skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)

Public Health & Prevention: School-based
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated August 2015.
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) is a school-based substance use, gang membership, and violent behavior prevention program. The 17-week program is taught by local police officers to students in 5th and 6th grade classrooms. The program aims to teach peer resistance skills so that students can say "no" to drugs.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2023).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers ($286) Benefits minus costs ($981)
Participants ($410) Benefit to cost ratio ($13.66)
Others ($123) Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($95) benefits greater than the costs 46%
Total benefits ($914)
Net program cost ($67)
Benefits minus cost ($981)

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Smoking before end of middle school
Any smoking of tobacco by the end of middle school, typically by age 13.
 11 6 6304 -0.044 0.037 12 -0.044 0.037 13 -0.044 0.237
Cannabis use before end of middle school
Any use of cannabis by the end of middle school, typically by age 13.
11 1 341 -0.048 0.114 12 -0.048 0.114 13 -0.048 0.672
Alcohol use before end of middle school
Any use of alcohol by the end of middle school, typically by age 13.
11 6 6304 -0.065 0.058 12 -0.065 0.058 13 -0.065 0.267
Alcohol use before end of high school
Any use of alcohol by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 and 18.
11 1 248 0.052 0.120 15 0.052 0.120 18 0.052 0.664
Smoking before end of high school
Any smoking of tobacco by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 and 18.
 11 1 248 0.014 0.120 15 0.014 0.120 18 0.014 0.910
Illicit drug use before end of high school
Any use of illicit drugs by the end of high school, typically between ages 14 to 18. When possible, we exclude cannabis/marijuana use disorder from this outcome.
 11 1 248 0.038 0.120 15 0.038 0.120 18 0.038 0.749
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Smoking before end of middle school Health care associated with smoking $22 $6 $22 $11 $61
Mortality associated with smoking $0 $0 $0 $7 $8
Cannabis use before end of middle school Criminal justice system $23 $0 $54 $11 $89
Alcohol use before end of middle school Labor market earnings associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $269 $634 $0 $0 $903
Property loss associated with alcohol abuse or dependence $0 $1 $2 $0 $2
Illicit drug use before end of high school Health care associated with illicit drug abuse or dependence ($138) ($21) ($141) ($69) ($369)
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($55) ($1,608)
Totals ($286) ($410) ($123) ($95) ($914)
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $54 2014 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($67)
Comparison costs $0 2014 Cost range (+ or -) 10%
D.A.R.E. is typically delivered over a 17-week period. Cost of student workbooks ($1.29 per student) and officer training ($700 per officer) are from the D.A.R.E. website, http://www.dare.org/starting-a-dare-program/; other materials ($10 per student) are from Shepard III, E.M. (2001). The economic costs of DARE. Institute of Industrial Relations, Research Paper Number 22. Police officer costs estimated from WSIPP calculations of police officers' salaries (http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1396/). All estimates are expressed on a per-student basis by dividing by the average class size in Washington (approximately 27 students).
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Becker, H.R., M.E. Agopian, and S. Yeh. (1992). Impact evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE). Journal of Drug Education 22(4), 283-291.

Dukes, R.L., Ullman, J.B., & Stein, J.A. (1996). Three-year follow-up of drug abuse resistance education (D.A.R.E.). Evaluation Review, 20(1), 49-66.

Harmon, M.A. (1993). Reducing the risk of drug involvement among early adolescents: An evaluation of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE). Evaluation Review 17(20), 221-239.

Perry, C.L., Komro, K.A., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Bosma, L.M., Farbakhsh, K., Munson, K.A., et al. (2003). A randomized controlled trial of the middle and junior high school D.A.R.E. and D.A.R.E. Plus programs. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157(2), 178-184.

Ringwalt, C., Ennett, S.,& Holt, K. (1991). An outcome evaluation of Project DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). Health Education Research, 6(3), 327-337.

Rosenbaum, D.P., Flewelling, R.L., Bailey, S.L., & Ringwalt, C.L. (1994). Cops in the classroom: A longitudinal evaluation of drug abuse resistance education (DARE). Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31(1), 3-31.