The (In)Effectiveness of D.A.R.E.
4-20-01

The war on drugs is a major concern to many Americans, especially when it comes to their kids. One weapon the government has is D.A.R.E., Drug Abuse Resistance Education. The program is in the majority of this country's schools, but there is growing evidence that it is not working. After picking this topic, due to an interest in American drug policy, I was amazed at how hard it was to find evidence supporting D.A.R.E. Even on the D.A.R.E. America website, all they had were testimonials and uncited descriptions, which were mostly propaganda. The testimonials were by people involved in the program, such as former drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey, teachers, and police officers.

After spending several hours searching, I refused to change topics. I finally found an article in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency that, although proving the ineffectiveness of D.A.R.E., was at least sympathetic to the cause, and the authors seemed disappointed, almost saddened, by their results. The article, entitled "Assessing the Effects of School-Based Drug Education: A Six-Year Multilevel Analysis of Project D.A.R.E," by Dennis P. Rosenbaum and Gordon S. Hanson, appeared in November 1998. I am comparing it to an article that appeared in Reason, March 1995, entitled "Drug Prevention Placebo: How D.A.R.E. Wastes Time, Money, and Police," by Jeff Elliot.

I believe that this topic is significant because the program is so widespread. In 1996, it was in 70% of American schools, reaching 25 million students, and is in use in 44 other countries. If the studies are true, that it does not actually work, then not only is a lot of effort being wasted, but money as well. 1995 estimates put the cost as high as $700 million annually, with $500 million coming from the federal government. This seems like a hefty sum of money to spend on something that not only does not work, but may have adverse effects as well. I believe that this is a topic that more people should be informed about, because the more people complain, the more chance there is that efforts will be turned towards finding an answer that works.

The first article is a 6-year longitudinal field experiment. It is looking at the short- and long-term benefits of D.A.R.E. on students' attitudes, beliefs, social skills, and drug use behaviors. It followed 1798 kids from rural, suburban, and urban Illinois schools, giving both them and their teachers yearly surveys from 6th to 12th grades. The results were disappointing: "DARE had no long-term effects on a wide range of drug use measures…Previously documented short-term effects had dissipated by the conclusion of the study."

This is disappointing news for DARE, due to recent action by Congress. As of July 1st, 1998, local school districts will need to prove the effectiveness of their drug prevention programs to receive federal money. These programs must be able to prevent or reduce drug use, violence, or disruptive behavior.

The article defines DARE as "a series of school-based drug and violence prevention programs for kids in kindergarten through 12th grade. It is a cooperative venture between law enforcement agencies, schools, and the local community, and it involves the use of trained, uniformed police officers in the classroom to teach a carefully planned drug prevention curriculum." It focuses on fifth and sixth graders, who are believed to be the most susceptible to antidrug messages.

The article then explains the basis of DARE, emphasizing the body of theory and research it is based on. It has three elements: psychological inoculation, resistance skills training, and personal and social skills training. The psychological inoculation part exposes kids to simulated pressures to use drug, similar to vaccines in medicine. The resistance part comes in with teaching skills to evade negative social influences, including the media. The last part focuses on "preventing the development of socially learned behaviors and attitudes that are believed to be associated with substance abuse." DARE also has "information dissemination" - giving students info to make informed decisions about drug use - and "affective education" - concentrating on self-esteem building, managing stress, decision-making, role modeling, and forming support systems. The basic idea behind DARE is that "classroom instruction by trained police officers will result in enhanced self-esteem, self-understanding, and assertiveness; a clearer sense of values; and more responsible decision-making habits, which, in turn, should make students less vulnerable to the enticements and pressures to use drugs and alcohol."

The article next explores previous evaluations of DARE, pointing out the problems with the methods used and the analysis done. A few major problems are lack of a control group, only posttests were done, and the short time difference between pre- and posttests.

The researchers seemed disappointed by their results, which "on the whole, did not support the hypothesis," that being that DARE would have long-term effects. They found one, however: students who had DARE were more aware of media attempts to make beer look appealing. The also found that every additional 36 hours of cumulative drug education were associated with significantly more negative attitudes toward police, greater delinquency, and more positive attitudes toward drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes. However, they are quick to point out that it is a correlation only, and that although supplemental drug education could be causing the adverse change in attitude, it could also be that the change in attitude is leading schools to introduce more drug education.

The researchers tested the hypothesis that "DARE would have a sustained preventative effect on drug use behaviors." There was no evidence of this, as DARE kids were just like the control kids with respect to their recent and lifetime use of drugs and alcohol. Again, cumulative exposure to supplemental programs was associated with significantly higher levels of composite drug use.

They found that kids with DARE and additional programs were less likely to use drugs than kids in the control group who just had the supplemental education. However, it is reluctantly pointed out that the former are at the same level as that expected of kids without any drug education.

The article concludes by answering the question, "Can this popular school-based program prevent drug use at the stage in adolescent development when drugs become available and are widely used?…Unfortunately, the answer to this question is 'No.'" DARE, across many research projects and settings, has been unable to show anything but small, short-lived preventative effects on drug use.

Lastly, the researchers attempt to make excuses for the program. First, there may be some fault with the theory behind DARE, leading to problems in the content of the curriculum or in methods of instruction. Perhaps there need to be more interactive methods, or there could be more emphasis on aspects like the participant's personal commitment to avoid drug use.

Secondly, DARE is taught when kids are not using drugs and alcohol, and by the time they begin experimenting, the effects of the program are gone. This, they say, could be a sign that more DARE programs, not less, are needed at the junior high and high school levels.

They point out that since this study was done, the DARE program has been modified, and although the changes were small, additional research needs to be done.

The second article concentrates on the negative aspects of DARE, including the organization that runs it, DARE America. They claim statistics from a 3-year study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, which found that DARE raises kids' self-esteem, polishes their social skills, and improves their attitudes toward police. The study found also that DARE does not have a measurable effect on drug abuse. NIJ refused to publish the article, questioning "the scientific validity" of the study, although it had received positive peer review.

The study, done by the Research Triangle Institute, contained no original research, using only previous studies which all reached the same conclusions about DARE. However, with the introduction of a new curriculum in 1994, the Justice Department has decided that all the research proving DARE ineffective is now invalid. The author is quick to point out, however, "There's not a new curriculum - there's a slightly changed curriculum."

The study was published by the American Journal of Public Health, after it had been peer reviewed. Sabine Beisler, the director of publication for the journal, said, "DARE has tried to interfere with the publication of this. They tried to intimidate us." In other instances, DARE supporters have lashed out against those who fault the program. A November 1994 press release announcing a substance abuse prevention conference, titled "Pro-Drug Groups Behind Attack on Prevention Programs," considers anyone who criticizes DARE an advocate of drug realization.

The article then discusses the history of DARE, including its roots in Project SMART in Los Angeles in 1981. After a few minor changes, DARE was founded. Smart has gone through many changes and evaluations in its history, something that DARE has not done. The creators, however, were not stopped by this. It appeared to be a solution to the growing drug problem, and they had rich friends in high places.

DARE has enormous community support. The kids like it, parents and teachers like it, and the local police like it. However, by 1991, there were more than a dozen studies that claimed DARE did not work at all. It had some positive results, such as improved social skills. Yet there was no long-term effect on drug use. One study, though, claimed that it does indeed work. It was a 1986 evaluation by William DeJong, and the design of the study was described as seriously flawed by his colleagues. There was no pretest before beginning the program, and significantly negative effects were felt by the girls in DARE.

DARE America officials refuse to listen to negative reports. One top man said, "The only way that I know that you can determine if DARE is effective is through a long-term, seven-year-plus longitudinal national evaluation." The studies that had been done were merely superficial and inconclusive. However, the same person often cites a 1993 Gallup poll of recent DARE graduates to demonstrate the worth of the program. As the author points out, "If policemen obtained evidence of a crime, would they want professional technicians to analyze it or would they ask Gallup to quiz the public?"

Another problem with DARE is that it is so widespread. With all its funding and government support, more effective programs that require more training or more resources are bound to be ignored. The author concludes by saying, "By 2000, DARE will likely be in all our schools, and all those 'hothouse' programs will have become academic footnotes. And doubtless all of the parents, teachers, administrators, and police departments will still embrace the painless, easy solutions that DARE offers, happy that at least they're doing something positive to stop the scourge of drug abuse by children."

I tend to lean more in support of the second author. Based on these two articles, and on other sources, I have noticed that DARE is not working. Fortunately, many others in positions of power have also come to this conclusion. The mayor of Salt Lake City, for example, has stopped the program in all the city's schools. I believe that DARE is not the answer. Only by adopting a sensible drug policy will a difference be made.

Bibliography

Elliot, Jeff. "Drug Prevention Placebo: How DARE Wastes Time, Money, and Police." Reason, March 95, p. 14-21.

Rosenbaum, Dennis P. and Gordon S. Hanson. "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, Vol. 35 Issue 4, November 98, p. 381-413.