ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

DARE revised

| Thursday, Oct. 5, 2017, 8:55 p.m.
Sixth-grader Ryan Smith, left, waits to ask a question about drugs during a drug-education program at Roy A. Hunt Elementary School in Arnold last month. (Trib photo)
Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review
Sixth-grader Ryan Smith, left, waits to ask a question about drugs during a drug-education program at Roy A. Hunt Elementary School in Arnold last month. (Trib photo)

As the opioid epidemic continues to take countless lives, it is apparent that efforts to prevent substance-use disorders are every bit as important as improving access to treatment. Consequently, communities in our area are considering spending more money on prevention programs such as Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) and its newer program called keepin' it REAL. Before communities invest their limited financial resources in such programs, they should take the time to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs under consideration.

DARE was founded in 1983 and rapidly became the primary program designed to combat the ever-present dangers of substance abuse. The DARE program placed community police officers in classrooms of fifth- and sixth-graders with the aim of increasing their self-esteem, which would in turn enable kids to resist the temptation to use drugs. DARE was especially popular with politicians and law-enforcement officials.

By 2003, DARE was part of the curriculum in 80 percent of U.S. schools. But despite its widespread popularity, numerous studies demonstrated that it did very little to curb drug abuse and, in some cases, may have made the problem worse.

Despite their initial resistance to evidence-based studies that demonstrated the ineffectiveness of their program, DARE officials regrouped and formulated a new curriculum — keepin' it REAL. The acronym “REAL” stands for “Refuse, Explain, Avoid, Leave.” The new program has been met with mixed reviews, with most experts acknowledging that it is better than the original DARE program but not nearly as evidence-based as it purports to be.

The new program is not as “abstinence-based” as the previous DARE program and focuses more on the development of good decision-making skills. To its credit, keepin' it REAL highlights the importance of grounding substance-use prevention programs in their audiences' cultural attitudes, values, norms and beliefs.

Despite claims that keepin' it REAL is evidence-based, there is no scientific evidence to support that this is true. Further, there is simply no empirical evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of the program. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) ranks its “readiness for dissemination” at just a 1.5 out of 4.

Without any demonstrably effective national programs on the horizon, it will be the responsibility of individual school districts to decide whether to invest in programs like keepin' it REAL. I suspect that this new program will — at best — show only a minimal effect in reducing substance-use disorders and the marginal benefit may not be worth the cost.

There are other evidence-based prevention programs, but none of them have the name recognition that the DARE programs have. Some of these include LifeSkills Training; the California Healthy Kids Resource Center; Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens and Drugs; The Cochrane Collaboration; and SAMHSA's National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices.

I would encourage school boards to engage in the relatively cumbersome and laborious process of carefully evaluating prospective programs rather than choosing a particular program because it currently seems popular.

Dr. Mitchell West is medical director of addiction services for Allegheny Health Network.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me