MISGUIDED DRUG PREVENTION PROGRAMS FAIL

Since 1986 the U.S. has poured $6 billion into the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Program. This money has gone to 15,000 local school districts on
the assumption that decentralization is good and local communities can
spend these funds wisely.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence this program has made schools safer or
more drug-free. On the contrary, there is evidence that much of the money
was wasted. For example, a magician cuts a girl in half while talking
about drugs damaging a body. A former Miss Louisiana gives anti-drug talks
by singing the love theme from 'Titanic' and Elvis Presley's 'If I Can Dream'.

North Americans are obsessed with the idea that big government and
centralized decision-making is bad. Thus, decentralization and local
decision-making is good. This has led to silly programs. Even the more
reasonable sounding programs usually favour prevention efforts that have a
history of failure. They include:

* "Talk" therapies, i.e. counselling and peer counselling. Despite the
claims of the counselling industry, rigorously evaluated programs show that
trying to talk students out of drug use and delinquency does not work.
Some talk programs even decrease delinquency.

* Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE), taught by uniformed police
officers in grades 5 and 6 classes. There programs consume much police
time but do not alter drug use.

* Outward Bound-type programs. In Canada many such programs are run by
people with advanced degrees in psychiatry and recreation. They are
convinced that they prevent delinquency. The hard evidence is clear. They
don't. They may do less damage than prison sentences, and this makes them
a reasonable alternative. In France, a few delinquents may join a group of
"normal" colleagues, and interacting with these pro-social young people may
help, but clustering anti-social juveniles together in "enrichment"
programs doesn't reduce delinquency.

Why does the Safe and Drug Free School Program persist? What politician
would vote against Safe and Drug Free Schools? Governments appear to be
doing something good. It is also good pork barrel politics. Many local
communities get funds to spend on favorite projects.

It appears Canada will provide small amounts to local communities "to
support provincial efforts to meet the objectives of the Strategy (inherent
in the proposed Youth Criminal Justice Act)."

Local communities of well-meaning citizens will get funding for popular
programs, such as counselling and Outward Bound activities. Centralized
thinking (that might encourage changes based on evidence) is bad.
Decentralized groups which ignore scientific findings will somehow generate
wisdom. Governments will look good. Citizens will deceive themselves into
thinking they have accomplished something.

At the first International Forum on Initiatives for Safe Schools in Korea,
June 22-24, I was one of 50 representatives from 29 countries. Larry
Sherman, president of the International Criminology Society, referred to
the University of Maryland report on extensive rigorous evaluations which
identify many strategies that persistently fail and the few which are
promising. The promising ones require careful implementation. They rarely
lend themselves to simple phrases and catchy slogans that sell well
politically.

We also heard intelligent suggestions from Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden,
Denmark, Fiji, and Australia, among others. These countries spend less
money and achieve superior results with juveniles compared to North
America. But Canada has a pattern of ignoring most of the world, while
repeating programs that have failed in the U.S.

Have Canadian politicians learned that the Safe and Drug Free Schools
program in the U.S. offers an excellent model for getting votes while
letting people cling to their traditional myths?

Jim Hackler is a sociologist at the University of Victoria. The second
edition of his book 'Canadian Criminology: Strategies and Perspectives'
will appear shortly.