Reforming the D.A.R.E. Program

Drug education programs in the United States aim to prevent substance abuse among adolescents. The most popular and widely implemented of these programs is Drug Abuse Resistance Education, more commonly known as D.A.R.E.. Politicians, educators, and law enforcement officials advocate D.A.R.E. as part of a larger effort to decrease the demand for illegal substances. Despite widespread support for the program, research has not yet demonstrated that D.A.R.E. is an effective deterrent to drug use. Contrarily, various studies have indicated that it does not prevent teenage substance abuse. The D.A.R.E. program is therefore an ineffective method for curbing drug use. Educators should not continue to implement the program unless significant changes are made in its curriculum, methods of presentation, and duration.

The D.A.R.E. program has a relatively short history. It began in 1983 as a joint effort between the Los Angles Unified School District and the Los Angeles Police Department. Presented by a uniformed police officer, the program targets students during their late elementary school years. Its primary goal is to prevent adolescents from using alcohol, tobacco, and other illegal drugs. D.A.R.E. also aims to "build self-esteem, decision-making skills, and resistance to peer pressure" (Dukes, Long-Term Impact). Using activities such as role playing, group discussion, writing pledge essays, and a graduation ceremony, the seventeen-week curriculum involves active student participation.

Although D.A.R.E. has not undergone extensive research, many small studies have been conducted to measure the program's effectiveness. Several research methods have been adopted because it is difficult to monitor the actual drug using behavior of D.A.R.E. graduates. One study examined educators' perceptions of D.A.R.E. because their opinions "greatly influence the dissemination of prevention programs in the curriculum marketplace" (Donnermeyer and Wurschmidt). Another study compared the criminal offenses, motor vehicle offenses, and school offenses of D.A.R.E. graduates to those of similar students who had never received the program. However, The most popular research method is collecting data about students' behavior through self-report surveys of both D.A.R.E. and non-D.A.R.E. participants. These studies measure either the short-term or long-term impact of the program.

Before examining the existing research on the D.A.R.E. program, it is necessary to note the difficulty of obtaining completely accurate data. Nearly all of the experiments involve a control group as means for comparison. Ideally, control group subjects would have had no exposure to drug education and would be completely unknowledgeable about the impact of substance abuse.

A study was conducted in a rural Tennessee community to examine the long-term effectiveness of D.A.R.E. (Zagumny and Thompson). Three groups of high school students were given an anonymous survey about their attitudes towards drugs and their use of specific substances. One group consisted of non-D.A.R.E. participants who were surveyed in 1991. The other two groups of students were surveyed in 1996. One of these groups had participated in D.A.R.E. during elementary school, and the other had not. No differences were found between the 1996 D.A.R.E. and non-D.A.R.E. participants. However, drug use among the entire 1996 group was significantly lower than that of the 1991 group. This finding suggests that the passage of time, not the D.A.R.E. program caused the decrease in drug use. The results of this study suggest that D.A.R.E. has no long-term effects. Instead, other forces have led to a decrease in teenage drug use over time.

Perhaps pinpointing and strengthening these other forces in society would be more productive than continuing the D.A.R.E. program. Even changing the D.A.R.E. curriculum to incorporate some of these elements might be effective. If, for example, parents' increased ability to communicate with their children about drugs has led to the above 1991-1996 decrease, then parents should play a greater role in the D.A.R.E. program. Zagumny and Thompson recommend that society, as a whole, should place more emphasis on the high schools' drug problems by making systematic assessments of them.

To determine if D.A.R.E. achieves its entire range of goals, a multi-feature evaluation was conducted in Dade County, Florida for the 1994-1995 school year (Strusinski and Gomez). The criteria for judging the effectiveness of D.A.R.E. were perceptions of the program, resistance to peer pressure, tolerance of drug use, attitude toward police officers, success in school, and most importantly, drug use. A questionnaire was given to students, teachers, principals, and parents regarding their perceptions of the program. The students, consisting D.A.R.E. and non-D.A.R.E. graduates, were also surveyed in regards to susceptibility to peer pressure, attitudes toward drugs and police officers, and drug use. In addition, SAT scores and grade point averages were obtained to assess academic performance. This study found no significant differences between D.A.R.E. and non-D.A.R.E. graduates in any of the five criteria. Both groups showed the same degree of resistance to peer pressure, similar attitudes toward police officers, and similar academic performance. In regards to drug use, Strusinski and Gomez comment: "Drug usage was essentially the same for both D.A.R.E. graduates and the comparison group. The D.A.R.E. group's exposure to the program had no discernible impact". In fact, the data reveals that the D.A.R.E. graduates reported drinking significantly more beer than the non-D.A.R.E. group.

Despite the program's ineffectiveness, it was highly regarded by the students, teachers, principals, and parents who were surveyed. They all believed that the program should be continued. Perhaps this desire to continue the program comes from the lack of a suitable alternative. Because D.A.R.E. is the most widely implemented prevention program, to abandon it would mean abandoning the drug problem. Strusinski and Gomez recommend that school districts should "explore the feasibility of modifying the D.A.R.E. program or of adopting other drug education programs that have the potential to be more effective in deterring drug use". However, other successful prevention programs have yet to be identified.

Further indication that the D.A.R.E. program does not decrease adolescent drug use is apparent in a Colorado Springs study. (Dukes, Three-Year Follow Up). Students were surveyed during their freshman year of high school, three years after having participated in the D.A.R.E. program. The comparison group also consisted of high school freshmen, but they had not been exposed to D.A.R.E.. The self-report questionnaire asked students to rate their self esteem, resistance to peer pressure, family bonds, attitudes toward drugs, and their own drug use. No significant differences were found between the D.A.R.E. and non-D.A.R.E. graduates in any of these areas. Thus, three years its completion, the program had no beneficial effect on its participants.

However, Dukes, Ullman, and Stein had conducted previous research on the immediate effects of D.A.R.E.. The results of this earlier study demonstrated that "immediately after its completion, D.A.R.E. increased self-esteem and institutional bonding, and decreased endorsement of risky behaviors" (Dukes, Three-Year Follow Up). The program produced immediate, short-term effects on its participants, but failed to maintain them over time. This discrepancy between immediate and long-term results suggests the program's benefits are not permanent. Dukes describes this principle as a "wearing off" effect: "The advantages enjoyed by the D.A.R.E. students could have 'worn off'. That is, the benefits to the experimental group were not permanent, so they were not maintained over time" (Dukes Three-Year Follow Up). To remedy this situation, the D.A.R.E. program must strive to instill life-long values and attitudes in its participants.

Although the above studies indicate that D.A.R.E. is not an effective prevention program, these studies provide useful information that can help reform it. Instead of dismissing this research and continuing D.A.R.E. for lack of a suitable alternative, educators must strive to effectively decrease adolescent substance abuse. If they are reluctant to abandon D.A.R.E. and pursue other drug education options, they must make fundamental changes to the current program. By reforming its curriculum, methods of presentation, and duration, the D.A.R.E. program has the potential to effectively deter drug use.

Changing the D.A.R.E. curriculum to emphasize the dangers of alcohol and tobacco would help decrease the use of these specific substances. Because alcohol and tobacco are legal, students may perceive them as less threatening. These substances are therefore more likely to be experimented with. According to this logic, alcohol and tobacco should be the primary focus of D.A.R.E.. Currently, the "outsider" drugs, such as cocaine, LSD, amphetamines, and inhalants are most strongly emphasized. One study found that D.A.R.E. does significantly decrease the use of these deviant drugs (Dukes, Long-Term Impact). However, that same study found no effects on alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use.

The lack of emphasis on these "normative" drugs is evidenced by the fact that alcohol is, by far, the most widely used drug on college campuses. The long-term effects of these legal drugs are often more serious than the short-term ones. Adolescents frequently do not consider the long-term impact of their behavior, so alcohol and tobacco may seem somewhat harmless. By placing a stronger emphasis on these legal, non-deviant drugs, the D.A.R.E. program would more effectively prevent their use among adolescents.

Another possible change for the D.A.R.E. curriculum is increased parental involvement. Because parents have a life-long influence over their children, their participation in prevention efforts would have a more permanent effect. Goldberg states: "Even though peer influence is greater regarding lifestyle, parents retain greater influence on basic values and future life goals and aspirations. Parents who communicate well with their children are able to pass on values discouraging drug use". The D.A.R.E. program should aim to educate parents about communication skills, giving them techniques for talking to their children about drugs. Strusinski and Gomez note that in the Dade Country, Florida program, parents can participate in a workshop session and in the graduation ceremony. The results of their study revealed that the parents were "well aware of the program in general. Although their participation in the parent workshop was quite low, over 83 percent of the parents planned to attend the graduation ceremony". Perhaps additional parent workshops should be added for convenience and participation should be strongly encouraged. In addition, D.A.R.E. should provide written materials to the parents containing information about teenage drug use and communication techniques. These materials should stress the importance of parental involvement and influence upon their children's attitudes toward drugs.

The D.A.R.E. program's use of uniformed police officers to present material must be re-considered. The assumption that they are a credible and respected source of information is somewhat misguided. Dukes' research found that "initially, the D.A.R.E. officer was a highly credible source, and so was the message. With maturation, students dissociated the two, and the importance of the message declined. Over time, students lost some of their faith in police" (Long-Term Impact). Instead of using police officers, the D.A.R.E. program should be presented by a collaboration of some the following individuals: a peer leader, a recovering alcoholic, a lung cancer patient, the parent or sibling of a someone who had a drug-related death, and a substance abuse professional. The substance abuse professional would replace the police officer as the primary program provider. By meeting a wide range of individuals who have real-life experience with substance abuse (except the peer leader) the students would receive a more personal, vivid, and lasting message. In contrast, very few students can effectively relate to the authority figure of a police officer.

In order to effectively decrease adolescent drug use, the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program must be reformed to a considerable extent. The existing research demonstrates that the current program produces no long-term effects and is an ineffective drug deterrent. Changes must be made in its curriculum to promote parental involvement and emphasize the dangers of "normative" drugs, such as tobacco and alcohol. In addition, substance abuse professionals should replace police officers as the primary program leaders. A more personal message must be conveyed by having recovering addicts, lung cancer patients, and family members of people whose death was drug-related share their experiences with students. Finally, the duration of D.A.R.E. should be extended to include programs at the middle and high school levels. It is during this time when adolescents develop and change the most, adopting new attitudes and making important decisions. As the remedy to America's drug problem, prevention programs, such as D.A.R.E., must be continually re-evaluated and re-structured to produce truly effective results.