Substance abuse prevention efforts date back to the 1960s and have primarily targeted adolescents throughout the ensuing years. Until the 1980s most programs were mainly informational and did not allow for interactions between presenters, perhaps mainly classroom teachers, and students (Anthony, Jenson & Howard, 2015). Another approach that had gained traction were “scared straight” programs which still were informational but focused on presenting the horrors of abusing drugs, involving pictures of individuals in various stages of addiction or allowing from speakers who had been in prison or rehab programs who would share their stories meant to frighten students, By the mid-1980s such programs were proven to be ineffectual and further research showed that effective preventive measures, that is programs that made inroads into preventing substance abuse with young people focused on risk and protective factors (Anthony, et al., 2015). Yet, such findings seem to have gained wide-acceptance at a trickle’s pace.

There appears to remain at least one barrier still in place that has prevented newer, research-based prevention strategies from emerging onto the frontlines. This is especially applicable in schools throughout the nation. In a four year study of school-based prevention programs the US Department of Education (ED) found only one school district that had implemented a program enjoying positive results (Held, 2006). The remaining districts continued to utilize unproven prevention strategies, in fact the ED found that school districts did not consider the either current or ongoing research nor did they evaluate their own prevention programs. Even more surprising was that many of these school districts, estimated to be 75 percent, still employed the Drug Abuse Resistance Program (DARE), regardless that it has been well established that DARE is ineffective at stemming the use of substances (Held, 2006). While it seems as if the spotlight on ineffectual prevention strategies remains chiefly on DARE, it also appears that prevention approaches that seek to teach young people refusal skills and attempt to change perceptions concerning alcohol, drug and tobacco use are equally as ineffectual (Smith, 2001).

But these days it appears somewhat difficult to locate information concerning which programs, or strategies, are ineffective at preventing substance use and abuse. It almost seems as if the halcyon days of turning a keen eye on what works or doesn’t are over. It is now about programs that are evidence-based, which is a catch phrase used these days that refers to prevention programs that has shown quantifiable results. As Gandhi, Murphy-Graham, Petrosino, Chrismer, & Weiss (2007) note “Using evidence to inform practice and policy is a rational way to make decisions about which programs and practices to adopt to prevent substance abuse” (p. 44). So when ED moved in the direction of evidence based programs during the beginning of the new millennium so too did a good majority of school systems throughout the country. In fact, a majority of school-based prevention efforts came from a list of approved initiatives published by ED, such as Life Skills Training (LST), a program designed for elementary and junior high school students with a duration that targets social and psychological risk factors that tend to influence substance use during later adolescence; the Midwest Prevention Project (MPP) which is another long-term program targeting middle school, early adolescence and was school- and community-based. MPP strove to mediate peer pressure by primarily focusing on gateway drugs such as marijuana and cigarettes; and CASASTART which was developed to address high-risk youth, ages 11-13 years, with community-based interventions that used a case management model to prevent drug, tobacco and alcohol use and youth violence (Gandhi, et al., 2007).

The three prevention programs are considered by the DOE, as well as other government agencies, such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), as being exemplary. But when Gandhi, et al., (2007) evaluated the criteria used to rate prevention programs as exemplary they found serious discrepancies. First, they found little evidence that most prevention programs could actually reduce substance use in the long-term, which they found to be particularly the case with two programs mentioned previously in this paper: MPP and CASASTART. The researchers based their conclusion on the fact that the standards for evaluation of these programs by the various agencies was set too low. Secondly, most evaluations were conducted by the people who developed the programs raising the issue of bias. Lastly, there were very few long-term follow-up studies and the reports that were available indicated that most programs on the various exemplary lists showed any impact after immediate post-testing, except for LST (Gandhi, et al., 2007).

The study by Gandhi, et al., (2007) appears to indicate that it isn’t necessarily prudent to arbitrarily accept that a chosen evidence-based prevention programs is actually effective. But this should not discourage stakeholders from adopting school-based, community or family programs, far from it. But it takes time and investment by all community stakeholders to develop an effective prevention strategy that addresses risk and protective factors over the long-term. Prevention planning is a dynamic process that accounts for schools, families and the community as a whole, and publications that have been published by government agencies such as National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) have essentially provided the template for instituting community-wide and culturally appropriate prevention strategies that can avoid the pitfalls of bias when it comes time for evaluation (Robertson, David, & Rao, 2003). Effective prevention programs can be developed or modified to effectively address the needs of the community, but it takes willingness on the part of those involved.