Tuesday, August 14, 2018
Opinion

Sessions wants to bring back D.A.R.E.: Just say d'oh!

Speaking at a D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) conference this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions praised the past work of the famous anti-drug program, saying it saved lives:

"I believe that D.A.R.E. was instrumental to our success by educating children on the dangers of drug use. I firmly believe that you have saved lives. And I want to say thank you for that. Whenever I ask adults around age 30 about prevention, they always mention the D.A.R.E. program. Your efforts work. Lives and futures are saved."

Sessions may believe that the program saved lives but decades of evidence-based research, including some conducted by the Justice Department he now heads, has shown the program to be ineffective — and it might even make the drug problem worse. A little history:

D.A.R.E. was founded in 1983 as a partnership between the Los Angeles Police Department and L.A.'s public schools. The idea was simple: Officers would go into schools to talk to kids, "boosting the self-esteem of students so that they can resist the temptation to use drugs," as the L.A. Times put it in a 10-year retrospective on the program written in 1993.

The program drew bipartisan praise and spread like wildfire. Politicians realized that by supporting D.A.R.E., they could paint themselves as pro-cops and pro-kids: a win-win. Ronald Reagan proclaimed the first "National D.A.R.E. Day" in 1988, a tradition that continued well into the Obama administration.

Eventually, the program was put in place in up to 75 percent of the nation's school districts, by D.A.R.E.'s own count. At its height, the group boasted an 8-figure budget, with much of that money coming from government sources. Individual state affiliates raised millions more.

But with success came scrutiny. Public health researchers started looking for evidence that the program was meeting its goals of reducing teen drug use. The first wave of studies, published in the early 1990s, didn't find any.

"The effectiveness of D.A.R.E. in altering students' drug use behavior has yet to be established," concluded a University of Illinois at Chicago study in 1991.

Other research arrived at similar results. In 1994 the Research Triangle Institute, funded in part by the Department of Justice, conducted a meta-analysis of all the existing research on D.A.R.E. Its conclusion was withering: D.A.R.E. had little to no impact on rates of teen drug use.

"D.A.R.E.'s limited influence on adolescent drug use behavior contrasts with the program's popularity and prevalence," the authors wrote. "An important implication is that D.A.R.E. could be taking the place of other, more beneficial drug use curricula that adolescents could be receiving."

The DOJ was so incensed by this unexpected finding that it refused to publish the study, according to contemporaneous news reports. "I don't get it," D.A.R.E.'s executive director at the time said of the RTI study's findings. "It's like kicking Santa Claus to me. We're as pure as the driven snow."

But the kicking had only just begun. More studies showing similar findings trickled out in the 1990s. One study even suggested that D.A.R.E. students were more likely than their peers to experiment with drugs and alcohol. The authors of that study chalked that up to a possible boomerang effect: "an attempt to persuade resulting in the adoption of an opposing position instead." Telling a certain type of kid that he shouldn't do drugs may simply result in him trying drugs out of spite.

By 2003 the Government Accountability Office launched its own D.A.R.E. study to see if the Department of Justice was getting a decent return on its D.A.R.E investment. The conclusion? "No significant differences in illicit drug use between students who received D.A.R.E." and those who didn't. That report was the beginning of the end of D.A.R.E. as most of us knew it. Funding started to dry up: in 2002, before the GAO report, D.A.R.E. had an annual budget of over $10 million dollars. By 2012, that figure had shrunk to $3.5 million.

By the late 2000s, D.A.R.E. was faced with a choice: change or die. They opted for the former. The group decided to cautiously embrace evidence-based research after decades of antagonism toward it. The most significant change was the adoption of a new curriculum, entitled "keepin' it REAL."

Cringeworthy title aside, some of the research on this program to date suggests it actually works. It was commended in the recent Surgeon General's Report on drug addiction for demonstrating efficacy at preventing substance use. The secret? "It's not an anti-drug program," a co-developer of the new curriculum told Scientific American in 2014. "It's about things like being honest and safe and responsible."

If it almost seems like D.A.R.E. isn't really an anti-drug group anymore, that's because it isn't. The group explicitly spells this new reality out in its tax filings. Prior to 2009, D.A.R.E. stated on its 990 IRS filings that its mission was "to implement and support drug abuse resistance education and crime prevention programs in the USA."

Post-2009, its mission is to simply "teach students good decision making skills to help them lead safe and healthy lives."

Not everyone in the public health community is convinced the new D.A.R.E. is any better than the old D.A.R.E. A peer-reviewed study published last year found that the specific versions of the keepin' it REAL curriculum used by D.A.R.E. haven't been tested for efficacy.

There's no doubt, however, that D.A.R.E. is currently making an effort to adopt more of an evidence-based approach than in prior years, when the program's practices were largely driven by the belief that they were "pure as the driven snow." This brings us back to the central irony of Jeff Sessions' remarks this week, when he yearned for a return to the D.A.R.E. of "the 1980s and the 1990s."

Decades of research are unequivocal: the D.A.R.E. of yesteryear didn't work, and it may have actually made the drug problem worse. Instead of embracing D.A.R.E.'s new evidence-based practices, Sessions offered up a return to the bad old days of drug policy, when decisions were driven by gut feeling and political expediency.

We already know how that story ended: billions of dollars spent, millions of people imprisoned, and stronger, cheaper drugs. D.A.R.E. is already trying to turn the page on the harsh and ineffective drug policies of the past. At the moment, it appears the Justice Department is trying to revive them.

Comments
Stand your ground now means we must read the mind of an accused killer

Stand your ground now means we must read the mind of an accused killer

Today, the liberals are doing a victory dance.And the conservatives are resting easier.Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe has done them all a huge favor by bringing a manslaughter charge against convenience store shooter Michael Drejka.You s...
Updated: 9 hours ago
Editorial: Why stand your ground has to go

Editorial: Why stand your ground has to go

Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney Bernie McCabe made a reasonable decision to charge Michael Drejka with manslaughter in last month’s deadly Clearwater convenience store parking lot confrontation. The shooting, which erupted over use of a handicap parkin...
Updated: 10 hours ago
PolitiFact Florida: Gwen Graham lacks proof that Florida Gov. Rick Scott covered up Mosaic sinkhole

PolitiFact Florida: Gwen Graham lacks proof that Florida Gov. Rick Scott covered up Mosaic sinkhole

Gwen Graham says Florida needs a governor who will fight to protect clean water, unlike, she said, Gov. Rick Scott."When a sinkhole began dumping toxic water in Florida’s aquifer, Rick Scott tried to cover it up. I worked with the press to expose the...
Published: 08/13/18
Romano: Two years later, politicians still ignoring Florida voters on medical marijuana

Romano: Two years later, politicians still ignoring Florida voters on medical marijuana

The war is over, except no one in Tallahassee has bothered to read the news.And so Florida continues its daft fight against medical marijuana. All of which means patients are being left behind, voters are getting ignored, and lawyers are buying fanci...
Published: 08/11/18
The US military’s no-good, very bad tweets

The US military’s no-good, very bad tweets

The U.S. military is extremely online.Most of the Twitter accounts for the armed forces’ branches boast followings in the millions, but that’s no surprise in a country whose military capabilities are national legend. What is surprising is the way the...
Published: 08/11/18
Satire: What really happened at that Trump Tower meeting

Satire: What really happened at that Trump Tower meeting

Everybody wants to know what was said in that Trump Tower meeting with the Russians in June 2016. Well, other than the people in the room, I, Steven Yablonsky, alone know exactly what was said because I worked as a janitor in the building and was hid...
Updated: 12 hours ago
Uber and Lyft are making traffic jams worse, not better

Uber and Lyft are making traffic jams worse, not better

Have you heard that Uber and Lyft are helping alleviate traffic congestion by getting us to give up our personal cars?That reassuring notion, nurtured by the ride-hailing services, gets repeated often. I’ve heard various forms of the bromide three ti...
Published: 08/10/18
Jesuit High opens new Chapel of the Holy Cross, a ‘sermon in brick and stone’

Jesuit High opens new Chapel of the Holy Cross, a ‘sermon in brick and stone’

TAMPAFor more than two years, students, faculty and staff have watched workers turn bricks and columns into a soaring architectural work at the center of Jesuit High School’s 40-acre Tampa campus.On Tuesday, more than 500 people turned out for the cu...
Published: 08/09/18
Updated: 08/11/18
Living ‘unfiltered’ puts Sarah Jeong in tight spot

Living ‘unfiltered’ puts Sarah Jeong in tight spot

In March, a liberal furor erupted when the Atlantic magazine briefly hired Kevin Williamson, a conservative writer with National Review. Several years earlier, Williamson had written a short tweet in which he seemed to suggest that women who obtain a...
Published: 08/09/18
Updated: 08/10/18
Editorial: Politics aside, arguments are clear for moving appellate court to Tampa

Editorial: Politics aside, arguments are clear for moving appellate court to Tampa

It’s time to re-establish a permanent home for the state appeals court that serves the Tampa Bay region.It makes sense to put it in Tampa, the same as it made sense 30 years ago when the court’s operations began moving piece by piece up Interstate 4 ...
Published: 08/09/18
Updated: 08/10/18