Guide to Effective Programs
for Children and Youth

Plan a Safe Strategy Program (P.A.S.S.)

OVERVIEW

P.A.S.S is a theory-based drunk driving education program. This Australian program was established in 1985 to reduce the number of alcohol related car accidents for young drivers and to also delay the onset of driving related scenarios involving alcohol. An evaluation of the program two years later showed that attitudes of students who received the program toward situations involving drunk driving changed significantly. The results of an evaluation completed three years after the program showed that there had been a major reduction in drunk driving in control group and intervention group students, and there was an additional significant reduction in students reporting being a passenger of a drunk driver in the intervention group. These results were probably influenced by major changes in community drunk driving patterns at the time.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: Grade ten high school students (14-15 years old)

This Australian program was developed in 1985 as a school-based drunk driving education program intended to reduce the number of alcohol related car accidents of young people and to postpone their involvement in driving situations involving alcohol as long as possible. It was implemented before the participants reached the legal drinking age of eighteen years and driving age of seventeen years because the researchers believed it was important to try to introduce the program before the onset of the behavior.

The program’s twelve lessons were developed to enable the students to establish safe alternatives to driving drunk or being a passenger of a drunk driver. The lessons focused on changing students’ attitudes about driving drunk; their beliefs about the outcomes of drunk driving; and their beliefs about other’s attitudes toward these behaviors. They also focused on increasing the level of control the participants thought they had over their own behavior in drunk driving and passenger situations. Role-play and interactional activities were used to help students practice replying to persuasive arguments and to plan ahead to use alternatives to avoid driving drunk and riding as a passenger with a drunk driver.

EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM

Queensland Drink Driving Project (1990). Development and Implementation of the Plan a Safe Strategy Drunk Driving Prevention Program, NCADA Monograph Series No. 13 A.G.P.S. Canberra, as described in Study 2

Evaluated population: In 1988, pre and post surveys were given to students in four randomly assigned experimental (n=348 students) and control (n=325 students) schools.

Results: The results of the short-term evaluation showed that attitudes of students in the intervention group toward drunk driving and being a passenger of a drunk driver, and myths about safety in these situations, changed significantly. Students in this group were also more likely to be prepared to use alternatives to drunk driving or riding with a drunk driver. Intervention students were also significantly more likely to intend to avoid drunk driving after licensing and to avoid being a passenger.

Sheehan, M. Ballard, R., Schonfeld, C. Schofield, F., Najman. J, & Siskind, V. (1996). A three year outcome evaluation of a theory based drink driving education program. Journal of Drug Education, 26(3). 295-312.

Evaluated population: There were 164 randomly assigned experimental schools and 264 control schools. A baseline pretest was given to 4,545 students.

Approach: A three-year follow-up survey was mailed to a random sample of 62 percent of the original respondents in February 1991. The survey measured drunk driving and passenger behaviors as well as responses to pressures to be involved in passenger situations. 1,774 respondents returned the questionnaire in March 1991. The majority of the respondents were female (59 percent), aged seventeen years (58 percent). 86 percent held a learner’s permit or license.

Results: The results of the survey showed that in 1991, 7 percent of the intervention students and 9 percent of the control students reported drunk driving in the last month, compared with 3 percent and 5 percent three years earlier. 6.9 percent of respondents in the intervention group, who did not report drunk driving in 1988 reported it in 1991, compared with 7.74 percent of the control group respondents. 22 percent of the intervention and 27 percent of control respondents reported being a passenger of a drunk driver in the previous month in 1991. In 1988, more than half (57 percent and 56 percent respectively) of both groups reported being passengers of drunk drivers over the same period. Of the students in the intervention group who reported that they had been passengers of a drunk driver in 1988, 29.2 percent reported in 1991 that they had been passengers of a drunk driver in the past month. This compares with 37.4 percent of the control group.

Major community changes in drunk driving and passenger behavior took place at the same time as the P.A.S.S. Program. According to the authors, these changes probably affected the results of the study. This is demonstrated by the finding that in both the intervention and control groups there was only a minimal increase in the proportions who reported drunk driving. While the community changes may have been key influences, they are probably not sufficient to explain the full magnitude of the change because the majority of these students were under the legal drinking age, but the drinking age did not appear to have a restrictive effect on their weekly drinking activity. Moreover, it is a random assignment study, and impacts are clear for those who received the intervention.

P.A.S.S. reduced the proportion of students who reported riding with a drunk driver, reduced drunk driving, and increased their likelihood to use alternatives. However, the researchers conclude that the results most likely over-represent conforming students who would be the most responsive to the broader community attitude toward drunk driving. Likewise, they conclude that the results probably under-represent the most “at risk” group because of differential response rates to the survey. The program was found to be most effective at encouraging students who were just experimenting with drunk driving at the onset of the program to resist pressures to drink and drive and to use alternative strategies in dealing with drunk driving situations. The evaluation suggests that the P.A.S.S. Program failed to influence those who were already engaged in very high-risk behavior.

The authors noted that, although the program showed a significant change in drunk driving behavior among teenagers, community changes such as the implementation of the Random Breath Testing in 1988 and a national drunk driving prevention initiative in 1991 could have impacted the results of the study.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

References

Queensland Drunk Driving Project (1990). Development and Implementation of the Plan a Safe Strategy Drink Driving Prevention Program, NCADA Monograph Series No. 13 A.G.P.S. Canberra.

Program categorized in this guide according to the following:

Evaluated participant ages: 14-15 years old

Program age ranges in the Guide: Adolescence (12-14), Youth (15-21)

Program components: school-based

Measured outcomes: physical health, behavioral problems

Program information last updated 07/21/04.