Thousands of students have graduated from the program just here in Tracy. And though it isn’t a foolproof way to keep kids drug-free — just as telling kids “don’t steal” doesn’t lead to a crime rate of zero — it certainly doesn’t hurt. With many, it undoubtedly helps.
So I got a little shock when I heard that the Tracy City Council will consider revoking its support of the program.
Because, really, who wants to help kids steer clear of drugs?
Joking aside, this one is truly on the City Council, because the suggestion didn’t come from city staff. As City Manager Leon Churchill confirmed Thursday, this idea is “council-initiated.”
The suggestion comes during a frantic drive at City Hall to make up a $5 million gap between revenue and expenditures. But cutting D.A.R.E. would save the city only $60,000. And the true cost could be far greater.
Remember the saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? It applies here.
Helping kids be aware of drugs at a young age — and giving many the skills to stay away from forays into “the life” — can save a lot of money and heartache later on down the line.
So, are they serious? Would the council truly consider cutting a program that provides real benefits for a relatively small up-front investment?
Apparently.
According to Churchill, the council members in question are concerned with how the program is administered, including a possible conflict of interest with Councilman Steve Abercrombie, who has been a D.A.R.E. educator for 16 years.
It’s also come up that, if the city cannot find ways to bring in more revenue, D.A.R.E. could be one of the programs on the chopping block.
To me, that means either the council is truly considering every possible way to scrimp and save, or the D.A.R.E. program is about to be used as a political football to garner more support for a parcel tax or other revenue-raising measure.
And there could be more to this than meets the eye.
I noted that the idea was raised when Abercrombie was absent. He’s in Southern California teaching (what else?) D.A.R.E. classes.
Furthermore, when I asked him Thursday, Abercrombie said that he has cleared any potential conflict of interest between his D.A.R.E. work and his City Council duties.
He added that he’s open to any suggestion — including having someone else lead the program — that would keep D.A.R.E. funded and in local classrooms. That’s not surprising, considering he’s so involved that he’s had his Chevy Avalanche painted with the D.A.R.E. acronym.
Regardless of what happens, the fate of the program’s city funding will soon be decided.
On June 15, the council will have to make countless tough calls regarding the city’s 2010-11 fiscal year budget. The final product will include many cuts, and possibly tax or fee increases.
I hope that the City Council manages to somehow find $60,000 — and a little common sense — to keep D.A.R.E. teaching Tracy students.
• Share your thoughts with associate editor and columnist Jon Mendelson at jmendelson@tracypress.com.
That means people need to come together to find ways like the mall that was mentioned (for example) and other ideas.
We probably need more money educating children. However, I think we need more money educating the parents.
That's the point I was trying to make.
Good day!
« MrsPacMan wrote on Monday, May 24 at 08:12 PM »
tracy-ed - If the parents are doing drugs won't D.A.R.E. fall on deaf ears?
Good question. The situation you describe is both sad and not all too uncommon here in our town. What DARE does, without too much condemnation towards the 'parents', is to give kids a positive alternative to merely following their parents path. While no guarantee of 'success', it is... however...giving these kids a shot where they otherwise wouldn't have one at all.
Besides....since when does our Tracy City Council need a guarantee of success/results before they spend money on something? Example:a couple meetings ago they voted to spend $75K to hire (ANOTHER!) consultant to tell them how they might attract a new anchor store to the mall because that might bring in sales tax $. So, IF the consultant knows his stuff, and IF a new mall tenant can be found and IF other economic/competitive factors don't intervene, then it all MIGHT work. Then again, lot's could go wrong that would see our $75 circling in the bowl. Did this council seem bothered when the cast their unanimous vote?
The real bottom line here is that certain city council members have their own agendas and their own differences with other council members. The attempt to kill DARE is a private agenda gone public.
Further, DARE programs have provided many "at risk" children with an outlet to discuss other things that may be going on in the household, that are undetected, unreported, or understood (by the family) to be the family's little secret.
So if you're asking whether, or not, DARE helps keep kids off drugs, I think the answer is somewhat close to the answer about whether, or not, abstinence programs prevent teen pregnancies. I can't say either program achieves it primary goal, but I can say that DARE helps set the moral compass for many at risk students, by filling the void that is certainly not being filled at home.
Logic and statistics aside, common sense tells me that doing SOMETHING is better than doing NOTHING. If, in the course of teaching $60K worth of DARE classes one child hears the message and doesn't become a drug-dealin'-gang-banger, then the community will have saved over $60K in enforcement/court/theft/damage costs before that child grows up and leaves our community. And that's if the program only reaches one kid. From that perspective, it does appear to be a good investment.
The critics of DARE do have a common theme.... they think the program (delivered to the 5th grade) is too early to be effective. Even the critics seem to agree that a program delivered both in middle school and high school would be more effective. Okay, common sense (again) tells me that the currect DARE program delivered to the 5th grade is laying the ground-work for the middle school/high school programs that the National DARE program is making available. The DARE program is evolving, except here in Tracy we can't afford it yet.
How can our City expect to deliver an effective middleschool/high school program if we can't even afford to keep the grade school program afloat?!?!?!
Well....times are tough, money is tight. I guess we will just have to trust that parents will step up and do the right thing.
(The last paragraph was...for those who didn't catch it...pure sarcasm.)
No, this statement isn’t the program’s dictum, but we do know too many children in the school district receive either free- or reduced meals.
Now, interpret the previous declaration any way you wish, but the child who returns from school to a house that is filthy, unorganized, with yards strewn with cigarette butts and trash, is unlikely to be instructed in life-affirming values.
Yes, there are exceptions to your rules, but particular groups may be examined and identified as severely at-risk.
We know who they are. Stop kidding ourselves.
The D.A.R.E. program is really for wayward, adolescent adults.
Or simple click on this link. http://tinyurl.com/2983747
The Surgeon General of the United States has placed the D.A.R.E. program in the category of "Does Not Work".
Ya wrote, "usn-cmc, you're are actually citing a D.A.R.E. produced document in an attempt to try to show the efficacy of D.A.R.E.? I hate to be condescending, but that's pretty funny."
It ain't any funnier than people who make other comments without any source at all ta back up thair comments.
Now if ya can come up with some datum that indicates their data is incorrect ya just might get yer point across better if ya would provide it don't ya thank?
http://www.dare.com/home/documents/2008AnnualReport.pdf
I guess the question for me is, how will this small reduction impact the gang problem, vandalism, and other minor crimes in our city?
Will this savings create an increase in other, less serious, crimes which will drive the expansion of other city services? (Graffiti Abatement, Parks & Recreation Programs, Gang Squad...) I think we get the picture.
If the council is worried about saving $60K they should strongly consider the following ideas:
1. Cut the city manager and department heads salaries by 10%. This will net $21K from the city manager's salary alone.
2. Get rid of the human resources department, which seems to cost the city a mint in law suits and discrimination claims. This service could be contracted out to a private company so the risk is on a contractor. This might also create some jobs in the community.
3. Eliminate the finance department and contract out for financial services, as I am sure there are accounting, book keeping and investment firms all over the area looking for business.
4. Eliminate the city attorney's office and contract out for an legal services; as it seems everytime they get sued (thanks to the human resources department) they need to hire outside legal staff to represent them anyway.
5. Eliminate the assistant city manager position, as I'm not quite sure what that person does anyway? I know she gets paid a hefty salary, (close to that of the city manager) but I haven't seen or heard anything about what she does. Besides, if the city manager is as great as he likes to tell everyone he is, then he should be able manage the city single handedly.
These cuts should net the city well over the $5 million they need to save, and it should help reduce the overhead for the future as well. Once they do this then they can come back and ask for a parcel tax if they need it.
Hey, here's a novel idea; how 'bout parents be responsible for teaching their own kids about the dangers of drugs, instead of pushing that responsibility off to some taxpayer funded "program"?
I know, I know, I'm simply crazy for expecting parents to be responsible for their own kids.
If a juvenile is caught doing drugs, or commits a crime related to drug abuse, then the parents should pay a hefty fine, or even do jail time.
Why should I (or you) pay for another parent's lazy, irresponsibility?
If it weren't so sad, I'd laugh at the statement by the city manager that "the council members in question are concerned with how the program is administered, including a possible conflict of interest with Councilman Steve Abercrombie, who has been a D.A.R.E. educator for 16 years." OMG! Suddenly these "council members in question" are concerned about conflict of interest. For the most part every decision made by the council has conflict of interest written all over it, starting with the sports park!
I agree 100% with Jon's statement that "there could be more to this than meets the eye." The council has been getting "beaten up" by the public for proposing a parcel tax, for considering GIVING $600K to a retailer at the mall, for the EMS Fee for Service, and on and on and....... so what better way to show they are "committed" to balancing the budget than to propose to cut a program that "touches" every citizen in Tracy in one way or another. This same "mentality" led to the EMS Fee for Service program to generate money 'cuz who would risk not having Fire Dept. response in an emergency -- certainly not me! This time it's who will risk their child, grandchildren, neighbor's kid taking drugs because D.A.R.E. is cut from the budget -- certainly not me! And based on this, they think we taxpayers will approve the public safety parcel tax or some other public safety revenue generating scheme. It's a pretty big gamble whose outcome certain council members are not gonna like come election time.
It would free him up more for his teaching career in Southern California?
Good luck.
CN
I couldn't agree more! ! !
However, you used 'city council' and 'common sense' in the same sentance....therein could lie the problem.