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 Similar articles in Web of Science 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 Web of Science (16) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Weiss, C. H. Articles by Birkeland, S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

An Alternate Route to Policy Influence

How Evaluations Affect D.A.R.E.

Harvard University, carol_weiss{at}harvard.edu

Erin Murphy-Graham

Harvard University

Sarah Birkeland

Harvard University

Investigators of the influence of evaluations on policy decisions have noted three main routes to influence: instrumental, conceptual, and political/symbolic. This study, an inquiry into the effect of evaluations of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program, found a fourth main way that evaluations exert an influence: imposed use. The Safe and Drug Free Schools office of the U.S. Department of Education obliged districts to select a program that met its "Principles of Effectiveness," which most districts construed to mean that the program had to be on the department’s approved list. Because results of D.A.R.E. evaluations repeatedly showed that D.A.R.E.’s effectiveness on knowledge and attitudes was neither sustained nor led to lower use of drugs, D.A.R.E. did not make the "lists." Hence, many districts dropped or scaled back D.A.R.E. This kind of imposed use is likely to become more common when government agencies make greater demands for accountability.

Key Words: evaluation use • evaluation influence • drug abuse prevention • D.A.R.E.

American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 26, No. 1, 12-30 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1098214004273337


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. Johnson, L. O. Greenseid, S. A. Toal, J. A. King, F. Lawrenz, and B. Volkov Research on Evaluation Use: A Review of the Empirical Literature From 1986 to 2005 American Journal of Evaluation, September 1, 2009; 30(3): 377 - 410. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. G. Carman Nonprofits, Funders, and Evaluation: Accountability in Action The American Review of Public Administration, July 1, 2009; 39(4): 374 - 390. [Abstract] [PDF]

				The Communication Evaluation Expert Panel, J. Abbatangelo-Gray, G. E. Cole, and M. G. Kennedy Guidance for Evaluating Mass Communication Health Initiatives: Summary of an Expert Panel Discussion Sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Eval Health Prof, September 1, 2007; 30(3): 229 - 253. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. A. Christie Reported Influence of Evaluation Data on Decision Makers' Actions: An Empirical Examination American Journal of Evaluation, March 1, 2007; 28(1): 8 - 25. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. G. Carman Evaluation Practice Among Community-Based Organizations: Research Into the Reality American Journal of Evaluation, March 1, 2007; 28(1): 60 - 75. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. G. Gandhi, E. Murphy-Graham, A. Petrosino, S. S. Chrismer, and C. H. Weiss The Devil Is in the Details: Examining the Evidence for "Proven" School-Based Drug Abuse Prevention Programs Eval Rev, February 1, 2007; 31(1): 43 - 74. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Balthasar The Effects of Institutional Design on the Utilization of Evaluation: Evidenced Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) Evaluation, July 1, 2006; 12(3): 353 - 371. [Abstract] [PDF]