A HARD LOOK AT D.A.R.E.

The Issue: Program Officials Announce A New, Improved
Version

Our View: So Why Are Local Schools Still Using The Old
One?

Critics of the popular D.A.R.E. program -- drug abuse resistance
education -- have long complained that it doesn't work. If there's any
effect at all, researchers find, it is temporary or even negative.

That view picked up some unexpected support recently -- from D.A.R.E.
itself. Officials announced that for two years they have been working
on a substitute for D.A.R.E. that will be aimed at somewhat older
children and will depend more on peer-group discussions than lectures.

"I'm not saying it was effective," said Glenn Levant, president of
D.A.R.E. America in Los Angeles, describing the current program,
started in 1983. "But it was state of the art when we launched it. Now
it's time for science to improve upon what we're doing."

Starting next fall, D.A.R.E. will conduct a two-year study of its new
program in 80 high schools and 176 middle schools that feed them,
probably including some in the Denver area. Half will use the new
program, and the other half will continue with what they have been
using, which may or may not be the current D.A.R.E. program.

It's commendable that on this go-round D.A.R.E. will try to determine
whether the program works before implementing it on a grand scale. But
it's also fair to ask why they didn't respond sooner to the growing
mountain of negative evidence.

Among those asking the questions should be the schools that are still
using the program, even though the federal Department of Education
will no longer permit them to spend money from the safe and drug-free
schools plan on D.A.R.E. And the police departments who contribute
officers' time and salaries, to the tune of an amazing $215 million
nationwide, should be asking too.

Questioning D.A.R.E. is politically hazardous because the program has
loads of committed supporters, whether in the school, the police
department or the broader community. Brenda Holben, who is prevention
coordinator of the Cherry Creek School District, is also on the board
of the Aurora D.A.R.E. chapter. She's frankly skeptical of the
research showing the program's ineffectiveness, citing difficulties
with students who move in and out of the district. But she agrees that
one year's exposure to the anti-drug message is not enough.

"It has to be a consistent, ongoing message, K-12," she said. "And
parents' messages need to be consistent with the schools'."

As it happens, Cherry Creek could be an excellent test case, because
it's spread over five different political jurisdictions. Arapahoe
County has stoutly resisted jumping on the D.A.R.E. bandwagon, though
its officers cooperate with other anti-drug programs used in Cherry
Creek district schools in the county. The Aurora Police Department has
an active D.A.R.E. program, used in both Aurora and Cherry Creek
Schools. Greenwood Village and Cherry Hills also have D.A.R.E.
programs in the district.

But do they work? The importance of the goal is not in dispute, nor
the sincerity of the participants, only the efficacy of the means.
Time in the school day is precious, as Holben noted, so the limited
time available for drug education must not be wasted.

Now that D.A.R.E. itself has acknowledged its minimal results, schools
using it should be actively looking for other choices.