Running head: Review and Analysis of the D.A.R.E. program
Does the D.A.R.E. program have a positive impact on America’s children?
Tyler Funa
HPA 301w
Section 001
The Pennsylvania State University
1
D.A.R.E. Program
2
Intro
The Drug Abuse Resistance Education or D.A.R.E. program is a series of lectures
delivered to children by police officers over a 17-week period that highlights substance
abuse, gang, and violence prevention (Hanson, 2007). This program is taught to about
36,000,000 kids each year at the elementary, middle, and high school levels (Hanson,
2007). Since the adoption of this program, it is being administered by about 50% of local
school districts nationwide, and is continuing to expand (Ennett et al., 1994). The
D.A.R.E. program has developed two patterns since it went national: more students do
drugs and more students start using drugs at an earlier age (FCDA, 2004). This is why it
is important to know whether or not the program is effective at reducing drug use among
adolescents.
Impact
The D.A.R.E. program is heavily criticized for high costs and ineffectiveness on
our youth (Hanson, 2007). Due to criticism, D.A.R.E. has made many revisions to their
program, and each is said to be just as ineffective as the previous one (Hanson, 2007).
Critics of the D.A.R.E. program say that the program should no longer exist because of
its ineffectiveness and costs (Hanson, 2007). Also, with schools implementing the
D.A.R.E. program, children lose an hour of time from their main subjects like math and
reading (Hanson, 2007).
D.A.R.E. is costly and ineffective because it wastes educational and police
resources (FCDA, 2004). The D.A.R.E. program, funded at local, state, and federal
levels, is allocating roughly $1 to $1.3 billion per year to an ineffective alcohol and drug
D.A.R.E. Program
3
abuse program that is supposedly counterproductive (ProCon.org, 2014). During the first
year, the program was administered to about 6 million students at a cost of $750 million,
which is about $125 per child (ProCon.org, 2014). In 2000, about $9.7 million in
revenues from taxpayers were allocated toward the D.A.R.E. program (Riskind, 2011).
D.A.R.E. also estimates that about $215 million covers the annual cost of the officer
services (Shepard III, 2001). Due to the high costs of the D.A.R.E program, there are
many other alternatives that focus on certain areas that cost less and are more effective
such as Life Skills Training Program, Project ALERT, and Strengthening Families
Program (Hanson, 2007).
Positive Impact
The D.A.R.E. program helps to prevent substance abuse for elementary, middle,
and high school students. D.A.R.E. focuses on keeping kids drug free, while aiming their
discussions about gateway drugs such as tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana (D.A.R.E.,
2014). According to D.A.R.E. (2014), the use of tobacco is known to be a gateway drug
because it encourages other negative behaviors. “Cigarette smokers are likely to get into
fights, carry weapons, attempt suicide, and engage in high-risk sexual behaviors,”
according to government researchers (D.A.R.E., 2014). According to D.A.R.E. (2014),
“75% of the students who graduated from the D.A.R.E. program had never tried a
cigarette.” D.A.R.E. (2014) states that children are drinking at such a younger age and
these substances are “very addictive to a child’s underdeveloped central nervous system.”
According to D.A.R.E. (2014), “alcohol-related accidents are the leading cause of death
among people 15 to 24 years of age.” These are a few of the arguments used by D.A.R.E.
to reinforce the importance of the program.
D.A.R.E. Program
4
As of 2013, the D.A.R.E program has been administered in “75% of US school
districts and in 48 countries (ProCon.org, 2014).” The D.A.R.E. program is known as
“the most prevalent substance abuse prevention program in the United States
(ProCon.org, 2014)”. “Since 1983, 70,000 police officers have taught the D.A.R.E.
program to over 200 million K-12 students worldwide – approximately 114 million in the
United States alone (ProCon.org, 2014).” “40% of participants who used alcohol at the
beginning of the program reported reductions in alcohol use after receiving the
curriculum, and 32% reported discontinuation of alcohol use altogether (ProCon.org,
2014).”
According to Rechenmacher (1995), a study was performed for the students,
parents, and educators to measure the effectiveness of the D.A.R.E. program. About 98%
of the students surveyed felt that the program was effective in teaching resistance skills
and the concepts of consequences (Rechenmacher, 1995). When dealing with peer
pressure related to drug behavior, 88.3% of the students said they would know how to act
in those situations (Rechenmacher, 1995). According to Rechenmacher (1995), “86.3%
of the parents and 100% of educators surveyed believe the program is beneficial in
shaping positive attitudes towards all police.” The combined results of this study for
students, parents, and educators for measuring effectiveness of the D.A.R.E. program was
either ““very good” or “good” in 92% of those surveyed (Rechenmacher, 1995).”
Negative Impact
Studies have shown that the D.A.R.E. program is not only ineffective in reducing
drug and alcohol use, but also sometimes counterproductive (Hanson, 2007). Students
themselves feel negative about the D.A.R.E. program. A D.A.R.E. survey found that
D.A.R.E. Program
5
“40% of students told researches they were “not at all” influenced by D.A.R.E.
(ProCon.org, 2014).” “Nearly 70% reported neutral to negative feelings about hose
leading the program (ProCon.org, 2014).” Studies have described the D.A.R.E. program
as counterproductive. Researchers found that, “In Houston, Texas, where a study showed
a shocking 29% increase in drug usage and a 34% increase in tobacco usage among
student participating in D.A.R.E (Hanson, 2007).” A six-year study on D.A.R.E.
“concluded that suburban students reported a 3% - 5% higher rate of drug use than
suburban students who did not participate (ProCon.org, 2014).” As of 2012, 60% of
school districts have eliminated D.A.R.E (ProCon.org, 2014).
Ennett et al. (1994) performed three studies. The first study showed which
outcome had the largest effect in the D.A.R.E. program, the second study showed which
outcome had the largest effect in the D.A.R.E. for non-interactive and interactive
programs, and the third study showed the effect that the programs had on alcohol,
tobacco, and marijuana (Ennett et al., 1994). According to Ennett et al. (1994), the first
study showed that the largest mean effect size is the knowledge of drugs, which is 42%.
Other mean effects were attitudes about drug use (11%), social skills (19%), self-esteem
(6%), attitudes toward police (13%), and drug behavior (6%) (Ennett et al., 1994).
According to Ennet et al. (1994), the second study focused on similar outcomes
comparing the D.A.R.E. program to other non-interactive and interactive programs. The
non-interactive programs were found to be statistically lower than the D.A.R.E. program
in the effectiveness of knowledge of drugs, attitudes about drug use, social skills, and
drug use (Ennett et al., 1994). The interactive programs were found to be significantly
higher than the D.A.R.E. program and non-interactive programs in knowledge of drugs
D.A.R.E. Program
6
(53%), attitudes about drug use (33%), social skills (76%), and drug use (18%) (Ennett et
al., 1994). According to Ennett et al. (1994), the D.A.R.E. program had a 6% effect on
alcohol, 8% effect on tobacco, and actually influenced marijuana use by 1%. Noninteractive programs influence tobacco use by 3% (Ennett et al., 1994). The interactive
programs in this study had 19% effect on alcohol, 18% on tobacco, and 11% effect on
marijuana (Ennett et al., 1994). With D.A.R.E.’s high costs and little influence on drug
use and behavior, there are interactive programs out there that cost less and have a
stronger effect on preventing drug use and behavior (Ennett et al., 1994).
Policy Options
Due to the findings of D.A.R.E.’s ineffectiveness, the Department of Education
prohibits the allocation of funds to support the program in any school (Hanson, 2013).
D.A.R.E’s pilot program that focuses more on a social-norms strategy is said to be more
effective (Alcoholism, 2001). PBS (2014) states that, in 2001, D.A.R.E. “received a
$13.7 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to design and implement
a new curriculum to increase education about drug abuse. “Just Say No” is a campaign
that D.A.R.E. used as an alternative that eliminates or greatly reduces the program to
fund other effective drug prevention programs (Rosenbaum, 2007). Government
programs can perform evaluations in order to resolve conflict between scientists, program
advocates, and other stakeholders (Rosenbaum, 2007). Life Skills Training Program is a
substance abuse program that teaches students 10-14 years old about social and resistance
skills (Hanson, 2007). Project ALERT teaches students in middle school about drug
abstention norms and resistance skills (Hanson, 2007). Other programs such as Al’s Pals:
Kids Making Healthy Choices, All Stars™, ATLAS (Athletes Training and Learning to
D.A.R.E. Program
7
Avoid Steroids), Challenging College Alcohol Abuse, Coping with Work and Family
Stress, and Early Risers: Skills for Success all help to prevent high-risk behaviors,
develop social skills, develop a positive image, and prevent drug use and behaviors
(Hanson, 2013).
Future Directions
Dr. William Hansen, one of the designers for the D.A.R.E. program curriculum,
said that, “-I think the program should be entirely scrapped and redeveloped anew
(Hanson, 2007). D.A.R.E. could aim to change their curriculum by placing more
emphasis on social influences and less emphasis on self-esteem, decision-making, and
stress reduction (Ringwalt, 1994). Studies have shown that interactive teaching is more
effective than non-interactive teaching because the material becomes “more real” for the
students if they engage and respond to certain situations (Ringwalt, 1994). To make the
D.A.R.E. program as effective as possible, revisions to the current curriculum must be
made to focus on drug use education and prevention for the most vulnerable age group of
the population (Ringwalt, 1994).
8
D.A.R.E. Program
Works Cited
Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly. (2001). D.A.R.E. to revamp program approach, focus on
social-norms strategy. Retrieved from: libraries.psu.edu
D.A.R.E., (2014). Keeping Kids Drug Free. Retrieved from: https://www.dare.org/keepingkids-drug-free/
Ennett, S., Tobler, N., Ringwalt, C., Flewelling, R., (1994, Sept). How Effective is Drug Abuse
Resistance Education? A Meta-Analysis of Project DARE Outcome Evaluations.
Retrieved from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615171/pdf/amjph00460-0036.pdf
FCDA, (2004). DARE: Good intentions, bad results. Retrieved from:
http://www.equalrights4all.org/fcda/dare.html
Hanson, D., (2013). Alternatives to the Failed DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education)
Program. Retrieved from:
http://www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/Controversies/20070111184521.html#.Uw1elV6FYTc
Hanson, D., (2007). Drug Abuse Resistance Education: The Effectiveness of DARE. Retrieved
from: www.alcoholfacts.org/DARE.html
PBS, (2014). How Effective is D.A.R.E.? Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/dare/
ProCon.org, (2014, Feb 5). Is the D.A.R.E. Program Good for America’s Kids? Retrieved
from: http://dare.procon.org
D.A.R.E. Program
Rechenmacher, D., (1995). D.A.R.E. Study Shows Positive Impact on Students and Families.
Retrieved from: http://www.lib.niu.edu/1995/im950821.html
Ringwalt, C., Greene, J.,Ennett, S., Iachan, R., Clayton, R., Leukefeld, C., (1994, Sept). Past
and Future Directions of the D.A.R.E.® Program: An Evaluation Review. Retrieved
from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/152055NCJRS.pdf
Riskind, J., (2011). [D.A.R.E.’s] Programs cost soars past $1 billion with little accounting.
Retrieved from: http://www.cerd.org/press/d-a-r-e-s-programs-cost-soars-past-1-billionwith-little-accounting
Rosenbaum, D., (2007). Just Say No To D.A.R.E. Retrieved from: libraries.psu.edu
Shepard III, E., (2001). The Economic Costs of D.A.R.E. Retrieved from:
http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/DAREfinalRP.pdf
9