D. A. RE Program Analysis

OVERVIEW
The article is aimed at finding out the reasons that influenced school districts to continue with the D.A.R.E program despite all criticism and undesirable evaluation evidence presented by the media and some scholars. This program was developed in Los Angeles in 1983. Police officers visited elementary schools (particularly 5th or 6th grade). These officers provided information about drugs and the results of their use. Some scholars believed that the program was ineffective in averting drug use among adolescents. These scholars argue that the popularity of the program sounds like it’s an effective and efficient program, yet it was a failure according to their evaluation evidence. Furthermore, the point out that it did not reduce substance

Many people supported the program despite the criticism and alleged failure presented by the media (newspapers and TV), and undesirable evaluation evidence. Both school district administrators and police officials supported this program because they regarded the evaluation evidence as unrealistic and not generalizable. Based on their argument, “substance abuse is a societal problem with deeply entrenched causes that no single intervention is strong enough to counter the drug pressure in society” (Birkeland et la, 2005). Therefore, decision makers found no valid reasons for discontinuing with the program. The authors found that the program developed and built harmonious relations between police officials, school administrators, students and their families. Prior to this program, students had negative attitudes toward police officials. After this program was implemented, students considered police officials as human beings and started to develop good relations toward them. Strengthening of ties between police and local school also enhanced teamwork and communication between these institutions. Even though the D.A.R.E program was perceived by some scholars and the media as a failure, school administrators and the police considered some of its benefits and refused to change their minds because of evaluation evidence. It was found that

Implementation is simplified by clear objectives of government programs. In the context of government administration, this process necessitates high interaction between the public and private sectors of America. This interaction links all levels of American federalism. Certain factors pose a difference in implementation, namely; uncertainty, inadequate resources, organizational problems, uneven leadership, and growing dependence on others (networked government). Furthermore, the national government delegates the implementation of many of its programs to state and local government (intergovernmental relations). Such programs include grant programs, regulatory programs, and off-budget programs. However, implementation encounters such problems as inequity, fragmentation, and lax federal control. According to Kettl (2015) intergovernmental administration of government programs has become a central cornerstone of implementation. In order to enhance service delivery, the American government uses contracting where the government engages the private companies to provide certain goods and services for the government. Contracting out entails both benefits and drawbacks. On the one hand, its advantages include cost reduction, obtaining special expertise, reducing bureaucratic red tape, and providing additional flexibility. On the other hand, contracting out poses certain problems