YOUR TAX DOLLARS ON DRUGS

If the Department of Education's list of America's best school drug-
prevention programs were a game, it would be called: The judges can't lose.
It turns out that five of the 15 panelists who picked the nine exemplary
and 33 promising programs were involved with drug programs that the
panelists found to be the best. Four programs were deemed exemplary, one
promising. Some coincidence.

School districts that look to this list for help choosing which anti- drug
programs to adopt, however, won't see affiliations between panelist and
program clearly posted in the glossy 8-by-11-inch brochure the Dept of Ed
folk put out. Panelist Gilbert Botvin, for example, is listed for his
affiliation with Cornell University Medical College -- not with the
exemplary "clearly articulated and logically appropriate" Life Skills
Training program he developed.

Botvin's on vacation. The Dept of Ed folks couldn't offer a good response
by deadline. Phyllis Ellickson of Rand and its "exemplary" Project Alert,
denied the relationship was incestuous. "You should realize before any
programs came to the panel for review," she said, "they had been reviewed
by a larger group of experts in the field." Ellickson recused herself from
evaluating Rand's program.

On the outside looking in, however, Lynn Lafferty of the InDepth program --
which didn't make the list -- sees a skewed process. When she was a San
Francisco pharmacist, Lafferty began developing an innovative anti-drug
program that uses economics and risk-analysis to teach kids lessons about
the pros and cons of drug use and drug dealing.

Lafferty operates on the assumption that kids -- especially poor kids --
are open to analysis that looks at the dollars-and-cents downside to the
drug world. She's been in jails and interviewed dealers to see how many
actually saved money. (Answer: precious few.) She appeals to kids' rational
instincts.

Lafferty didn't see rational in her Dept of Ed evaluations. One evaluator
faulted Lafferty for using an "investment" metaphor with poor kids.

"The reviews were so disparate," noted Barbara Dietsch of the education
research group WestEd.

Looking at the winners and losers, Lafferty saw a process that works like
this: "First you get millions of dollars to develop a product" -- although
it should be noted some favored programs were developed without tax money.
"Then you get millions of dollars to research it. Then you write about it
in journals to say how good it is. Then the U.S. Department of Education
puts you on a committee so you can select yourself and make sure no one
else gets on that list."

Franklin Zimring, a professor at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law,
was a panelist not involved with a drug program. From his East Bay home
Wednesday, Zimring said that he knew there was a link between one panelist
and an "exemplary" program -- but not five. He also noted that he didn't
feel any pressure to favor any of the well-connected five programs, but he
wouldn't say there was no "halo effect" for programs favored by the chosen
circle.

That said, Zimring wasn't exactly dazzled by the Dept of Ed's modus
operandi. The selection process, he noted was "staff-dominated" and hobbled
by bad criteria. He would have used different criteria to select the
programs. And he took issue with six touchy-feely criteria featuring this
sort of language -- "content and processes are aligned with (program)
goals," "program promotes multiple approaches to learning."

"If you were to ask me with a lie detector to describe some of the
sub-criteria, as far as my understanding, I would not do well on the test,"
said Zimring.

These criteria could explain why Lafferty's ratings varied so.

And when a cadre on the inside can pick language that allows insiders to
self-select -- and favor other programs with similar viewpoints -- you see
how a world once dominated by the results -poor DARE anti-drug program may
be setting itself up for Son of DARE.

Does Zimring now think the panel should have more independent members?
"Good heavens, yes. Nobody likes a Little League where the parents are the
managers and umpires."