An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect D.A.R.E

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 12-30

  Weiss, Carol Hirschon ^a,b   Murphy Graham, Erin ^a   Birkeland, Sarah ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION   (United States)

Author keywords

D.A.R.E.; Drug abuse prevention; Evaluation influence; Evaluation use

Indexed keywords

EID: 14744272255     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1098214004273337     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aaron, Henry J. (1978). Politics and the professors. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
2. Anderson, D. S., & Biddle, B. J. (Eds.). (1991). Knowledge for policy: Improving education through research. London: Falmer.
3. Aniskiewicz, R., & Wysong, E. (1990). Evaluating D.A.R.E.: Drug education and the multiple meanings of success. Policy Studies Review, 9, 727-747.
4. Baklien, B. (1983). The use of social science in a Norwegian ministry: As a tool of policy or mode of thinking? Acta Sociologica, 26, 33-47.
5. Ballart, X. (1998). Spanish evaluation practice versus program evaluation theory. Evaluation, 4, 149-170.
6. Bienayme, A. (1984). The case of France: Higher education. In T. Husen & M. Kogan (Eds), Educational research and policy: How do they relate? (pp. 121-129). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
7. Birkeland, S., Murphy-Graham, E., & Weiss, C. H. (In press). Good reasons for ignoring good evaluation: The case of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Program. Evaluation and Program Planning.
8. Bulmer, M. (Ed.). (1987). Social science research and government: Comparative essays on Britain and the United States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9. Caplan, N., Morrison, A., & Stambaugh, R. (1975). The use of social science knowledge in policy decisions at the national level. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
10. Caracelli, V. J., & Preskill, H. (Eds.). (2000). The expanding scope of evaluation use (New directions for evaluation, No. 88). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11. Clayton, R., Catarello, A. M., Day, L. E., & Walden, K. P. (1991). Persuasive communication and drug prevention: An evaluation of the D.A.R.E. program. In L. Donohew, H. E. Sypher, & W. J. Bukoski (Eds.) Persuasive communication and drug abuse prevention (pp. 295-312). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Clayton, R., Catarello, A. M., & Johnstone, B.M. (1996). The effectiveness of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (Project D.A.R.E.): 5-year follow up results. Preventative Medicine, 25, 307-318.
13. Cousins, J. B., & Leithwood, K. A. (1986). Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research, 56 331-364.
14. DeJong, W. (1987). A short term evaluation of Project D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education): Preliminary indications of effectiveness. Journal of Drug Education, 17, 279-294.
15. Feldman, M. S. (1989). Order without design: Information production and policy making. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
16. Greene, J. C. (1988). Communication of results and utilization in participatory program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 11, 341-351.
17. Gruner, A., Murphy-Graham, E., Petrosino, A., & Weiss, C. H. (under review). The devil is in the details: Examining the evidence for "proven" school-based drug prevention programs.
18. Henry, G. T. (2000). Why not use? In V. Caracelli & H. Preskill (Eds.), The expanding scope of evaluation use (New direction for evaluation, No. 88, pp. 85-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19. Henry, G. T., & Mark, M. M. (2003). Beyond use: Understanding evaluation's influence on attitudes and actions. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 293-314.
20. Husen, T., & Kogan, M. (1984). Educational research and policy: How do they relate?. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
21. Kirkhart, K. E. (2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. In V. J. Caracelli & H. Preskill (Eds.), The expanding scope of evaluation use (New direction for evaluation, No. 88, pp. 5-23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22. Mark, M. M., & Henry, G. T. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10, 35-57.
23. National Academy of Sciences/Social Science Research Council. (1969). The behavioral and social sciences: Outlook and needs. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24. National Research Council. (1982). Behavioral and social science research: A national resource. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25. Nyre, G. F. (1984). An evaluation of Project D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Los Angeles: Evaluation and Training Institute.
26. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new-century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Patton, M. Q., Grimes, P S., Guthrie, K. M., Brennan, N. J., French, B. D., & Blyth, D. A. (1977). In search of impact: An analysis of utilization of federal health evaluation research. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 141-163). Lexington, MA: Lexington/Heath.
28. Petrosino, A. (2003). Standards for evidence and evidence for standards: The case of school-based drug prevention. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 180-207.
29. Preskill, H., & Caracelli, V. (1997). Current and developing conceptions of use: Evaluation use TIG survey results. Evaluation Practice, 18, 209-225.
30. Radaelli, C. (1995). The role of knowledge in the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 2, 159-183.
31. Rich, R. F. (1977). Use of social science information by federal bureaucrats: Knowledge for action versus knowledge for understanding. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social science research in public policy making (pp. 199-211). Lexington, MA: Lexington-Heath.
32. Ringwalt, R. L., Greene, J. M., Ennett, S. T., & Lachan, R. (1994). Past and future directions of the D.A.R.E. program: An evaluation review. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, RTI Report 5192.
33. Rosenbaum, D. P., & Hanson, G. S. (1998). Assessing the effects of school-based drug education: A six-year multilevel analysis of Project D.A.R.E. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 381-412.
34. Shadish, W., Cook, T., & Leviton, L. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35. Sheerens, J. (1982). The functioning of policy-oriented research within some major innovatory programmes in Dutch education. In D. B. P. Kallen, G. B. Kosse, H. C. Wagenaar, J. J. J. Kloprogge, & M. Vorbeck (Eds.), Social science research: A reappraisal. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson.
36. Shulha, L. M., & Cousins, J. B. (1997). Evaluation use: Theory, research, and practice since 1986. Evaluation Practice, 18, 195-208.
37. Turnbull, B. (1998). A confirmatory factor analytic model of evaluation use. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 13, 75-87.
38. U.S. Department of Education. (1998, Jun 1). Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program; notice. Federal Register, 63(104), 29901-29906.
39. Weber, Max. (1947). Max Weber, the theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
40. Weiss, C. H. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426-431.
41. Weiss, C. H. (1980a). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1, 381-404.
42. Weiss, C. H. (with Bucuvalas, M.). (1980b). Social science research and decision-making. New York: Columbia University Press.
43. Weiss, C. H. (1989). Congressional committees as users of analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8, 411-431.