Atlas›Domain XVI · Historical, discredited & harmful›Guide 094
Guide XVI-094

DARE drug-education programmes

Daryl Gates1983Los Angeles
A 20 · L 73 · M 718 interventions in the Trinity explorer
Client cardCompare
[source: …] where a claim comes from[uncertain] not confirmed in a primary source[synthesis] the writer's reconstruction

1. Introduction

Version followed: the original police-officer-taught D.A.R.E. elementary curriculum (17 lessons, revised modestly in 1994) as described and evaluated by the US General Accounting Office (GAO-03-172R, 2003) and the meta-analyses below; and, for current practice, the D.A.R.E./keepin' it REAL (kiR) curricula as D.A.R.E. America describes them. This guide does not teach any drug-education curriculum; it covers the psychotherapist's own work with the programme's history, evidence and legacy.

D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) is a school-based substance-use prevention programme, not a therapy. A local government page states it was launched in 1983 in Los Angeles by Police Chief Daryl Gates and the Los Angeles Unified School District [source: Seneca Falls Police Department D.A.R.E. page]; GAO confirms it was "Established in 1983", is administered by the nonprofit D.A.R.E. America, and in its original form was taught by uniformed, D.A.R.E.-trained police officers, usually in fifth or sixth grade, with lessons on decision-making, resisting peer pressure and alternatives to drug use and violence [source: GAO-03-172R]. Its implied model of change was that classroom instruction from a credible authority figure, plus refusal and decision skills, would prevent later alcohol, tobacco and illicit drug use [source: GAO-03-172R; Seneca Falls page].

Why it is listed here: repeated evaluations found small or no effects on later drug use (Ennett et al. 1994; GAO 2003; West and O'Neal; Pan and Bai 2009), and DARE has been discussed among potentially harmful psychological interventions following Lilienfeld (2007) [source: BPS, Jarrett 2008; KU News 2021]. Whether DARE causes harm is contested: one report associated it with increased alcohol use (Werch and Owen 2002, as summarised by the BPS), whereas a 2021 quantitative review concluded that harm "appeared unlikely" while finding no evidence of benefit [source: BPS 2008; KU News 2021]. D.A.R.E. America states that the original curriculum is no longer used and that its current curricula are evidence-based [source: dare.org]. The psychotherapist meets this topic as a consultant to schools and parents, and in work with adolescents and adults whose ideas about drugs, risk and authority were shaped by it.

2. Framework

Historical phases of the programme (outline)

  • Launch and spread (from 1983): officer-taught elementary lessons, later with middle and high school curricula; by the early 2000s GAO reported (with a figure the Department of Education questioned) that D.A.R.E. operated in about 80 percent of US school districts and in several other countries [source: GAO-03-172R].
  • First evidence syntheses (1994): Ennett, Tobler, Ringwalt and Flewelling meta-analysed eight rigorous evaluations and found short-term effects on drug use ranging from .00 to .11 (weighted mean .06), substantially smaller than those of interactive, social-competence programmes [source: RTI publication page, Ennett et al. 1994, AJPH 84(9): 1394-1401].
  • Long-term evaluations and federal scrutiny (1990s-2003): GAO reviewed six long-term evaluations (Kentucky, Colorado Springs, Illinois; follow-up 2 to 10 years); each "suggested that DARE had no statistically significant long-term effect" on youth illicit drug use; short-term gains in attitudes and resistance skills "diminished over time". GAO described the Department of Education's "Principles of Effectiveness", which require research-based programmes for Safe and Drug-Free Schools funding [source: GAO-03-172R]. GAO's report neither describes nor rules out boomerang effects [source: GAO-03-172R].
  • Further meta-analyses: West and O'Neal found a pooled effect of r = 0.011 (d = 0.023; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.08), not statistically significant, and called D.A.R.E. "ineffective" [source: University of Memphis repository record; original publication in American Journal of Public Health, 2004, volume and pages [uncertain: not verified]]. Pan and Bai (2009) meta-analysed 20 US studies and found a "less than small overall effect" on drug use [source: Duke Scholars and IDEAS/RePEc records, IJERPH 6(1): 267-277].
  • Harm debate (2002-2021): see Section 1 and Section 3.
  • Curriculum change: a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-funded revision of middle and high school curricula (University of Akron) added normative beliefs, consequences, small-group work and role-play, and tested officers as "course facilitators rather than as instructors" [source: GAO-03-172R]. D.A.R.E. America now offers elementary and middle school D.A.R.E./kiR curricula, high school programmes and opioid and medicine-safety lessons [source: dare.org]. kiR was developed from NIDA-funded research on how adolescents handle real-life substance offers; REAL stands for Refuse, Explain, Avoid, Leave; a teacher-delivered randomised trial in 35 Phoenix-area schools (6,035 students) reported reduced alcohol, cigarette and marijuana use [source: ASU Global Applied Health, kiR history]. The officer-taught elementary kiR had, by D.A.R.E. America's account, one published evaluation [source: dare.org]: a quasi-experimental matched-group study of 943 students in 26 classrooms reporting short-term gains in protective factors such as resisting peer pressure, with no long-term drug-use outcomes in that preliminary test [source: Chapman University repository, Day et al. 2017, Addictive Behaviors 74: 67-73]. Critics have questioned whether evidence for teacher-delivered middle-school kiR transfers to the officer-taught elementary version [uncertain: not verified].

Phases of the psychotherapist's work [synthesis]

  1. Orientation and historical literacy: know the timeline above, which version a client, family or school is talking about, and what each source says. Move on when you can state the evidence for the specific version in one or two neutral sentences.
  2. Recognition and assessment: identify where DARE appears in the case (a school's current programme, a parent's reliance on it, an adolescent's or adult's beliefs and experiences) and assess actual substance use, risk and safeguarding needs. Move on when the question is clear and any risk is addressed.
  3. Consultation and psychoeducation: with schools, parents and young people, convey the evidence for the version in question and the features of programmes with stronger evidence. Move on when the decision-maker has what they need to choose.
  4. Clinical work: with adolescents and adults, work on beliefs, norms, credibility of health information, family communication and any substance use, referring to supported treatment where indicated.
  5. Advocacy, referral and follow-up: support evidence-based selection and outcome monitoring, and review whether the chosen route is helping.

Format and length are set by the setting (single consultation, a few parent sessions, or part of ongoing therapy); session number and length follow the client's needs and the setting [synthesis].

3. Guiding principles

  • Name the version. "DARE" covers an original curriculum that D.A.R.E. America itself says did not reduce drug use, a 1994 revision and later kiR-based curricula; practical meaning: ask which one before discussing evidence [source: GAO-03-172R; dare.org].
  • State the evidence as its sources state it. Practical meaning: "small" (Ennett et al. 1994), "no statistically significant long-term effect" (GAO 2003), "ineffective" (West and O'Neal), "less than small" (Pan and Bai 2009), each attributed [source: as cited in Section 2].
  • Keep "no benefit" and "harm" apart. Practical meaning: the evidence for lack of benefit is consistent; the evidence for harm is mixed (Werch and Owen 2002 as reported by the BPS versus Williams et al. 2021 as reported by KU News) [source: BPS 2008; KU News 2021].
  • Attribute each position. Practical meaning: give D.A.R.E. America's claims as its own (e.g. that current curricula are "research and evidence-based" and that it encourages independent evaluation) beside its critics', without taking a side on wider drug-policy or policing debates [source: dare.org; even-handedness: synthesis].
  • Recommend what has evidence, not what is familiar. Practical meaning: point schools and parents to independent evidence registries such as Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, which rates programmes as Promising, Model or Model Plus on the strength of trials, replication and sustained effects [source: Blueprints home page].
  • Watch for iatrogenic effects in any prevention or group work. Practical meaning: monitor for worsening, not only for absence of benefit; White and Kleber advise staying alert to adverse responses, using fidelity monitoring and reporting deterioration through supervision [source: White and Kleber 2008].
  • The psychotherapist never delivers, supervises or refers to a practice judged harmful. For DARE, whose harm is contested, practical meaning: do not endorse it as treatment or prevention for an individual; advise on supported alternatives [synthesis].
  • Respect the client's experience. Many people remember DARE with affection, cynicism or embarrassment; practical meaning: explore what it meant before giving evidence [synthesis].
  • Safeguard children first. Practical meaning: drug-education contexts can surface disclosures about home; follow local child-protection and mandatory-reporting routes [synthesis].
  • Avoid moralising. Practical meaning: describe the evidence, not the motives of the programme's founders, officers or supporters [synthesis].
  • Never advise on medicines. Practical meaning: questions about prescriptions go to the prescriber [synthesis].

4. Intervention inventory

The interventions below are the psychotherapist's own work; steps not drawn from a cited source are marked [synthesis].

4.1 Building your own historical and evidence literacy

  • Purpose / when: before any consultation or client discussion that touches DARE, so you can speak accurately about the version in question [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Fix the timeline: 1983 launch; 1994 elementary revision; 1994 Ennett meta-analysis; 2003 GAO review; West and O'Neal and Pan and Bai meta-analyses; kiR adoption and its 2017 preliminary elementary evaluation [source: Section 2 sources]. (2) Note which findings concern the original curriculum (most evaluations, per GAO) and which concern kiR [source: GAO-03-172R; dare.org]. (3) Separate three claims: no long-term benefit (consistent), possible harm (contested), current curricula evidence-based (D.A.R.E. America's claim, with limited officer-delivered evidence) [synthesis]. (4) Keep a one-paragraph neutral summary you can adapt.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Most of the long-term studies looked at the original DARE lessons and found no lasting effect on drug use. The programme has since changed its curriculum, and the evidence on the new version is still limited."
  • Watch for: sliding from "did not work" to "was harmful" without the qualifying sources; presenting D.A.R.E. America's claims as settled or dismissing them unheard. Working: you can answer "did DARE work?" with the version and the source.

4.2 Taking a prevention-education history

  • Purpose / when: with adolescents and adults where substance use, risk beliefs or attitudes to authority are relevant [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Ask what drug and alcohol education they had, from whom (teacher, police officer, peer, family), at what age. (2) Ask what they took from it and what they believed afterwards. (3) Ask how those beliefs held up when they met real situations. (4) Note emotional tone (pride, cynicism, shame, fear). (5) Link to the formulation only if it matters [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "What did school teach you about alcohol and drugs, and who taught it? What stuck, and what turned out not to match your experience?"
  • Watch for: the client feeling judged for later use; assuming the programme shaped them when it did not. Working: the history adds to understanding of current beliefs.

4.3 Assessing current substance use and risk

  • Purpose / when: whenever DARE comes up in a clinical context involving a young person or a worried parent; the programme's history is no substitute for assessment [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Explain confidentiality and its limits in age-appropriate terms, including safeguarding exceptions. (2) Ask open, non-judgemental questions about any use, context, frequency in the client's own words, consequences and peers. (3) Use a validated, age-appropriate screening instrument where your service has one, without reproducing items to the client outside its licensed use. (4) Assess co-occurring mental-health needs and self-harm or suicide risk with your service's standard procedure. (5) Decide on monitoring, brief work or referral [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "I'm not here to lecture. I'd like to understand what you actually do, if anything, and what it's like for you."
  • Watch for: minimisation or exaggeration in front of parents (consider seeing the young person alone); acute risk (see Section 5 for crisis routes). Working: you have a clear picture to base decisions on.

4.4 Exploring normative beliefs

  • Purpose / when: when a young person's sense of "what everyone does" drives choices; revised curricula added emphasis on normative beliefs [source: GAO-03-172R], and this exploration is your own clinical work [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Ask what proportion of peers they think use a given substance. (2) Ask where that estimate comes from. (3) Explore how the estimate affects their decisions. (4) Where your service has reliable local survey data, compare gently; if not, explore uncertainty without inventing figures. (5) Reflect on what they want for themselves [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "How many people your age do you think drink most weekends? What gives you that impression?"
  • Watch for: arguing or quoting statistics you cannot source; the client feeling dismissed. Working: the client sounds more curious and less certain about "everyone".

4.5 Psychoeducation for parents relying on school drug education

  • Purpose / when: a parent says "they did DARE, so they know" or asks whether the school programme is enough [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Ask which programme and year. (2) Share the evidence summary for that version, attributed. (3) Explain that no school programme replaces parental conversation and supervision [synthesis]. (4) Offer to discuss how to talk with their child (4.13). (5) Check what the parent now plans to do.
  • Example language (illustrative): "The older DARE lessons were studied a lot, and the long-term studies didn't find they reduced drug use. Whatever the school offers now, what you talk about at home still matters."
  • Watch for: the parent hearing criticism of the school or police; panic about past exposure. Working: the parent moves from reassurance-seeking to a plan.

4.6 Consulting to a school considering or running DARE

  • Purpose / when: a school asks you, as consultant or school-based clinician, about adopting, keeping or replacing D.A.R.E. [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Clarify the decision and who makes it. (2) Identify the exact curriculum (original, kiR elementary or middle, high school options) [source: dare.org]. (3) Present the evidence for that curriculum and delivery mode, including D.A.R.E. America's own statements and the limits of officer-delivered kiR evidence [source: dare.org; Day et al. 2017]. (4) Explain US federal funding expectations for research-based programmes as GAO described them in 2003, noting that current rules may differ [source: GAO-03-172R; current rules [uncertain: not verified]]. (5) Offer alternatives through evidence registries (4.7). (6) Leave the decision with the school; document your advice.
  • Example language (illustrative): "The new DARE curriculum is built on keepin' it REAL, which has good trial evidence when teachers deliver it in middle schools. The officer-taught elementary version has had one short-term study so far. Here are some options with longer track records for you to compare."
  • Watch for: being drawn into policing or drug-policy debates; overstating harm. Working: the school asks evaluation questions of any programme, not only DARE.

4.7 Helping decision-makers use evidence registries

  • Purpose / when: a school, youth service or parent group wants alternatives [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Explain what a registry rating means; Blueprints rates programmes Promising, Model or Model Plus according to trial design, replication and sustained effects [source: Blueprints home page]. (2) Look up candidate programmes together on the registry's own site. (3) Programmes often named in this context include Botvin LifeSkills Training and the Good Behavior Game; check their current ratings and target outcomes on the registry before citing them [uncertain: not verified]. (4) Match programme to age group, outcome and capacity to deliver with fidelity [synthesis]. (5) Note that Ennett et al. found interactive, social-competence programmes outperformed DARE's original format [source: Ennett et al. 1994].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Let's look at how the registry rates this programme and what outcomes the trials actually measured."
  • Watch for: treating any listing as proof for your population; cherry-picking. Working: the choice is made on stated criteria.

4.8 Supporting fidelity and outcome monitoring

  • Purpose / when: whatever programme a school chooses, to know whether it is helping [source: White and Kleber 2008 on fidelity monitoring; application to schools: synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Agree outcomes in advance (use, attitudes, school climate). (2) Encourage independent evaluation where feasible; D.A.R.E. America states it encourages independent scrutiny [source: dare.org]. (3) Plan to look for worsening as well as improvement. (4) Review at agreed points and adjust.
  • Example language (illustrative): "Before we start, let's agree what we'd need to see in a year to say this is worth continuing, and what would make us stop."
  • Watch for: measuring only satisfaction; no comparison group. Working: decisions are revisited on data.

4.9 Monitoring for iatrogenic effects in prevention and group work

  • Purpose / when: any time you run or advise on youth prevention groups; Werch and Owen's report associated DARE with increased alcohol use, and one suggested explanation was that covering several drugs together made alcohol and cigarettes seem less serious [source: BPS 2008]; Williams et al. (2021) judged DARE harm unlikely [source: KU News 2021].
  • Steps: (1) Ask what could go wrong (normalising use, aggregating higher-risk young people, stigma). (2) Build in checks on worsening. (3) Report deterioration through supervision [source: White and Kleber 2008]. (4) Change or stop the element if signals appear [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative, to a colleague): "We've checked whether this is helping. Have we also checked whether any young people are doing worse since they joined?"
  • Watch for: reassurance from short-term attitude change, which GAO found faded [source: GAO-03-172R]. Working: adverse signals would be noticed.

4.10 Repairing the credibility of health information with a cynical adolescent

  • Purpose / when: a young person dismisses all drug information because "school exaggerated everything" [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Validate that some messages they received may not have matched experience. (2) Ask what they think is actually risky and why. (3) Offer accurate, sourced information on request only, without scare tactics. (4) Invite them to judge sources (who says it, what evidence). (5) Return to their own goals [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "It makes sense to be suspicious if what you were told didn't fit what you saw. Want to look at what's actually known, and you decide what you trust?"
  • Watch for: over-correcting into minimising real risks; power struggles. Working: the young person engages with risk information rather than rejecting it wholesale.

4.11 Exploring rigid or shaming beliefs from early drug education in adult clients

  • Purpose / when: adults in substance-use or other treatment who carry all-or-nothing or shaming beliefs ("I'm one of those people they warned us about") [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Elicit the belief and its origin. (2) Explore its effects on help-seeking and self-view. (3) Examine evidence for and against it in their own life. (4) Develop a more accurate, compassionate statement. (5) Link to current treatment goals [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Where did you first learn to think of people who use drugs that way? Does that picture fit you, or the people you know in recovery?"
  • Watch for: shame increasing during discussion; pace accordingly. Working: less self-stigma, more openness to support.

4.12 Responding to disclosures arising from drug-education lessons

  • Purpose / when: a child or adolescent discloses, after or during a drug-education lesson, worry about a parent's or carer's substance use, neglect or harm at home [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Listen calmly; do not interrogate or promise secrecy. (2) Clarify immediate safety. (3) Record the child's own words and the context. (4) Follow your organisation's child-protection procedure and your jurisdiction's mandatory-reporting duty, consulting the designated safeguarding lead. (5) Tell the child, in age-appropriate terms, what happens next. (6) Keep supporting the child; consider support for affected children of parents who use substances [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Thank you for telling me. I can't keep this just between us, because my job is to help keep you safe, but I'll tell you who I need to talk to and what happens next."
  • Watch for: the child retracting out of fear of police involvement, especially if the lessons were officer-taught; your own urge to investigate. Working: the referral is made and the child stays connected to support.

4.13 Coaching family communication about substances

  • Purpose / when: parents want to talk with a child but feel the school programme should have covered it, or fear saying the wrong thing [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Explore the parent's own beliefs and history. (2) Rehearse open questions and listening rather than lecturing. (3) Agree clear, calm family expectations. (4) Plan for disclosures of use (stay calm, keep talking, seek help if needed). (5) Review how conversations went [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative, rehearsing with a parent): "Try starting with: 'What do kids at your school say about vaping?' and then mostly listen."
  • Watch for: parental anxiety turning into surveillance or threats; mismatch between parents. Working: more frequent, calmer conversations.

4.14 Working with a young person's relationship to police in the classroom

  • Purpose / when: a child or adolescent was distressed by officer-delivered lessons (e.g. a family member has been arrested or the family has had difficult contact with police), or the family objects to police in school [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Explore the child's experience without taking a side on policing. (2) Address fears (e.g. that talking about home will lead to arrest) honestly, within safeguarding limits. (3) With consent, help the family raise concerns or ask about opt-out options with the school. (4) Coordinate with the school counsellor where appropriate [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Some kids feel worried when a police officer teaches the class, especially if things at home are complicated. What was that like for you?"
  • Watch for: political framing overtaking the child's needs; inaccurate reassurance about confidentiality. Working: the child feels safer and the family has a route to raise concerns.

4.15 Referral and coordination when substance use is present

  • Purpose / when: assessment (4.3) shows use needing more than monitoring [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Discuss options with the young person and, as appropriate, carers, seeking assent and consent. (2) Refer to services offering evidence-supported adolescent substance-use treatment in your area. (3) Share information within consent and safeguarding rules. (4) Stay involved until engagement is confirmed. (5) Leave any medication questions to the prescriber [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "I think a service that specialises in this could help. Can we look at the options together and decide who you'd want there for the first appointment?"
  • Watch for: referral to a programme chosen because it is familiar rather than evidence-supported; drop-out between services. Working: the young person attends and stays.

4.16 Advocacy and public communication

  • Purpose / when: you are asked by a school board, parent group, media or professional body to comment on DARE [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Name the version. (2) Quote each finding with its source and date. (3) Present D.A.R.E. America's position in its own terms, including its acknowledgement that the original curriculum did not reduce drug use and its claim that current curricula are evidence-based [source: dare.org]. (4) Separate lack of benefit from harm (Section 3). (5) Point to registries for alternatives. (6) Stay within the evidence; avoid commenting on drug policy or policing beyond it [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "The long-term studies of the original DARE found no lasting effect on drug use. D.A.R.E. America says it replaced that curriculum; independent evidence on the new officer-taught versions is still building."
  • Watch for: being quoted out of context; outdated claims (e.g. citing 1990s studies against a current curriculum without saying so). Working: your statements are accurate when read by either side.

4.17 Professional duties when a colleague or institution uses a programme lacking evidence

  • Purpose / when: a colleague promotes DARE or another prevention programme as treatment, or an institution relies on it in place of indicated care [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Raise it directly and collegially with the evidence. (2) Consult your supervisor or professional body's ethics service. (3) Where young people may be at risk of harm or of missing needed care, escalate through your organisation's governance routes and, where required, your regulator [synthesis]; White and Kleber advise speaking out about possible iatrogenic injury and considering whistleblowing when other routes are exhausted [source: White and Kleber 2008]. (4) If you hold dual roles in a school (e.g. consultant and treating clinician), check multiple-relationship issues under APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05 [source: APA Ethics Code]. (5) Document.
  • Example language (illustrative, to a colleague): "I'm concerned we're presenting this as if it treats substance use. Can we look at what the evidence says together?"
  • Watch for: framing a contested-harm question as misconduct; silence because the programme is popular. Working: the institution reviews its practice.

4.18 Using supervision to check your own stance

  • Purpose / when: you hold strong views (for or against DARE, police in schools, or drug education) that could colour advice [synthesis].
  • Steps: (1) Name your view in supervision. (2) Check that your advice matches the sources for the version in question. (3) Rehearse presenting the opposing position fairly. (4) Review client and school feedback [synthesis]; White and Kleber recommend gathering feedback from clients, families and referrers [source: White and Kleber 2008].
  • Example language (illustrative, in supervision): "I want to check I'm not letting my views on policing shape what I told that school."
  • Watch for: defensiveness; certainty beyond the evidence. Working: your advice reads as balanced to people on both sides.

5. Handling problems

All responses below are [synthesis] unless a source is given.

  • A parent says "DARE worked for me." Do not argue with personal experience. Acknowledge it, then distinguish individual memories from group-level findings: the long-term evaluations found no significant difference in illicit drug use between DARE and comparison students [source: GAO-03-172R]. Move to what the parent wants for their child now.
  • A school leader is defensive or committed to a police partnership. Keep the discussion on outcomes, not on the officers or the partnership. Acknowledge D.A.R.E. America's position that its current curricula differ from the version most studies tested [source: dare.org], and suggest independent outcome monitoring (4.8) and a registry comparison (4.7).
  • Proponents and critics in the same room. Lay out each position with its source: lack of long-term benefit for the original curriculum (Ennett et al. 1994; GAO 2003; West and O'Neal; Pan and Bai 2009); contested harm (Werch and Owen 2002 as reported by the BPS; Williams et al. 2021 as reported by KU News); D.A.R.E. America's claims for kiR; the preliminary status of officer-taught elementary kiR evidence (Day et al. 2017). Do not adjudicate wider political questions.
  • Lilienfeld (2007) is quoted as proof that DARE is harmful. Lilienfeld presented a provisional list, which the BPS reported he called "a work in progress to be revised and refined" [source: BPS 2008]; the exact category and evidence he gave for DARE should be checked in the article itself [uncertain: not verified]; a later review judged harm for DARE unlikely [source: KU News 2021]. State all three.
  • A cynical or disengaged adolescent. Avoid defending the programme or lecturing. Use 4.10 and give the young person control over what information they want. If the young person is attending under pressure, name that openly and look for a goal of their own.
  • Rupture: the young person sees you as part of the school or police. Name it, clarify your role and confidentiality limits honestly, and repair by following through on what you promised. If you hold a school role, review multiple-relationship issues (APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05) [source: APA Ethics Code].
  • A disclosure of harm at home or of serious use. Follow 4.12 and your child-protection procedure; do not delay to complete the planned session.
  • Acute risk. If a young person or adult describes suicidal thoughts or overdose risk, follow your service's risk-assessment procedure, involve emergency services where needed, and share crisis resources: 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (US) and Samaritans 116 123 (UK and Ireland). Keep discussion of means to safety planning (safe storage, removal), never method detail.
  • Overwhelm in a parent after learning the evidence. Reassure that a past programme is not a predictor on its own; focus on current communication and supervision (4.13) and on assessment if there are concrete concerns (4.3).
  • Non-adherence to agreed family or school plans. Review what got in the way, simplify, and agree one next step; for schools, revisit the decision at the agreed review point.
  • Questions about medicines (e.g. a young person's ADHD prescription mentioned in a medicine-safety lesson). Do not advise starting, stopping or changing any medicine; refer to the prescriber.
  • Outdated or unverifiable claims circulating (e.g. figures for reach, funding or harm). Check the date and source, say when a figure was contested at the time (GAO noted the Department of Education questioned its reach figure and removed a funding estimate) [source: GAO-03-172R], and mark anything unverified as such.
  • Your own strong views. Use supervision (4.18).

Sources

← Previous · XVI-093Expressive-experiential therapiesNext · XVI-095 →Peer-group interventions for conduct disorder