DEFENDING DARE

Last week's letter to the editor regarding "DARE program ineffective at
best" has ruffled more than a few feathers.

The letter focused on my March 19th column in the Express, which outlined
the undeniable benefits of the DARE program and the positive impact that
this program continues to have on the lifestyles of young students who are
constantly faced with difficult decisions regarding the use of drugs and
alcohol.

There is little doubt in my mind that this letter is nothing more than an
attempt to compromise the validity of a program that has a proven track
record for keeping students on the straight and narrow path of a drug-free
life.

That sentiment does not appear, however, to be shared by Mr. Matthew Hulet
who emphasized in his letter that, south of the 49th parallel in the good
old US of A, DARE is not on the list of endorsed drug education programs by
the government's criminal justice department.

He goes on to say DARE is "at best ineffective and at worst
counterproductive," adding that he questions "why anyone would divert
resources from programs demonstrated to work to one that has been a waste
of resources."

For those of you who don't already know, DARE is a series of school-based
drug and violence prevention programs aimed at raising awareness among
students. It is a cooperative venture between law enforcement agencies,
schools, and the local community and involves the use of trained, uniformed
police officers in to the classroom to teach a carefully planned drug
prevention curriculum.

The DARE program was created in 1983 as part of a cooperative effort
between the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles United School
District and has grown to become the largest drug education initiative in
the world. By 1996, the program had fanned out to more than 44 countries,
including Canada, reaching a population base of roughly 25 million students.

This isn't the first time that negative feedback regarding the
effectiveness of DARE has raised some eyebrows. In fact, DARE's popularity
has been put to the test on a number of occasions in recent years as a
result of growing drug concerns which have sparked wide-spread media
attention and political finger pointing along the way.

That includes a Washington Times article in 1996 which described the
success of DARE as a "political illusion" based on the results of a U.S.
Department of Criminal Justice study which suggested the program has had no
long-term effects on a wide range of drug use measures among students.

Mr. Hulet is entitled to his opinion, regardless of whether it is deemed
right or wrong by people on this side of the North American fence.

As a parent of three children currently enrolled in the educational
mainstream, I tend to disagree with Mr. Hulet's analysis of DARE. And I
trust I'm not alone.

His comments will likely be construed by many people as a significant slap
in the face one that undermines the collective efforts of DARE officers,
parents and school board officials who work hard to make a difference in
the lives of our students.

I for one feel grateful to have access to such a valuable program which
acts as a safety net for our children regardless of Mr. Hulet's viewpoint.

U.S.-based evidence supports the fact that this program is receiving a
failing grade in the "land of the free." The same, however, can't be said
here in Canada where DARE continues to shape our students into model citizens.

It just goes to show that the grass is often greener on the other side of
the fence.