D.A.R.E.
D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education, DARE) is a drug-control educational strategy that was initially meant for elementary school, which made it unique. Despite not being exceptionally effective, it is one of the most widely adopted substance use prevention programs in the US (Kumar, O’Malley, Johnston, & Laetz, 2013, p. 590). Through DARE, Police officers inform children about the dangers of substance abuse, teach them respect the law, help them raise self-esteem and develop the skills that should allow them to resist the pressure of their peers.
From the goals of the policy, it is obvious that its primary theoretical ground includes the strain theory (helping children resist the pressure of society) and social learning theory. Another theory that appears to have influenced DARE is the social control (SC), or, possibly, the low self-control theory that stems from SC (Williams & McShane, 2014). DARE corresponds to SC’s claim that training and socialization are necessary to improve one’s self-control. The attempts at raising the children’s self-esteem appear to be aimed at self-control improvement in a direct way; the rest of the measures help children with socialization as they explain social norms and values. Finally, given the social orientation of the policy, it can be suggested that the differential association theory has also had its influence on DARE (in the same way as the SC). In this respect, it can be added that the police officers involved in the program can be regarded as role models.
DARE was deemed ineffective; evidence was found that the self-esteem of older (20-year-old) drug abusers who had gone through the program was lowered. As a result, DARE is creating a curriculum aimed at older students (Siegel, 2015, p. 454).
Prison Rehabilitation Programs
Modern and future criminological theory and criminal justice policies appear to be influenced by the recognition of the necessity of rehabilitation (Williams & McShane, 2014). Prison rehabilitation programs (PRPs) have had a long history: between the 1950s and 1970s, the “rehabilitative ideal” was born. Through the following years of trial and error, a more pessimistic approach arose, and rehabilitation was deemed “dead,” as the criminological society agreed that “nothing works” in this respect (Phelps, 2011, pp. 36-37). As time passed, though, the literature on “what does work” began to accumulate (Harding, 2014). There is a variety of PRPs, although the most popular ones are educational and vocational programs. Harding (2014), for example, describes therapeutic communities that are based on counseling, support, and role models. Some of the PRPs that had been proposed in the past are now considered inappropriate (for example, prison labor). In general, PRPs are aimed at avoiding recidivism and helping the social reintegration of the inmates.
One of the most important theories that underpin PRPs is the routine activities theory: participants are placed in the environment where they are supposed to pick up the “positive’ behavioral patterns. The prison staff can be regarded as role models and capable guardians who demonstrate the proper behavior and supervise the participants. Apart from that, it can be said that PRPs owe their existence to the positive school and all the theories that determine the social influence on people: through PRPs, the society attempts to alleviate or compensate the consequences of such influence, for example, improper upbringing.
The theories of labeling (LT) and neutralization (NT) can also be mentioned here. NT, proposed by Gresham Sykes and David Matza, demonstrates that the so-called neutralization techniques can “free” a person from the commitment to societal values, and, as a result, no shame or regret is experienced by the offender. In the terms of PRPs, NT has been used to improve the effectiveness of these programs. As for LT, this idea has been mostly developed in the form of diversion programs (DPs).
Diversion Programs
DPs are the “programs of rehabilitation that remove offenders from the normal channels of the criminal justice system, thus avoiding the stigma of a criminal label” (Siegel, 2015, p. 503). As can be seen from the definition, DPs have been affected by the LT to the extent of stemming from it. The primary aspect of the theory that led to the creation of such programs is the intent to avoid labels that will cause future problems.
An example of a DP is the Baltimore Specialized Prostitution Diversion Program (SPD). For this program, the eligible offenders (a person charged with prostitution, not a habitual, not on probation) who agree (or choose) to take up SPD are screened for addiction or mental diseases and other problems and receive an individual assessment of goals and needs. These goals are going to be achieved through a customized program, the fulfillment of which is monitored by a social worker through meetings and phone calls. The article by Shdaimah and Bailey-Kloch (2014) that is devoted to this program emphasizes the individual results of the participants: the treatment of substance and money problems, the improvement of mental and emotional condition. The authors state that the participants were grateful for being helped, not just put in jail. It seems that DPs take into account the theories of SC and low self-control, as their primary method is the increase of the person’s self-control. Similarly, the routine activities theory may have influenced DPs: the participants (the people who are susceptible to crime) are provided with capable guardians (the social workers). Finally, just like PRPs, DPs are aimed at alleviating negative environmental influences. Given the fact that PRPs and DPs are the variants of rehabilitation programs, their correlation is understandable, but their targets (those who have to be placed in jail and those who can avoid it depending on the gravity of the offense and other aspects) determine their differences.
References
Harding, R. (2014). Rehabilitation and prison social climate: Do ‘What Works’ rehabilitation programs work better in prisons that have a positive social climate?. Australian & New Zealand Journal Of Criminology, 47(2), 163-175. Web.
Kumar, R., O’Malley, P., Johnston, L., & Laetz, V. (2013). Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Use Prevention Programs in U.S. Schools: A Descriptive Summary.Prevention Science, 14(6), 581-592. Web.
Phelps, M. S. (2011). Rehabilitation in the punitive era: The gap between rhetoric and reality in U.S. prison programs. Law & Society Review, 45(1), 33-68. Web.
Shdaimah, C., & Bailey-Kloch, M. (2014). “Can you help with that instead of putting me in jail?”: Participant insights on Baltimore city’s specialized prostitution diversion program. Justice System Journal, 35(3), 287-300. Web.
Siegel, L. (2015). Criminology: Theories, Patterns, and Typologies (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Williams, F., & McShane, M. (2014). Criminological theory (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.