DARE: Drug Abuse Resistance Elimination (2004)

"For far too long, our drug prevention policies have been driven by mindless adherence to a wasteful, ineffective, feel-good program." With those words, Ross C. Anderson, the mayor of Salt Lake City, ended the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program's (DARE) use in Salt Lake City schools (Sullum). School budgets around the nation have decreased in recent years, and DARE has become one of the cuts made in a rising number of school districts (Harned). Some estimates of DARE's annual budget reach as high as $700,000,000 a year, yet many studies conducted on the effectiveness of DARE have concluded that its effect on drug use is minimal. Parents, teachers, and students all like DARE; however, studies show that although the DARE program helps raise self-esteem and improves student-police relations, it does not reduce teenage drug use. In his article Drug Prevention Placebo, Jeff Elliot, a freelance journalist, wrote, "With such enthusiasm for the program, it almost begs the question: What if it doesn't work?" Although DARE has become "America's de facto drug education program" (Elliot), it should not be used because it is grossly ineffective.

Since its early development and rise to becoming the most widely used drug abuse prevention program in the United States, DARE's teaching methods have been seriously flawed. Originally, DARE came into existence in 1983, stemming from Project SMART, Self-Management and Resistance Training. Developed by the University of Southern California and tested in Los Angeles, Project SMART began before other similar programs. The Los Angeles Police Department approached Project SMART to ask for its use in Los Angeles-area schools. Researchers turned down the request because testing and developing of the project had not yet concluded. However, DARE, authored by the Los Angeles unified health education specialist Ruth Rich, based on a modified version of Project SMART, took the spot. In the coming years, Project SMART would continue to grow in sophistication far beyond DARE, yet DARE's use continued, unaffected, because of the decision to skip later phases of testing. Consequently, DARE's lessons strive to teach important facts, yet do so with methods that do not work. DARE's imperfect teaching style demonstrates itself in "the 14% solution" (Elliot). In a lesson teaching about alcohol use, the DARE instructor asks fifth and sixth graders to guess what percentage of seventh graders have been drunk from alcohol, a statistic derived from a "national survey." In this exercise, students most often guess significantly higher than the 14% answer; however, for this problem, DARE expects the children to answer incorrectly. The lesson hopes to show these primary-school students that fewer middle schoolers drink than they think. However, this accomplishes the opposite, only giving the false impression that more seventh graders drink than they do in reality. This can lead to the "boomerang effect," in which students drink to fit in with a nonexistent majority. Not only does the lesson not work, it is based on incorrect facts. DARE's "national survey" was only conducted in California, and the actual figure comes closer to 23% (Elliot). Even if the number were correct, researchers found that students of that age cannot comprehend the concept of a national survey. Finally, opponents of DARE criticize the "just say no" mantra which DARE teaches. Marsh Rosenbaum, an advocate of the "Safety First" program which started in 1998, stated that DARE relies "heavily on fear tactics." "[Safety First] is for parents that have tried abstinence. Parents just want a fallback strategy, a Plan B, just in case [their children] don't listen." Rosenbaum compared her program to non-abstinence sex education. "For those kids that are not abstaining, what do you do? That's really the question" (Santini). DARE's creation, teaching method ,and philosophy all weaken its effect and do little to prevent drug abuse.

The importance of drug abuse prevention has led to a large number of studies on the effectiveness of DARE. Validating its effect, William DeJong, a consultant for the National Institute of Justice, carried out a study in 1985 to find DARE's success rate. His positive findings led to increased funding for DARE, and so began DARE's rise to the top. Contrary to his conclusions though, more studies have found that DARE does not work. A four-year study by the University of Illinois found that all effects of DARE were gone by a student's senior year, while a ten-year study by the University of Kentucky found that DARE's methods had no effect after the age of 20. Those and more than 30 others done on the DARE program have had similar results (Zernike). Consequently, DARE has twisted and avoided the charges supported by all of the negative findings. DARE has labeled its opponents "Pro-Drug Groups" (Elliot), yet both the National Academy of Sciences and the Surgeon General have released research that concurs with the majority's findings (Zernike). In 1994, a damning study of the DARE program by National Institute of Justice went unreleased due to DARE's "bullying." While a flyer published by DARE proudly informed the public that "not only is DARE widespread and popular, but demand for it is high," it condensed the negative findings to just two full sentences. DARE also fought off accusations with the revision of its curriculum during the mid-1990s. The change allowed them to dismiss all previous research on DARE as outdated. Bill Hansen, a researcher for Project SMART, summed up the seemingly contradictory actions: "They basically said . . . ‘Our program doesn't have a problem – and don't worry, we're fixing it" (Elliot). The massive amounts of evidence have, unfortunately, done little to make the public aware of DARE's minimal effects.

DARE does not work, and, therefore, should not be used in America's public schools. Roberta Silverman, a spokesperson for DARE America, believed that in the mid-1990's, amid the greatest flurry of critiquing the DARE program, "it was hot and sexy for Public Health to criticize DARE." However, the evidence that DARE is nearly useless for drug prevention is too great to ignore. DARE may have positive effects on communities in which it is taught, but it seems that those do not include curbing drug abuse; in some cases, data shows that it inadvertently encourages it. In 1994, the Clinton administration recommended eliminating drug education entitlements, a proposal that lost in the House of Representatives, 418-1 (Elliot). Although popular, either programs such as DARE must be drastically changed, possibly in the direction of the "Safety First" program (Santini), or they should be eliminated altogether to provide more money for general education. "DARE is fast becoming a government-sanctioned monopoly" (Elliot), but that must be ended before DARE's "boomerang effect" makes the imagined majority of drug-using students a reality.

Works Cited

Elliot, Jeff. "Drug Prevention Placebo." Reason. Mar 1995. 14-21.

Harned, Robin. "DARE Vanishing from School Curriculum." The Lankmark. (14 Oct 2004): Online. Internet. 14 Oct 2004. Available: http://rutland.thelandmark.com/story.php3?story=8734.

Santini, Jacob. "Drug Educator Advocates ‘Safety First.'" The Salt Lake Tribune. (8 Oct 2004): Online. Internet. 11 Oct 2004. Available: www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2424429.

Sullum, Jacob. "Dare Aware." Reason. Jan 2001. P 14-15.

Zernike, Kate. "Antidrug Program Says it Will Adopt a New Strategy." New York Times. (15 Feb 2001): Online. Internet. 11 Oct 2004. Available: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n271/a12.html.