Vol. 9, No. 8, 1992

Articles on the New Age

by Rick Branch

In August of 1985 an evaluation of the DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program was submitted to the Los Angeles police department by Dr. Glenn F. Nyre of the Evaluation and Training Institute.

In this study, it was noted that "Evaluation findings have been very positive in all instances" (Final Evaluation Report, 1984-1985, p. 2).

However, the problem is that in the entire report there are no statistics on drug use reduction among school age children that were cited.

The report discussed teachers' and principals' responses to surveys and general pleasure with the program. It mentioned "Campus graffiti has been reduced" and self-esteem has been increased (p. 3). It further stated that "cooperation marks" had increased on student report cards (p. 4) and that parents had "very positive attitudes about the DARE program" (p. 5).

But no statistical information on DARE's effectiveness in the war on drugs was mentioned.

The next year another report was published by the same Evaluation Institute. This one held out no more relevant information.

While this report again claimed that all "previous reports have been uniformly positive" it might also be observed that they have been uniformly lacking in substance (DARE Evaluation Report, 1985-1986, August 1986, p. 2).

After talking about "work habits" and "cooperation" (p. 4) the report moved to what may be, according to the report, DARE's best performance record.

After giving great details about attendance patterns at several schools, the evaluation stated, "Of the six junior high schools supplying attendance information, two showed significant increases, two showed no differences and two showed slight decreases in attendance on DARE days" (Ibid, p. 7).

In other words, the best thing that can be said about DARE from this in-house report is that it does not affect attendance rates over all.

Again, the entire year-long evaluation study, did not mention a single statistic concerning DARE's effectiveness in the war on drugs!

DARE and Project Smart

According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance Program Brief, "Project DARE's core curriculum for fifth- and sixth-grade students was adapted by Dr. Ruth Rich, a health education specialist with the Los Angeles Unified School District, from a curriculum for Project SMART" (An Introduction to DARE: Drug Abuse Resistance Education, October 1991, p. 14).

Since DARE is based in large part on Project SMART, the obvious beginning point is to know more about Project SMART.

A study specifically evaluating the Affective approach (self-esteem, decision making and Values Clarification) of Project SMART was reported in the Preventive Medicine journal.

When comparing those students who had gone through the Affective course with those students who had gone through other types of courses, the statistics were devastating.

"No preventive effect of the affective education program was observed. By the final post-test, classrooms that had received the affective program had significantly more drug use than controls" (No. 17, 1988, p. 135).

The evaluation went on to state, "Compared to Controls, those receiving the Affective program had 20.1 and 86.4% increases in tobacco use, 30.9 and 42.4% increases in onset of alcohol, and 47.3 and 74.2% increases in marijuana use at post-test 1 and 2, respectively" (Ibid, p. 145, emphasis mine).

The journal concludes by observing, "The Affective program on the other hand apparently increased use compared with Controls, with increases becoming more pronounced over time. ¼

"However tentative these results, there has already been widespread adoption of the Project SMART approach to drug abuse prevention.

"For example, Project DARE, a program derived in large part from Project SMART but which is delivered by police officers, is currently being implemented in many cities" (Ibid, pp. 150-151).

Researchers found that drug use had substantially increased when these Affective programs were brought into the school system.

In a study completed by the Center for Prevention Research at the University of Kentucky, "Researchers found increased use of marijuana one year after DARE" (Journal of Health Communication 3 (4), 1991, as quoted in the Research Council on Ethnopsychology, "Experimental Mysticism, DARE").

These results should have come as no great surprise.

In his study on Affective approaches to drug education, Richard Blum of Stanford University, "learned that it guided them instead toward early use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana; and he knew that, as `gateway drugs,' these could lead later to amphetamines, hallucinogens and heroin" (Drug Education: Results and Recommendations as quoted in Research Council on Ethnopsychology, p. 3).

As recently as last year, D.L. Cuddy, a former Department of Education official echoed Blum's research in a national newspaper but apparently no one listened.

Cuddy declared, "Similarly, Stanford University Professor Richard Blum's large-scale study of children who went through non-directive decision-making programs took up with tobacco, marijuana and alcohol more than students not in the programs" (USA Today, 10 September 1991, p. 10A).

Another study, this one published in January 1990, "Assessed the use of five gateway substances after DARE: marijuana, beer, wine, hard liquor and cigarettes.

"DARE students showed elevation on all five substances two years after the course; control-group subjects were elevated on only three" (Research Council on Ethnopsychology, p. 3, emphasis mine).

DARE's Path To Destruction

What then does all this research mean? What are the statistics trying to tell parents?

"Ruth Hanson, who has been researching education for 20 years, said there are studies from several major Universities that indicate that the DARE program doesn't live up to all the hype.

"Hanson cited studies from the University of Illinois and the University of Kentucky in particular. Each devotes at least 30 pages to asserting `the DARE program has no effect or has actually increased drug use among students in the program' she said.

"Values clarification is just another term for situational ethics, according to Hanson. What that boils down to is no absolutes, no right and wrong, only better alternatives than others."

"`This leads the student to believe he is the final authority. It teaches him to construct his own value system,' she said. `It neglects the family, religion and law in an authoritative role and it focuses the child's decisions inward."

"Another weapon in her arsenal against DARE is the Drug Free School and Communities Act of 1986, which was amended and signed into law in 1989. The act requires all public schools to teach that `use of illicit drugs is and the unlawful possession and use of alcohol is wrong and harmful.'

"But this isn't the approach the DARE program takes, she said. In direct violation of this law, it does not teach children that drugs are bad, or the health risk of drug abuse, but it teaches decision-making skills so that a child can decide for himself or herself, Hanson said" (Empire-Tribune, Stephenville, Texas, 20 October 1991, p. 5, emphasis mine).

In conclusion, hear the words of M. Amos Clifford in the California Prevention Network journal.

In his conclusion, he explains "It's those pesky teenagers and adults we have to watch out for. They suffer the most dangerous health hazard: minds of their own.

"And every expert prevention specialist I know who also suffers from this particular health hazard, without a single exception, believes that DARE should be ranked somewhere between a sham and mediocrity" (Fall 1989, p. 32).