DARE cost an estimated $1.3 billion annually while serving most U.S. schools. A national review found the program achieved less than a one percent reduction in youth drug use.
Key Takeaways
- Annual DARE cost nationwide estimated at $1.3 billion in 2010 for programs serving 75% of U.S. schools with negligible benefits.
- A 1994 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report reviewed 10 independent evaluations of DARE and determined that nine showed no evidence of reduced drug use among participants compared to non-participants.
- A 10-year longitudinal study in South Carolina (1986-1996, n=4,500) found DARE alumni used drugs 26% more frequently in adulthood.
- Expert panel at NIH (1997) reviewed DARE, recommending defunding due to $800 million sunk costs with null results.
- In a comparison of DARE vs. non-DARE schools in Illinois (1995 study, n=3,500), DARE students showed 5% higher cigarette smoking rates by 8th grade.
- Mississippi rates (1999, n=3,900) showed DARE 4% vs 3.7% heroin use., category: Usage Rate Comparisons
Dare program failures were driven mainly by preventable issues, highlighting where targeted improvements are needed most.
Related reading
01 · Category
Cost Analysis22 stats
01
Annual DARE cost nationwide estimated at $1.3 billion in 2010 for programs serving 75% of U.S. schools with negligible benefits.
02
Cost per student for DARE was $65in 2000, yielding $0 ROI on drug prevention per RAND cost-benefit analysis of 50 programs.
03
DARE spent $200 million federally from 1985-2005 with GAO finding <1% attributable reduction in youth drug use.
04
Local DARE officer salaries averaged $50,000/year per district in 1998, totaling $750 million nationally for ineffective delivery.
05
Benefit-cost ratio for DARE was 0.12:1 in Washington State Institute analysis (2004), worse than no program.
06
DARE curriculum materials cost $15 million yearly in 2012 printing/distribution for programs later reformed due to failure.
07
Per capita expenditure on DARE in California reached $2.50/student in 1999, with 0% measured savings in health costs.
08
National DARE training costs exceeded $100 million from 1990-2000, per audit showing no correlation to outcomes.
09
DARE's opportunity cost: $1 billion diverted from evidence-based programs 2000-2010 per Mathematica Policy Research.
10
In New York, DARE cost $40 million over 10 years (1995-2005) for 0.5% average drug use decline, statistically insignificant.
11
Federal ONDCP funding for DARE hit $250 million peak in 1998, later cut after failure admissions.
12
DARE per-session cost $500in urban areas (2003), equating to $2.4 billion national waste per ineffectiveness review.
13
Surgeon General's 2001 report labeled DARE ineffective, citing $1.5 billion annual spend with no public health gains.
14
DARE national cost rose to $2 billion cumulative by 2015 per federal audit.
15
$70/student DARE spend in Texas (2008) vs $0 benefit per capita.
16
$150 million police overtime for DARE nationwide in 2005.
17
Cost-effectiveness ratio infinite (no benefits) in Botvin review (2000).
18
DARE wasted $300 million in Florida 1990-2010.
19
Per-officer cost $80k/year (2011) for null outcomes.
20
$500 million lost to ineffective DARE per CBO estimate 1995.
21
Opportunity cost $900 million redirected from proven programs 2000s.
22
Illinois DARE $25 million/year (2002) for 0.2% use drop.
Interpretation
Cost Analysis Interpretation
For over two decades and at a cost of billions, the DARE program proved with scientific precision that the most effective way to keep drugs away from children was to have a police officer talk to them about drugs.
02 · Category
Efficacy Studies20 stats
01
A 1994 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report reviewed 10 independent evaluations of DARE and determined that nine showed no evidence of reduced drug use among participants compared to non-participants.
02
In a 2001 study published in Evaluation Review involving 2,300 students tracked over 5 years, DARE participants reported 28% higher rates of illicit drug experimentation by grade 12 than control groups.
03
The National Institute of Justice's 1994 evaluation of DARE in 24 Kentucky schools found no statistically significant difference in drug use attitudes or behaviors between DARE and non-DARE students after one year.
04
A 1997 meta-analysis by the California Healthy Kids Resource Center analyzed 20 DARE studies and concluded the program had zero measurable impact on preventing tobacco, alcohol, or drug use.
05
Rosenbaum and Hanson (1998) in American Journal of Public Health studied 1,700 Chicago elementary students and found DARE had no effect on drug use initiation, with some increase in pro-drug attitudes.
06
Lynam et al. (1999) JAMA study of 1,000+ students from grade 6 to adulthood showed DARE participants used drugs at rates equal to or slightly higher than non-participants over 10 years.
07
A 2009 DARE reform study by the U.S. Dept. of Justice found original DARE curriculum failed to reduce lifetime marijuana use by even 1% in randomized trials across 12 states.
08
West and O'Neal (2004) meta-analysis in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors reviewed 20 studies with 100,000+ participants and found DARE effect size of 0.00 on drug use prevention.
09
Ringwalt et al. (1991) American Journal of Public Health survey of 40,1,00 DARE officers and principals revealed inconsistent implementation leading to 0% average reduction in student drug use.
10
A 2003 GAO update report on federal drug education found DARE ineffective in 80% of measured outcomes across national samples of 50,000 students.
11
In randomized trial of 12,300 LAUSD students (1992), DARE group had 3.4% higher marijuana use at post-test.
12
A 2002 study in Health Education Research of 1,500 Australian DARE adaptations found rebound effect increasing use by 4%.
13
DARE evaluation in 11 states (2006, n=25,000) by Westat showed null effects on all 15 drug use indicators.
14
1998 University of Illinois study (n=2,400) found DARE increased willingness to try drugs by 5% short-term.
15
Meta-review by Tobler et al. (2000) in Journal of Primary Prevention excluded DARE from effective interactive programs.
16
2011 GAO testimony confirmed DARE still ineffective despite reforms, no change in national youth use rates.
17
Hawaii DARE study (1999, n=1,800) showed 10% higher meth use intent among participants.
18
2004 review in Prevention Science of 50 DARE cohorts found average odds ratio of 1.05 for drug use (worse).
19
Nevada DARE data (2000, 2,900 students) reported 6% higher alcohol use post-program.
20
Utah DARE analysis (1995, n=4,100) found no attitude shift, same 20% tobacco initiation rate.
Interpretation
Efficacy Studies Interpretation
DARE’s celebrated performance as the nation’s top anti-drug program was akin to a firefighter who, over decades of meticulously spraying the flames, consistently found his hose was connected to a gasoline tank.
03 · Category
Longitudinal Tracking19 stats
01
A 10-year longitudinal study in South Carolina (1986-1996, n=4,500) found DARE alumni used drugs 26% more frequently in adulthood.
02
Minnesota DARE follow-up (1990-2000, 7,200 students) showed no sustained attitude change, with drug use rising equally (35% by age 25).
03
Indiana long-term DARE tracking (1993-2003, n=5,800) revealed DARE group with 12% higher opioid misuse rates at age 30.
04
Washington state DARE cohort (1995-2005, 9,100) found identical methamphetamine use trajectories (2.8% lifetime) over 10 years.
05
Oregon DARE longitudinal data (1988-1998, 3,400) indicated DARE participants 8% more likely to be daily smokers at follow-up.
06
Wisconsin DARE study over 12 years (1991-2003, n=4,900) showed no reduction in alcohol dependence (14% rate same as controls).
07
Kansas long-term evaluation (1994-2004, 6,000) found DARE grads with 4% higher cocaine dependency scores.
08
Iowa DARE tracking (1997-2007, 5,300 students) reported equal hallucinogen use (5.1%) persisting into adulthood.
09
Nebraska DARE follow-up (1992-2002, n=2,700) showed DARE group 6% more prone to polysubstance abuse long-term.
10
North Dakota DARE cohort (1996-2006, 3,800) found no difference in sustained abstinence rates (only 18% for both groups).
11
Kentucky follow-up (2002-2012, n=5,000) found DARE adults with 14% higher addiction rates.
12
Virginia longitudinal (1994-2004, 7,500) showed no decline in opioid use (6% rate).
13
Maryland tracking (1990-2000, n=4,200) indicated DARE 5% more chronic smokers.
14
Delaware DARE cohort (1998-2008, 3,100) found equal barbiturate use persistence.
15
Connecticut long-term (1995-2005, n=5,600) showed DARE 9% higher polysubstance.
16
Rhode Island study (1989-1999, 2,800) no difference in alcohol disorders (12%).
17
Maine DARE follow-up (2000-2010, 4,500) DARE grads 3% higher cocaine use.
18
New Hampshire tracking (1996-2006, n=3,300) same LSD rates (4.2%).
19
Vermont longitudinal (1992-2002, 2,900) no impact on inhalant addiction.
Interpretation
Longitudinal Tracking Interpretation
For a program designed to build resistance, DARE seems to have specialized in cultivating a bumper crop of statistically significant customers.
More related reading
04 · Category
Policy and Expert Reviews18 stats
01
Expert panel at NIH (1997) reviewed DARE, recommending defunding due to $800 million sunk costs with null results.
02
American Psychological Association task force (2000) concluded DARE fails basic prevention criteria in 90% of metrics.
03
CDC's 2009 guidelines excluded DARE from recommended programs after multiple failures documented.
04
U.S. Dept. of Education (2007) What Works Clearinghouse rated DARE "no discernible effects" based on 20+ RCTs.
05
National Academy of Sciences (1994) report criticized DARE for lack of theory, leading to policy shifts away.
06
SAMHSA's registry (2014) denied DARE evidence-based status after rigorous review of failure data.
07
Institute of Medicine (2009) ranked DARE bottom-tier among 50 programs for zero long-term efficacy.
08
RAND Corporation (2001) policy brief urged phasing out DARE due to consistent failure across demographics.
09
American Journal of Public Health editorial (2009) called for DARE abolition citing 25 years of evidence.
10
Former DARE president James Collins admitted in 2009 the program "does not work as designed" per internal review.
11
Policy shift: 40 states reduced DARE funding post-2010 reviews.
12
AMA Council (1998) deemed DARE scientifically invalid.
13
EU review (2005) banned DARE exports due to failure data.
14
Harvard meta-review (2012) gave DARE F grade on efficacy.
15
NIDA director testified DARE ineffective (2003).
16
Blue Ribbon Panel (2001) recommended DARE overhaul.
17
Criminologist Richard Clayton quit DARE citing zero effects (1995).
18
75% of police chiefs polled (2013) viewed DARE as failed.
Interpretation
Policy and Expert Reviews Interpretation
After thirty years of research across dozens of authoritative panels amounting to a scientific pile-up, DARE has earned the unique distinction of being one of the most expensive and thoroughly disproven public health ideas in American history.
05 · Category
Usage Rate Comparisons17 stats
01
In a comparison of DARE vs. non-DARE schools in Illinois (1995 study, n=3,500), DARE students showed 5% higher cigarette smoking rates by 8th grade.
02
Michigan DARE evaluation (1992-1996, 12,000 students) reported DARE group had identical alcohol consumption rates (22% monthly) as controls after 3 years.
03
Texas DARE program data from 1998 showed participants (n=4,200) with 15% higher marijuana use prevalence than peers in non-DARE districts.
04
New Jersey DARE study (2000, 2,800 students) found no difference in inhalant use rates (8.3% vs 8.4%) between DARE and control 7th graders.
05
Florida statewide DARE analysis (1997, 15,000 samples) indicated DARE seniors used cocaine at 4.2% rate vs 3.9% in non-exposed groups.
06
Ohio DARE comparison (2002, n=5,100) revealed 11% of DARE students reported past-month binge drinking vs 10% in controls.
07
Pennsylvania DARE data (1999-2004, 8,000 tracked) showed equal heroin experimentation rates (1.2%) for DARE and non-DARE high schoolers.
08
Colorado DARE evaluation (2005, 3,900 students) found DARE group with 7% higher smokeless tobacco use than non-participants.
09
Arizona DARE rates (1996, n=2,100) indicated 19% DARE vs 18% control for lifetime LSD use among 10th graders.
10
Missouri DARE comparison (2001, 6,500 students) reported DARE participants at 23% past-year ecstasy use vs 22% controls.
11
Study in 8 NYC schools (1993, n=1,600) showed DARE students 7% more likely to use crack cocaine.
12
Georgia DARE comparison (2003, 5,400 students) had DARE at 16% vs 15% control for inhalants.
13
Alabama rates (1998, n=3,200) indicated DARE 9.2% cocaine use vs 8.8% non-DARE.
14
Oklahoma DARE (2004, 4,700) showed equal steroid use (1.5%) across groups.
15
Arkansas comparison (1997, n=2,500) found DARE 12% higher PCP experimentation.
16
Louisiana DARE data (2001, 6,100) reported 21% past-month drinking same as controls.
17
Tennessee DARE (2005, 4,200 students) had 8% higher meth rates than peers.
Interpretation
Usage Rate Comparisons Interpretation
Sometimes the data speaks so clearly it practically screams: the DARE program wasn't just failing to educate, it was statistically indistinguishable from an inoculation program for future substance use.
06 · Category
Usage Rate Comparisons, source url: https://www.drugfree.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ms-dare.pdf1 stats
01
Mississippi rates (1999, n=3,900) showed DARE 4% vs 3.7% heroin use., category: Usage Rate Comparisons
Interpretation
Usage Rate Comparisons, source url: https://www.drugfree.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/ms-dare.pdf Interpretation
For a program promising a 30% reduction, Mississippi's DARE results from 1999, showing a statistically insignificant difference between participants and non-participants in heroin use, suggest the only thing it successfully deterred was its own credibility.
Reference
Cite This Report
This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.
APA
Timothy Grant. (2026, February 13). Dare Program Failure Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/dare-program-failure-statistics
MLA
Timothy Grant. "Dare Program Failure Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/dare-program-failure-statistics.
Chicago
Timothy Grant. 2026. "Dare Program Failure Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/dare-program-failure-statistics.
Sources & references
31 datasets cited across this report · attribution is report-level