Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 01:20:13 -0500 (EST)
From: David Borden <[b--rd--n] at [intr.net]>
To: [j--r--y] at [pwa.acusd.edu]
Subject: Research Scientists Call for Re-Evaluation of Drug Education
*****************************************************************
Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet)
Special Bulletin
*****************************************************************
Please copy and distribute.
--------------------------
STATEMENT BY RESEARCH SCIENTISTS CALLING FOR A
RE-EVALUATION OF DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Contact: Michael Shellenberger, (415) 255-1946
December 19, 1996
As scientists and researchers who specialize in drug education
research, we are deeply concerned about the latest survey
results released by the Department of Health and Human
Services that show a significant rise in drug use among
American adolescents.
Even more troubling are the recommendations and strategies
advocated by government officials to curb this rise in teen
drug use, none of which directly address the heart of why
more, not less, adolescents are turning to substance use. A
major part of the answer lies in the failure of current drug
education programs aimed at young people -- programs we
believe must be seriously re-evaluated.
Research on educational practices and adolescent development
suggest that effective drug education would focus on the
capabilities, not inabilities, of young people, foster
awareness and responsibility in youth decision-making, and
allow adolescents to participate as full members of society.
One fact is clear: Today's youth have had more drug education
than any other group in the history of this country. Yet
substance use continues to skyrocket. From 1991 to 1994, the
federal government pumped $3.5 billion into drug prevention
and education programs, including the well-known Drug Abuse
Resistance Education (DARE) program. President Clinton's 1997
drug policy strategy calls for even further increased
allocations for prevention education.
We are troubled by the acceptance of these programs despite
the fact that not one scientifically sound study has been done
that proves their efficacy. Our national debate on adolescent
drug use must be opened to include discussion of th eneed and
means for improving drug prevention education.
Two key, publicly-funded studies conducted in the past two
years point to the need to change the current drug education
curriculum.
1. A Meta-Analysis of Project DARE Outcome Evaluations,
commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice to evaluate the
effectiveness of DARE programs, concluded:
* "DARE's limited influence on adolescent drug use behavior
contrasts with the program's popularity and prevalence. An
important implication is that DARE could be taking the place
of other, more beneficial drug use curricula that adolescents
could be receiving."
* "DARE's core curriculum effect on drug use.is slight and
except for tobacco, is not statistically significant."
2. In Their Own Voices: Students and Educators Evaluate
California School-Based Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Education
(DATE) Programs, commissioned by the California Department of
Education to evaluate California's various drug prevention
programs concluded:
* students overwhelmingly reject the "no use" or zero-
tolerance message as not credible;
* 7 out of 10 students said they felt "neutral" or "negative"
toward DATE educators;
* 4 out of 10 said DATE programs had no impact "at all" on
their substance use decisions;
* only 1 in 10 students said the programs affected them a lot
of completely;
* programs intended to assist "at risk" students failed to
provide them needed services and often resulted in detention,
suspension, and expulsion.
The DATE evaluation is the only major study of its kind to
involve extensive interviews with young people.
Despite these provocative findings, the Department of Justice
has refused to publish the DARE report, and the California
Department of Education refused to publish the DATE study,
citing "methodological flaws" although data collection and
analysis were performed with the DOE's full oversight and
cooperation. Additionally, the study was reviewed and found
to be scientifically sound by 35 independent experts, and its
findings have been accepted for publication in several leading
research journals.
Currently, only programs that employ a "no use" message are
eligible for funding from the federal Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention, a branch of the Department of Health and
Human Services. We agree with the assessment made by the U.S.
General Accounting Office (GAO) in 1991 that this funding
provision should be replaced by one that expands opportunities
to improve upon present efficacious middle school programs and
to encourage evaluation of realistic and innovative programs
for high school youth.
While we are critical of existing drug education programs
targeted at young people and urge a thorough re-evaluation of
these programs, we are not calling for the legalization of
drugs, nor are we advocating a "pro-use" agenda. Our
criticisms are also not limited to DARE; the same failed zero-
tolerance messages lie at the center of nearly all drug
education programs used nationwide. We also want to note that
we are not speaking on behalf of the institutions we are
affiliated with, but as concerned individuals.
The answer to curtailing the rise in adolescent drug use is
not to eliminate drug education altogether. Nor can the
problem be solved by simply calling for a return to "family
values." Our goal as a nation should be to *improve* drug
education programs for the health and safety of generations of
young people.
SIGNATORIES:
Bonnie Benard, MSW. Substance Abuse Prevention Specialist,
consultant with Resiliency Associates in Berkeley and research
editor of the journal, Resiliency in Action.
Jerome Beck, Ph.D. Dr. Beck is Co-Director of Educational
Research Consultants and has published numerous articles on
patterns of drug use and drug education. He was one of the
principle members of the University of Oregon Drug Information
Center.
Joel Brown, Ph.D., MSW. Dr. Brown is Director of Educational
Research Consultants and directed research entitled "In Their
Own Voices: Students and Educators Evaluate California School-
Based Drug Alcohol and Tobacco Education (DATE) Programs."
Commissioned by the California State Department of Education,
this was the largest evaluation of any drug education program
-- including DARE -- ever conducted in the U.S.
Marianne D'Emidio-Caston, Ph.D. Supervisor, Elementary
Teacher Education, Graduate School of Education, UC-Santa
Barbara an Co-Director of the 1995 DATE evaluation.
Rodney Skager, Ph.D. Professor of the Graduate School of
Education, UCLA, Director of the "California State Attorney
General's Substance Use Survey," one of the largest on-going
surveys of adolescent substance use in the U.S.
Nancy Tobler, Ph.D., MSW. Research Associate Professor, SUNY
at Albany: Author of the definitive meta-analyses on school
based drug-education and co-author of the Department of
Justice "DARE Meta-Analysis," one of the most comprehensive
evaluations of DARE performed to date.
------------------------------------------------------------
Join DRCNet! Visit our world-wide-web registration form at
http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html (complete with credit card
billing and encryption for your protection), or send e-mail
to [d r cinfo] at [drcnet.org] for more information. To subscribe to
the rapid response team, send e-mail to [l--tp--c] at [drcnet.org]
with the line "subscribe drc-natl <your name>" in the
message. We need your help to survive!
------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet)
4455 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite B-500, Washington, DC 20008
(202) 362-0030 (voice) / (202) 362-0032 (fax)
[d r cinfo] at [drcnet.org] / http://www.drcnet.org