If you went to school within the last few decades, you likely remember a time when police officers would come to your classroom bearing lion merch and talk about the dangers of drugs and peer pressure. While this may feel like a collective fever dream we all had, the Drug Resistance and Abuse Education program was in fact taught in a majority of classrooms across the United States. Was this program effective? Where are they today?
Origins
The D.A.R.E. program was developed in 1983 as a collaboration between the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles School District. The idea was simple: bring officers into classrooms to "boost the self-esteem of students so they can resist the temptation of drugs," as the LA Times put it in a piece about the program. While initially a local program, it soon caught on to neighboring districts where it was likewise implemented. By 1986, the curriculum had gained national recognition.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle latched onto DARE as an easy way to portray themselves as anti-drug, pro-kids, and pro-law enforcement. This led to it receiving federal funding in 1986 with the passing of the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act which mentions DARE by name. In 1988, Ronald Reagan even declared the first National DARE Day. The program drew widespread praise and public support. By 2002, the Drug Abuse Resistance Education curriculum was being taught in more than 75% of school districts throughout the United States with an annual budget of more than $10 million.
Curriculum
The main classroom curriculum consisted mainly of straightforward lectures delivered by law enforcement officers outlining the dangerous consequences of drug and alcohol use, how to refuse drugs and overcome peer pressure, alternatives to drugs, and how to build self-esteem. The program also opposed things such as graffiti and even tattoos as these were said to be the result of succumbing to peer pressure. Many of their lessons were adapted from SMART, another anti-drug program that was developed at the University of Southern California that was meant to be delivered by educators instead of police officers.
The officers were encouraged to portray a friendly and approachable attitude and interact with students at lunch and recess. They often brought toys and trinkets called "kudos" to give away during lectures or as prizes for correct questions, usually featuring their mascot, Daren the Lion. Most classes concluded with a question and answer segment to get the students more involved and engaged and to build a more personal relationship with the officer. The officers would sometimes arrive at the school in a sports car with DARE branding, frequently ones that were confiscated from drug dealers. This was meant to demonstrate to the students that using drugs leads to losing valued possessions.
While the curriculum and small details did evolve a bit over time, the core message and goal remained the same throughout. How well did these lessons work?
Efficacy and Criticism
Starting in the early '90s, DARE began to gradually receive more and more backlash. Despite its widespread integration and prodigious budget, the results of the program were lackluster at best. One study conducted by RTI International 1994 concluded, "DARE imparts a large amount of information, but has little or no impact on students' drug use." DARE was eager to stifle these findings, sinking tens of thousands of dollars into suppressing the report and starting legal proceedings in an attempt to squelch the study.
Despite their best efforts to foster a positive impression on the students, studies show the opposite. A report by the California Department of Education concluded, "California's drug education programs, DARE being the largest of them, simply doesn't work. More than 40 percent of the students told researchers they were 'not at all' influenced by drug educators or programs. Nearly 70 percent reported neutral to negative feelings about those delivering the anti-drug message. While only 10 percent of elementary students responded to drug education negatively or indifferently, this figure grew to 33 percent of middle school students and topped 90 percent at the high school level."
A 1998 National Institute of Justice report found that not only was DARE ineffective at reducing drug use, but graduates of the program also displayed an increased likelihood to abuse alcohol, smoke tobacco, and use illicit substances. The evidence suggested that, by exposing young impressionable children to drugs, the program was, in fact, encouraging and nurturing drug use. Dozens of other studies around the country echoed these sentiments. In 2001, David Satcher, then the Attorney General, placed DARE in the category of "Ineffective Primary Prevention Programs" following numerous scathing studies into the program.
In addition to its general ineffectiveness, the curriculum and the tactics used were the targets of a great deal of criticism. DARE strictly adhered to the "no tolerance" drug policy that was held and propagated by numerous politicians. This policy, much like "abstinence-only" sex education, is largely ineffective and often proves to cause more harm. Many groups that advocated for decriminalization or harm reduction education spoke out against the DARE program.
DARE also drew criticism regarding their use of child informants. On some of the worksheets students are asked to fill out, questions are included asking if the child has seen drug use or paraphernalia in their home. Officers are also encouraged to have a "DARE Box" where students can submit notes under the pretense of anonymity reporting drug use they've witnessed. DARE officers are also instructed to be on the lookout for drug use in the home of students and investigate as they are, first and foremost, police officers.
DARE largely dismissed the criticism and studies, labeling them biased, misleading, or altogether false. However, following the loss of federal funding, DARE instituted a massive overhaul of its curriculum. Starting in 2009, DARE adopted the "keepin' it REAL" program. The program no longer explicitly contains an anti-drug message, rather focusing on the broader aim of teaching good decision-making. The efficacy of even this program is in question, with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration rating its "readiness for dissemination" at 1.5 out of 4.
While the program may have been developed with good intentions, the product was wildly ineffective at best and damaging at worst. The misguided program of the '90s and '00s is largely a thing of the past. The politicians that supported and reinforced the evil drug narratives are gradually being replaced by ones with more common sense policies. Though the damage has been done, we can don our ironic DARE shirts as we step forward into a better generation. Sorry we let you down, Daren.