Pubdate: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 Source: Long Beach Press-Telegram (CA) Copyright: 2007 Los Angeles Newspaper Group Contact: http://www.presstelegram.com/writealetter Website: http://www.presstelegram.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/244 SAYING YES TO DARE A Program That Puts Cops And Kids Together Isn't Easy To Oppose. Just Say No to drugs? It's harder to just say no to DARE, which stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education. Long Beach City Council members fussed among themselves this week about changing this or that detail, but ended up voting 6-1 to find some way to pay for restarting the somewhat controversial program in local schools. We say somewhat controversial because there is little clear evidence that DARE gets results. Studies have showed it doesn't, but DARE revised its curriculum and disputes the negative findings. You'll notice that schools don't usually volunteer to pay for DARE. Maybe that has something to do with professional educators standing aside while part-time retired cops with two weeks of drug-resistance training conduct their programs. The only other evidence we have to offer is purely anecdotal, and it consists of high praise by some police officers and snickering by some students who've seen the program up close. One of the primary criticisms is that displaying drug paraphernalia to 10-year-olds stirs more curiosity than aversion to using drugs later in life (like two or three years later). Another is that T-shirts and various other merchandise promoted by DARE America is sold by for-profit companies (with a modest contribution to DARE, of course). Charity Navigator, the reliable nonprofit rating agency, gives DARE America only two stars, meaning that it isn't incompetent, but needs improvement. Still, a charitable rating agency doesn't have the means to assess program effectiveness, so that's of marginal help. There's no reason to fear that DARE will do serious harm to the fifth-graders it serves, and any program that puts school kids together with police officers in a classroom has the potential for good. That leaves the question of who pays. Which is where council members come in. Two suggested funding sources cleverly make it hard for a politician to say no. One puts a surcharge on towing a vehicle involved in a drug or drunkenness bust, and the other on business licenses that sell tobacco, alcohol or spray paint. Get it? Councilman Gary DeLong cast the lone no vote on principle. City Hall already has more expenditures than revenue in its future, and even if new fees whack unpopular targets, the money ought to go for programs meriting the highest priorities. Not a bad principle. The best argument for DARE might be that it won't take much money at all. Local DARE board members, to their credit, pledged $35,000, which leaves just $13,000 to go. Cities lose that much in rounding errors on little programs you've never heard of, although a better solution would be for a nonprofit to foot the bill. The remaining concern is that DARE should do no harm. That's not certain, but it does seem manageable. - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart