D.A.R.E. PROGRAM'S EFFECTIVENSS NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED

The issue: A prominent local attorney says the Drug Abuse Resistance
Education program is a failure. One local police chief says his town
has dropped the program.

We say: Research on D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness is inconclusive, but
local towns should take a look at their individual programs to make
sure they are having the intended results.

James Gierach, a lawyer and political activist from Oak Lawn, wrote
the village board last month to complain about the village's decision
to use the Drug Abuse Resistance Education -- D.A.R.E. -- insignia on
this year's vehicle sticker.

"To say I'm offended is an understatement," Gierach wrote in a letter
to Mayor Dave Heilmann and the village board, a copy of which Gierach
provided to the Daily Southtown.

Gierach says he objects to use of the D.A.R.E. insignia not because
he's in favor of drug use, but because he believes D.A.R.E. is
ineffective. Southtown columnist Phil Kadner wrote a column about
Gierach and his letter of complaint earlier this month.

A former assistant state's attorney, village prosecutor and candidate
for state's attorney and governor, Gierach in recent years has devoted
much time and energy to opposing what he calls "the Drug War" -- the
national law enforcement effort to jail illegal drug users and their
dealers, which has led to the expenditure of millions upon millions of
tax dollars on new and bigger prisons, all of which are filled to
overflowing as soon as they open.

In addition to opposing those expenditures, Gierach argues that the
prohibition of drug use is precisely what makes drug-dealing a
lucrative business for gang leaders and other criminals -- so
lucrative that it's worth risking their lives to protect their illegal
business.

D.A.R.E., created in the 1980s, is a program that once was widely
accepted as an effective way to discourage youngsters at a very early
age from getting involved with drugs. Many, if not most, police
departments began D.A.R.E. programs and assigned officers to work
directly with school kids, usually beginning in fifth grade. The basic
tenant of their lesson was the "Just say no" slogan that First Lady
Nancy Reagan popularized in the 1980s.

With the support of the president and the First Lady, D.A.R.E.
programs became popular with Congress and other federal agencies,
which eagerly provided money to police departments that wanted to
start D.A.R.E. programs. Some departments funded their programs with
the proceeds of drug arrests and drug-related property forfeitures.
Police officers would meet regularly with their young classes to warn
them about the dangers of drugs and the people who used them. The
theory was that if youngsters could be reached at a very early age --
before they were likely to have begun experimenting themselves -- they
could be insulated from pro-drug peer pressure and persuaded never to
start using in the first place.

But in the late 1990s, researchers, academics and even some government
agencies began to question whether the millions of dollars being spent
on D.A.R.E. were being spent wisely or effectively. Some studies
suggested that the young D.A.R.E. students were actually more likely
to begin using drugs than youngsters who never went through the
D.A.R.E. indoctrination. Even the federal Government Accountability
Office, in early 2003, concluded that the program didn't work and that
there was no significant difference in drug use between D.A.R.E.
graduates and those who didn't participate in the program. In his
letter to Oak Lawn officials, Gierach quoted Chicago Ridge Police
Chief Tim Balderman, a critic of the program. "I can't tell you how
many kids told me D.A.R.E. introduced them to drugs," Balderman said.
"We had an increase in (drug) arrests, all D.A.R.E. graduates."
Chicago Ridge ended its D.A.R.E. program in 2002.

Supporters of D.A.R.E. have argued that such reports were written by
biased, pro-drug researchers or that the research was outdated because
the program was quick to adopt new techniques, making assessments
based on old data irrelevant.

A more valid defense of the program, we think, is that getting police
officers into the schools can create positive relationships with
students. In fact, some police departments are shifting their focus to
an anti-gang or anti-violence message in order to justify remaining in
the schools.

But many police departments and school districts still swear by
D.A.R.E., and we don't believe the evidence is conclusive one way or
the other. But Gierach's message to Oak Lawn leaders deserves their
attention. They ought to take a serious, objective look at the
D.A.R.E. program, consult with local and state school and police
officials and familiarize themselves with the research.

During its early years. D.A.R.E. seemed to benefit from the attitude
that if you didn't support D.A.R.E., you wanted kids to use drugs.
Clearly, that's not true. The program has been around long enough that
expert studies and critical analyses of its results are available and
ought to be considered.

Putting the D.A.R.E. insignia on the village vehicle tag is going to
be interpreted as an endorsement of the program. Village officials
ought to be fully confident that it's a program they want to endorse.