This large-scale student-centered, evaluation of the California Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco
Education (DATE) program shows how a state policy directed toward students at risk for
substance abuse shapes perceptions, influences program directions, and affects both "at-risk"
and "thriving" students. Qualitative data analysis revealed that a risk-oriented policy from the
state influenced educators to use the risk factor model to shape services and identify at-risk
students. Despite high implementation levels of services like Drug Abuse Resistance Education
(DARE), few (if any) positive effects on either at-risk students or thriving students were found.
Although the program was directed to assist at-risk students, identification often preceded
detention, suspension, or expulsion. For two reasons, researchers question the validity of the
risk factor model as an effective school-based substance abuse prevention tool: (a) the risk factor
model is inherently difficult to implement, and (b) it is misused as an individual diagnostic tool.
Implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baizerman, M., and D. Compton.1992. From respondent and informant to consultant and participant: The evolution of a state agency policy evaluation In Minority issues in program evaluation, New Directions in Program Evaluation , no. 53, edited by A. M. Madison, 5-16. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, J.H., and J.E. Horowitz.1993. Deviance and deviants: Why adolescent substance use prevention programs do not workEvaluation Review17:529-55.
7.
California State Department of Education.1991-1992. Healthy kids, healthy California Drug, Alcohol, Tobacco Education (DATE) district application for fundingSacramento, CA: California State Department of Education.
8.
Coie, D., N.F. Watt, S.G. West,J.D. Hawkins, J.R. Asarnow, H.J. Markman, S.L. Ramey, M.B. Shure, and B. Long.1993. The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for a national research programAmerican Psychologist48:1013-22.
9.
Drug-Free Schools and Communities ActPublic Law99-570.
10.
Edelman, M.1964. The symbolic uses of politicsChicago : University of Illinois Press.
11.
Education Commission of the States.1988. Securing our future: The report of the National Forumfor Youth at RiskDenver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
12.
Ennett, S., N. Tobler, C. Ringwalt, and R. Flewelling.1994. How effective is drug abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluationsAmerican Journal of Public Health84:1394-1401.
13.
Filstead, W. J., ed. 1970. Qualitative methodology: Firsthand involvement with the social worldChicago: Rand McNally.
14.
Fine, M.1993. Making controversy: Who's "at risk"? In Children at risk in America, edited by R. Wollons, 91-110. New York: State University of New York.
15.
Garfinkel, H.1967. Studies in ethnomethodologyEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
Gilchrist, V.J.1992. Key informant interviews In Doing qualitative research, edited by B. F. Crabtree and W. L. Miller, 70-89. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Gillmore, M.R., D.J. Hawkins, R.F. Catalano, L.E. Day, M Moore, and R. Abbott.1991. Structure of problem behaviors in preadolescenceJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology59:499-506.
18.
Glaser, B.G., and A.L. Strauss.1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative researchNew York: Aldine.
19.
Glick, H.1970. Interviewing judges: Access and interview settingAnn Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
20.
Gordon, R.1981. Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tacticsHomewood, IL: Dorsey.
21.
Guba, E.1978. Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluationLos Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation.
22.
Guba, E.G., and Y.S. Lincoln.1981. Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approachesSan Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Hawkins, J.D., R.F. Catalano, and J.Y. Miller.1992. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse preventionPsychological Bulletin112:63-105.
24.
Hawkins, J.D., D.M. Lishner, J.M. Jenson, and R.F. Catalano.1987. Delinquents and drugs: What the evidence suggests about prevention and treatment programming In Youth at high risk for substance abuse, DHHS Publication No. (ADM)87-1537, reprinted 1990 as (ADM)90-1537, edited by B. S. Brown and A. R. Mills, 81-131. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
25.
Horowitz, J.E., and Brown, J.H.1993. "The End of Risk and Reduction of Vulnerability: Viable School-Based Prevention Programs."Paper presented at the 7th Annual Conference on Drug Policy, Reform, Drug Policy Foundation , Washington, D. C., 1993 .
26.
Jessor, R., and S.L. Jessor.1977. Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youthNew York: Academic Press.
27.
Johnston, L.D., P.M. O'Malley, and J.G. Bachman.1993. National survey results on drug use from the Monitoring the Future Survey Study (1975-1992Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
28.
Kirk, J., and M. Miller.1986. Reliability and validity in qualitative researchNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
Klitzner, M.D.1987. Part 2: An assessment of the research on school-based prevention programs. Report to Congress and the White House on the nature and effectiveness of federal, state, and local drug prevention/education programsWashington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
30.
LeCompte, M.D., and J. Preissle.1993. Ethnography and qualitative design in educational researchSan Diego, CA: Academic Press.
31.
Marshall, C., and G.B. Rossman.1989. Designing qualitative researchNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
McIntyre, K., D. White, and R. Yoast.1989. Resilience among youthMadison : Clearinghouse, Dean of Students Office Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin System.
33.
Moskowitz, J.M.1989. The primary prevention of alcohol problems: A critical review of the research literatureJournal of Studies on Alcohol50:54-88.
34.
National Commission on Excellence in Education.1983. A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reformWashington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
35.
National Institute on Drug Abuse.1981. Adolescent peer pressure: Theory, correlates, and program implications for drug abuse preventionWashington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
36.
Newcomb, M., and P. Bentler.1988. Consequences of adolescent drug use: Impact on the lives of young adultsNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
37.
Parlett, M., and D. Hamilton.1972. Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programs. Occasional PaperEdinburgh : Centre for Research in the Educational Sciences, University of Edinburgh.
38.
Placier, M.L.1993. The semantics of state policy making: The case of "at-risk."Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis15:380-95.
39.
Quandrel, M.J., B. Fischhoff, and W. Davis.1993. Adolescent (in)vulnerabilityAmerican Psychologist48(2): 102-16
40.
. Quinn-Patton, M.1987. How to use qualitative methods in evaluationNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
41.
Richardson, V.1990. At-risk programs: Evaluation and critical inquiryNew Directions For Program Evaluation45:61-75.
42.
Romero, F., J. Bailey, C. Carr, J. Flaherty, T. Fleming, J. Radio-Gaynor, D. Houle, R. Karam, M. Lark, T. Martine, and C. Thomas.1994. California programs to prevent and reduce drug, alcohol, and tobacco use among in-school youth: Annual evaluation report. Prepared by the Southwest Regional Laboratory for the California Department of EducationLos Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory.
43.
Romero, F., C. Carr, J. Pollard, D. Houle, J. Brown, J. Gaynor, T. Fleming, J. Flaherty, T. Martino, and R. Karam.1993. Drug, alcohol, and tobacco education evaluation: Second-year interim evaluation report. Prepared by the Southwest Regional Laboratory for the California Department of EducationLos Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory.
44.
Rossi, R.J.1994. Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive changeThousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45.
Sanders, J.R.1994. The program evaluation standardsNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
46.
Schutz, A., G. Walsh, and F. Lehnert.1967. The phenomenology of the social worldEvanston, IL: University of Chicago Press.
47.
Shadish, W.R., Jr. , T.D. Cook , and L.C. Leviton .1991. Foundations of program evaluation . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
48.
Shedler, J., and J. Block.1990. Adolescent drug use and psychological health: A longitudinal inquiryAmerican Psychologist45:612-30.
49.
Spradley, J.S.1979. The ethnographic interviewNew York : Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
50.
Stake, R.E.1975. Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. Occasional Paper no. 5The evaluation center, Western Michigan University.
51.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin.1990. Basics of qualitative researchNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
52.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget.1993 . Federal drug control programs: Budget summary fiscal year 1994Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
53.
U.S. Office of Substance Abuse Prevention.1989. Request for proposals for high-risk youth grantsWashington, DC: U.S. Office of Substance Abuse Prevention.
54.
Werner, E.E.1986. Resilient offspring of alcoholics: A longitudinal study from birth to age 18Journal of Studies on Alcohol47(1): 34-40.
55.
White House, The. 1989. National drug control strategyWashington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy.
56.
Wysong, E., R. Aniskiewicz, and D. Wright.1994. Truth and dare: Tracking drug education to graduation and as symbolic politicsSocial Problems41:448-72.
57.
Zelditch, M.1962. Some methodological problems of field studiesAmerican Journal of Sociology67:566-76.
