The social movement to communicate, educate, and prevent drug abuse among youth in the United States has evolved rather rapidly during the past 10 or 15 years. The principal vehicle has been curricula implemented in the school setting, usually with a teacher as the channel, and directed at all children in a certain grade. More often than not, the curricula are designed for youth in the fifth, sixth, or seventh grade.Concomitant with the diffusion of school-based prevention interventions has been demands for evaluations of the effectiveness of these programs, a product no doubt of the huge menu of social programs implemented during the '60s, 7Os, and '80s that were found to be of only marginal success. Unfortunately, the demand for prevention programs outpaced the supply of evaluators capable of an objective and rigorous evaluation of effectiveness of such programs.The bottom line for everyone seems to be: What works? This domain question is consistent with an emphasis on evaluation and a narrow focus only on outcomes. Did those who received the intervention fare significantly better than those who did not receive it? Are they less tolerant toward drugs, less likely to associate with people who do use drugs, and are they less likely to use drugs?Unfortunately, so many people who move directly to the bottom line are operating on a very simplistic notion about what causes drug use among youth. The fact is, the causes of drug use are many and, to this point, are identified only in gross terms. Prevention programs currently being implemented are usually delivered to everyone without distinction and, thus, do not adequately address Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard Rthe multiple causes of drug use or the incredible variability in reasons for use by different individuals.
PURPOSESThe purposes of this brief article are to (a) direct attention to two broad conceptual approaches to prevention interventions, (b) review some findings from a 2-year follow-up study of the effectiveness of Project DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), (c) identify a potentially important moderating variable for the effectiveness of any school-based curriculum (i.e., sensation seeking), and (d) raise some questions about school-based prevention interventions in general.
BROAD CONCEPTUAL MODELSGordon (1983, pp. 107-109) proposed a very simple typology of prevention interventions. The first type is a universal intervention. It is designed for broad, largely undifferentiated segments of the population. Examples of universal interventions might be public service announcements, TV documentaries, school curricula, and school policies. Much of what is labeled as drug abuse prevention in the United States is school based and treats all youth as if they were the same.The second type identified by Gordon is selected interventions. These are designed for subgroups or segments of the population whose demographic, family history, personal characteristics, or environmental conditions put them at higher risk for abuse of alcohol and other drugs...