This article discusses the variability in and application of statistical significance used in the guides and whether the standards created for these guides hold up under scrutiny. The author concludes that early results from this assessment are disappointing. This is because some of the recommended programs do not even meet the standards set by the guide, particularly regarding proof that they have long-term effects in preventing drug use. All of the guides are intended to save schools the time and cost of developing drug prevention programs that will ultimately fail to prevent youth from using drugs. This is done by providing guidelines/standards for program development that evaluative research has shown to be effective in reducing drug use among youth. This article focuses on how each guide developed standards for determining that its recommended programs have proven their worth. It then identifies the guide's basis for believing that its standards for excellence have been met by a recommended program. The author found that each of the seven efforts used a different approach for identifying standards for evidence of program effectiveness as well as evidence for the standards adopted. This is particularly troublesome when a program strategy is recommended as effective in some guides but not in others; however, if a majority of these guides, using different methods, reach a consensus on which interventions work, this should increase the probability that developing and implementing such a program will prove to be cost-effective. 1 table, appended supplementary information, and 33 references