There is no doubt that substance abuse is a serious issue in the world today, especially as it relates to juveniles and young adults. Therefore, drug prevention programs have been put in to place and have been subjected to political arguments and powerful opinions. The idea behind the development of these programs is simple enough: the best way to deal with juvenile substance use and abuse, is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Hence, the creation of juvenile drug prevention programs such as the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program and the Adults in the Making (AIM) program. Albeit rather similar, these programs differ in many ways.
DARE was “a school-based drug use prevention program” (crimesolutions.gov) which was taught by police officers who underwent 80 hours of special training to be properly equipped to teach the course in drug resistance and violence avoidance. The DARE program targeted both male and female students (ages 11-18) of African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and Caucasian ethnicity in the “sixth grade and extended through the senior year of high school” (crimesolutions.gov). The developers of the program determined that it would be in the best interest of the experiment to use the social influence approach to drug-use prevention. “This psychosocial approach emphasizes and aims to strengthen children’s refusal skills so they can better resist social pressures to try and use drugs” (crimesolutions.gov). The DARE program targeted the specific population of children in elementary school, fifth and sixth grades because it is believed that it is at this age that children are more likely to retain antidrug messages. It also “catches them before they experiment or are pressured to experiment with drugs by their peers” (crimesolutions.gov).
How would the researcher know if the program worked or not? They would have to discuss the number of students who were involved in the DARE program which would be their independent variable and discuss how many of those students were able to refrain from drug use – the dependent variable – versus the ones who were unable to. To collect this data, “Ennett and colleagues used a quasi-experimental research design to evaluate the effect of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) on initiation of drug use” (crimesolutions.gov). From the Illinois DARE study, there was a sample of 18 pairs of elementary schools in both northern and central Illinois. The schools that were chosen to participate in the study were matched closely on racial composition as well as the number of students enrolled in the English as a second language (ESL) program, their metropolitan status – whether they lived in an urban, suburban, or rural area – and the percentage of students from low-income families was also taken in to consideration. Based on this information, a total of 12 schools in both urban and suburban areas were assigned to the DARE program randomly. However, in the rural area, “six pairs of schools were assigned to DARE or the control condition using a nonrandom procedure to minimize travel time and accommodate DARE officers’ busy schedules in the more urban locations” (crimesolutions.gov). The researchers also used a “nested cohort strategy to analyze the collected data. The nested strategy takes into account that schools were randomly assigned to receive DARE, not individuals” (crimesolutions.gov).
The Drug Abuse Resistance Education program, like many others, has limitations which affect the studies negatively. The program was ineffective at preventing the children it targeted from using drugs. Based on the studies conducted, it was determined that DARE causes children to ignore the information being provided to them by the officers about the harmfulness of drugs. It can also be determined that DARE was responsible for the increase in drug use. Hence, the main limitation of this study being that it simply failed to work.
Albeit there were limitations to the study, it also had its strengths and of course, with strengths comes its weaknesses. The DARE program was successful in improving the social interaction between police officers and the students. DARE also had a diverse target population and therefore their message was available to many different students across several cultures and ethnicities. However, the weaknesses of this program far surpass its strengths. After follow-up research, it was determined that graduates of the DARE program do not show a long term increase in the knowledge of drugs and attitudes towards drug use. The program does not aid in preventing drug use in elementary, middle, or high school students and it is also associated with increased drug use. The only barrier that affected the implementation of this program was the fact that there is no true experiment in criminal justice and therefore you cannot control everything; there was no cost as it is a nonprofit organization. The program is funded by private and federal government sources. Finally, it can be said that drug use was more appealing to the children and therefore the program itself was not effective.
Adults in the Making (AIM) was “a family-centered preventive intervention designed to enhance the family protective process and self-regulatory competence to deter escalation of alcohol use and development of substance use problems” (crimesolutions.gov). AIM specifically targeted families which consisted of African-American males and females between the ages of 16 and 18 who were living in rural areas. The purpose of this study was to determine whether if focusing on family values and working together to “safeguard against the negative impact of life stressors” (crimesolutions.gov) would aid in the prevention of substance abuse in the future among African American teenagers.
Deterring the escalation of alcohol use and the development of substance use problems would depend on the effectiveness of AIM. To collect and measure their data, “Brody and colleagues used a randomized field trial to determine the preventative impact of Adults in the Making (AIM)” (crimesolutions.gov). The researchers utilized three data points (pretests, posttest, follow-up) in the 2010 study. They collected data during 2-hour home visits with the participating families. Researchers also used a 12-item checklist which was used to measure life stress of the children.
Based on the information provided by crimesoultions.gov, the program had several limitations. AIM’s target population did not provide researchers with a variety of families and children to observe. The age bracket was rather slim as it only focused on those students ages 16 to 18. The researchers also failed to evaluate the effect the program would have on children who were not African American. The program also paid participating families $100 at each assessment per crimesolutions.gov.
As it relates to the strengths and weaknesses of this program, the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. The only weakness of AIM that is identifiable is the fact that there was not a larger target population. There are however, many strengths that AIM possessed. AIM reduced the impact of “life stress on involvement in risky behaviors” (crimesolutions.gov). AIM participants were also significantly less likely to engage in and report alcohol and substance use when they were under stress. The program aided students and families channel their stress and deal with it in certain ways that would not lead them to use of drugs.
Implementing the program was met with a few barriers: families were paid $100 per assessment; of the 560 families who were eligible to participate in the study, only 347 agreed; and there are no true experiments in criminal justice as researchers cannot control everything. Although researchers were met with a few barriers, they still prevailed and were able to develop a program that aided young adults in avoiding alcohol and substance abuse. AIM and the incorporation of the family members in to the students’ affairs impacted the effectiveness of the program positively.
AIM and DARE were both effective in their own unique way. However, based on the information provided by the studies, it can be determined that AIM was more effective than DARE. While DARE was mostly successful in improving the social interaction between police officers and the students, as well as building students’ social skills and enhancing their self-esteem, the main goal of drug use prevention was not attained and therefore the program was deemed ineffective. AIM’s effectiveness, however, greatly outweighed that of the DARE program. Adults in the Making had a significant impact on the participants of the study as it relates to risk behaviors, alcohol use, and substance use. Per crimesolutions.gov, “Brody and colleagues (2010) found a significant reduction in risk behaviors for AIM participants.” There was also evidence that indicated that AIM aided in the reduction of the “impact of life stress on the involvement in risky behaviors” (crimesolutions.gov). It was also determined that AIM was effective in significantly lowering the report of alcohol and substance use issues in their participants than that of the comparison group.
To make DARE a program that would eventually become effective, there are several attributes that I would change. Firstly, I would suggest that, instead of police officers in the classroom, DARE employ peer leaders. By doing this, the students would be able to connect more and develop a better relationship with an older individual. Secondly, I believe that the selection of the control group should have been randomized, instead of having them (the schools) selected based on their locations to satisfy the travel times of the DARE officers. I also suggest that the program involve parents in the progress of their children. Finally, I recommend that the program implement a session where there would be a follow-up to reiterate the negative effects of alcohol and substance abuse.
An effective program such as AIM does not need amending as detailed as DARE. It could however benefit from a few minor changes. As the study demonstrated, AIM’s the target population was extremely limited. Therefore, I believe it would be in the best interest of the study to increase the target population to include more ethnicities as well as a larger age range. I would also expand the geography of where the schools were chosen. By doing this, the researchers would acquire a more diverse understanding of the participants and how they respond, whether similarly or differently to the message being presented.
Programs fail and succeed for different reasons. Drug Abuse Resistance Education failed because the message that was being presented was not being done in such a way that the students would retain it. That is, the DARE officers were simply telling the children that drugs and alcohol are bad and therefore they should not use them but they were not letting them know why or how they were bad for them. Children, contrary to popular belief, are very intelligent; if you are telling them that something is bad for them and then they see several people doing what you said was bad for them, then they will eventually end up doing because they believe that it is something “cool” to do. I also believe that this program failed because it did not include the parents in the study. Parents are a fundamental instrument in a child’s life and without them to aid in the reiteration of the message being sent by this program, then the program virtually serves no purpose. With Adults in the Making, they abided by most of the criteria that would make a successful program. AIM succeeded as a drug prevention program because they took the time out to include and incorporate the families of the students into their studies. The program was not solely based on preventative measures, but also included ways to protect students against the stressors of life. It also focused on building students’ self-esteem and providing them with support when they needed it. AIM enhanced the skills of the students they targeted and therefore, their program succeeded since it was believed that “through enhancing these skills, African American youths would be less likely to use alcohol or other substances and would develop a greater interest in their education or career” (crimesolutions.gov).
Adults in the Making and Drug Abuse Resistance Education are two juvenile drug use prevention programs that should be commended for the message they have sent and are still sending to the youth of the nation. Drug use among adolescents have become an epidemic across the United States and the world and more programs such as these, more specifically AIM, are needed. As mentioned before, the idea behind the development of these programs are simple enough: the best way to deal with juvenile substance use and abuse, is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) is a program that after many studies have failed. With the proper amendments to the program, however, I believe it will succeed and become effective. However, as of now, based on the research conducted, Adults in the Making (AIM) would be an ideal program to implement in schools across the nation.