field interviews with educators and administrators, and 40 student focus groups (grades 5–12) revealed that educators attempted to prevent student substance use by providing a "no-substance-use" message through high fear appeal; offering rewards; and attempting to improve students’ self-esteem by teaching refusal skills. Student interviews indicate program dissatisfaction and service-related cognitive dissonance. Random survey results (5,045 students in grades 7–12) showed that over 40% of California’s students were "not at all" influenced by educators or drug education programs, 15% were influenced "a lot" or "completely," and nearly 70% described a neutral to negative affect toward educators. Regression analyses showed that survey responses did not depend on self-reported substance use, nor the number of drug programs received (among other factors). This large-scale, multi-modal evidence suggests that drug, alcohol, and tobacco education programs had no positive influence on a majority of students’ substance-use decisions, and had other effects counter to those intended. This was especially true during the period when youth are faced with substance-use decisions, grades 7–12. Given the similarity of many U.S. drug education programs, student rejection of DATE programs is significant. Results and the need for a conceptual shift in how students are viewed and educated about substances are discussed.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 1, 65-82 (1997)
DOI: 10.3102/01623737019001065


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. H. Brown Interviewer as Instrument: Accounting for Human Factors in Evaluation Research Eval Rev, April 1, 2006; 30(2): 188 - 208. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. M. Dickson, J. L. Derevensky, and R. Gupta Harm Reduction for the Prevention of Youth Gambling Problems: Lessons Learned from Adolescent High-Risk Behavior Prevention Programs Journal of Adolescent Research, March 1, 2004; 19(2): 233 - 263. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. H. Brown and I. G.G. Kreft Introduction To the Special Issue: Zero Effects of Drug Prevention Programs: Issues and Solutions Eval Rev, February 1, 1998; 22(1): 3 - 14. [PDF]

				J. Beck 100 Years of "Just Say No" Versus "Just Say Know": Reevaluating Drug Education Goals for the Coming Century Eval Rev, February 1, 1998; 22(1): 15 - 45. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D'Emidio-Caston and J. H. Brown The Other Side of the Story: Student Narratives on the California Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Education Programs Eval Rev, February 1, 1998; 22(1): 95 - 117. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Skinner, M. Morrison, K. Bercovitz, D. Haans, M.J. Jennings, L. Magdenko, J. Polzer, L. Smith, and N. Weir Using the Internet to Engage Youth in Health Promotion Global Health Promotion, December 1, 1997; 4(4): 23 - 25. [PDF]