Research history

Current published edition

D.A.R.E.’s original curriculum

As recorded by . This is a dated public record of drafts, changes, sources and review declarations. A page, checksum or merged pull request does not establish a scientific result or independent review.

Edition
edition:2026-10-27-initial
Edition checksum
63af9ab52aa86652f81ea1fac0b7c40aaad46cd8623865918d41ec347f9b2cd3
Projection checksum
08a373e3b85d7ed44d36bc472444b5773f7cbd1dde11f60e0053b3ba4884b65c
Period
inclusive to exclusive.
Starting baseline
Unknown before the recorded capture. Present states are not backdated to January.

JSON retains the complete pinned edition. CSV covers every recorded event in this edition; view filters do not change either download.

Recorded activity and qualification

  • 43Stable records
  • 45Subject versions
  • 43Recorded events
  • 0Review declarations
  • 0Subjects with qualifying source review
  • 0Peer-reviewed manuscripts
  • 0Qualifying research results
  • 1Editorial correction artifacts
  • 2Changed claim subjects
  • 23Open problems
  • 0Partially resolved problems
  • 0Solved problems
  • 0Problems under review
  • 0Unresolved challenges

Qualification follows the exact recorded public declarations. The ledger cannot establish identity, independence, source reading or truth by itself. Editorial corrections, proposed methods and software checks are separate from qualifying research results.

Coverage and limits

40 source entries are covered by this edition. Claim-level records cover only their selected wording and context; they do not qualify a whole manuscript. Source-derived case labels describe the published summaries, not Charitology fieldwork or charity ratings.

Entry links open the present site. The separate pinned source text retains this edition’s exact archived bytes.

D.A.R.E.’s original curriculum · Source-derived case · version 1
Source review: draft

case:dare

Qualification follows the exact recorded public declarations. The ledger cannot establish identity, independence, source reading or truth by itself.

Versions and exact subjects

Version entries 1–1

Version 1: D.A.R.E.’s original curriculum

Current subject in this edition

Subject checksum
3126fb425edb00a4ea9488673672e1e18c4130c1c4158c917963ef23280d0352
Version checksum
812ffe7841b1bbb463aca172b3aae8c1c26a94d2f4c3065980ef5850993418b5
Authorship declaration
unknown; completeness unknown.
conditions
[
  {
    "collection": "conditions",
    "id": "missing-feedback-loop"
  },
  {
    "collection": "conditions",
    "id": "silence-about-failure"
  }
]
depth
2
era
1983–2013
kind
failure
lessons
[
  "Popularity and evidence can run on separate tracks for decades. The program stayed dominant while rigorous studies found small or no effects.",
  "How a lesson is taught can matter as much as what it says. In a 1994 comparison, interactive programs that built social skills did better than D.A.R.E.’s officer-led lessons.",
  "An evaluation changes nothing until it reaches the people who decide what gets funded.",
  "An organization can change course on evidence and say so. D.A.R.E. now states on its own history page that the original curriculum had little long-term effect."
]
place
United States
summary
Police officers teaching children to resist drugs became the most widely used school drug prevention program in the United States. Rigorous evaluations of the original curriculum found little or no effect on drug use, and the program eventually replaced it.
Exact archived Markdown body

Inert source text, including its original formatting. It is not executed as page markup.

## What happened

D.A.R.E., short for Drug Abuse Resistance Education, began in 1983 as a partnership between the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Unified School District. Police officers taught a 17-lesson curriculum to elementary school students. A nonprofit, D.A.R.E. America, was founded in 1989 to oversee the program, and it spread quickly across the country and abroad. By 1994 it was the most widely used school-based drug prevention program in the United States.

The evaluations were consistent:

- **1994.** Susan Ennett and colleagues pooled the results of eight rigorous evaluations, a method called meta-analysis, and found D.A.R.E.’s short-term effect on drug use was small, and smaller than that of interactive programs focused on social skills.
- **1999.** Donald Lynam and colleagues followed 1,002 young people who had received either D.A.R.E. or standard drug education in sixth grade. At age 20 there were few differences in drug use or attitudes, and in no case did the D.A.R.E. group do better.
- **2004.** A meta-analysis of 11 studies by Steven West and Keri O’Neal found an extremely small effect that was not statistically significant. They described D.A.R.E. as the country’s largest school-based prevention program in federal spending.

The program changed, slowly. The model was substantially revamped in 2001 with help from a $13.6 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. D.A.R.E. later adopted a different curriculum, keepin’ it REAL, built on interactive small-group learning instead of lectures, for middle schools in 2008 and elementary schools in 2013. D.A.R.E.’s own history page says independent evaluations of the original curriculum in the 1990s found “minimal long-term influence on drug use,” and that a later pilot curriculum did not show positive results.

## Where it sits in the system

The aim was **prevention** (level 2) on the [depth scale](/method/#depth). The lesson is about the system around it. The evidence was public by 1994, yet a decade later the program was still the country’s largest school-based prevention program in federal spending. Charitology’s reading is that the people closest to the program could see children engaged in class and a police officer in the school, while drug use years later stayed out of view. That is the [Missing Feedback Loop](/diagnosis/missing-feedback-loop/): the signal that mattered never reached the people choosing what to fund.

The ending runs against the [Silence About Failure](/diagnosis/silence-about-failure/). D.A.R.E. now says in public what didn’t work, including a curriculum of its own that failed a pilot. That kind of candor is what the [Failure Archive](/record/failure-archive/) hopes to make normal.

## What carries over

Fund evaluation early, and decide in advance what result would change the plan. When a well-loved program turns out not to work, keep the relationships and the delivery system, and change the content. Whether the new curriculum works as delivered is a question for the same kind of evaluation.
Cited evidence
Pinned source capture
Exact version fields and declaration references
{
  "adapterVersion": "research-content-v1",
  "authorship": {
    "actorIds": [],
    "complete": false,
    "refs": [],
    "state": "unknown"
  },
  "hash": "812ffe7841b1bbb463aca172b3aae8c1c26a94d2f4c3065980ef5850993418b5",
  "id": "version:case-dare-v1",
  "previousId": null,
  "recordId": "case:dare",
  "sources": [
    {
      "selector": {
        "kind": "entry"
      },
      "sourceId": "source:current-cases-dare"
    }
  ],
  "subject": {
    "body": "\n## What happened\n\nD.A.R.E., short for Drug Abuse Resistance Education, began in 1983 as a partnership between the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Unified School District. Police officers taught a 17-lesson curriculum to elementary school students. A nonprofit, D.A.R.E. America, was founded in 1989 to oversee the program, and it spread quickly across the country and abroad. By 1994 it was the most widely used school-based drug prevention program in the United States.\n\nThe evaluations were consistent:\n\n- **1994.** Susan Ennett and colleagues pooled the results of eight rigorous evaluations, a method called meta-analysis, and found D.A.R.E.’s short-term effect on drug use was small, and smaller than that of interactive programs focused on social skills.\n- **1999.** Donald Lynam and colleagues followed 1,002 young people who had received either D.A.R.E. or standard drug education in sixth grade. At age 20 there were few differences in drug use or attitudes, and in no case did the D.A.R.E. group do better.\n- **2004.** A meta-analysis of 11 studies by Steven West and Keri O’Neal found an extremely small effect that was not statistically significant. They described D.A.R.E. as the country’s largest school-based prevention program in federal spending.\n\nThe program changed, slowly. The model was substantially revamped in 2001 with help from a $13.6 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. D.A.R.E. later adopted a different curriculum, keepin’ it REAL, built on interactive small-group learning instead of lectures, for middle schools in 2008 and elementary schools in 2013. D.A.R.E.’s own history page says independent evaluations of the original curriculum in the 1990s found “minimal long-term influence on drug use,” and that a later pilot curriculum did not show positive results.\n\n## Where it sits in the system\n\nThe aim was **prevention** (level 2) on the [depth scale](/method/#depth). The lesson is about the system around it. The evidence was public by 1994, yet a decade later the program was still the country’s largest school-based prevention program in federal spending. Charitology’s reading is that the people closest to the program could see children engaged in class and a police officer in the school, while drug use years later stayed out of view. That is the [Missing Feedback Loop](/diagnosis/missing-feedback-loop/): the signal that mattered never reached the people choosing what to fund.\n\nThe ending runs against the [Silence About Failure](/diagnosis/silence-about-failure/). D.A.R.E. now says in public what didn’t work, including a curriculum of its own that failed a pilot. That kind of candor is what the [Failure Archive](/record/failure-archive/) hopes to make normal.\n\n## What carries over\n\nFund evaluation early, and decide in advance what result would change the plan. When a well-loved program turns out not to work, keep the relationships and the delivery system, and change the content. Whether the new curriculum works as delivered is a question for the same kind of evaluation.\n",
    "collection": "cases",
    "frontmatter": {
      "conditions": [
        {
          "collection": "conditions",
          "id": "missing-feedback-loop"
        },
        {
          "collection": "conditions",
          "id": "silence-about-failure"
        }
      ],
      "depth": 2,
      "era": "1983–2013",
      "kind": "failure",
      "lessons": [
        "Popularity and evidence can run on separate tracks for decades. The program stayed dominant while rigorous studies found small or no effects.",
        "How a lesson is taught can matter as much as what it says. In a 1994 comparison, interactive programs that built social skills did better than D.A.R.E.’s officer-led lessons.",
        "An evaluation changes nothing until it reaches the people who decide what gets funded.",
        "An organization can change course on evidence and say so. D.A.R.E. now states on its own history page that the original curriculum had little long-term effect."
      ],
      "place": "United States",
      "sources": [
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "Susan T. Ennett, Nancy S. Tobler, Christopher L. Ringwalt and Robert L. Flewelling, American Journal of Public Health 84(9)",
          "title": "How effective is drug abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluations",
          "url": "https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.84.9.1394",
          "year": 1994
        },
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "Donald R. Lynam and colleagues, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 67(4)",
          "title": "Project DARE: no effects at 10-year follow-up",
          "url": "https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.67.4.590",
          "year": 1999
        },
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "Steven L. West and Keri K. O’Neal, American Journal of Public Health 94(6)",
          "title": "Project D.A.R.E. Outcome Effectiveness Revisited",
          "url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1448384/",
          "year": 2004
        },
        {
          "note": null,
          "publisher": "D.A.R.E. America",
          "title": "History",
          "url": "https://dare.org/history/",
          "year": null
        }
      ],
      "summary": "Police officers teaching children to resist drugs became the most widely used school drug prevention program in the United States. Rigorous evaluations of the original curriculum found little or no effect on drug use, and the program eventually replaced it.",
      "title": "D.A.R.E.’s original curriculum"
    },
    "type": "entry"
  },
  "subjectHash": "3126fb425edb00a4ea9488673672e1e18c4130c1c4158c917963ef23280d0352",
  "version": 1
}

Timeline in recorded order

Public occurrence time and ledger recording time are different. A coverage baseline records what was present at capture; it does not invent an earlier history.

Events 1–1

Coverage baseline

Recorded order
2; sequence 1 for this record.
Public occurrence
Undated / no earlier occurrence asserted · undated
Recorded in ledger

Initial capture of current source wording; no earlier independent review or historical event time is asserted.

Observed baseline: version 1.

Exact event fields
{
  "actorIds": [],
  "hash": "d2f5ae9d0a8bf313f2cd4fd242850b3cc185d286a5510a5be173496713e72d3d",
  "id": "event:case-dare-1",
  "initialProblemState": null,
  "observationIds": [],
  "occurredAt": null,
  "ordinal": 2,
  "previousHash": null,
  "previousId": null,
  "reason": "Initial capture of current source wording; no earlier independent review or historical event time is asserted.",
  "recordId": "case:dare",
  "recordedAt": "2026-10-27T08:31:31.000Z",
  "refs": [],
  "sequence": 1,
  "timeBasis": "undated",
  "type": "baseline",
  "version": {
    "recordId": "case:dare",
    "subjectHash": "3126fb425edb00a4ea9488673672e1e18c4130c1c4158c917963ef23280d0352",
    "version": 1
  }
}

Review declarations

No public review declaration is recorded for this subject in this edition.

Dated public metadata observations

These observations record only the displayed metadata at inspection. A merge, closed issue or empty review list does not establish research or independent review.

github-pull-request · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "base": "975bbbbbd198d4b3c4e1777013d0410588a838b3",
  "draft": false,
  "head": "3653d41717a86db2933b02664d7026a329350a66",
  "mergeCommit": "8df2d0ddbc6d91b9841c6bbb94dbde1fc7c00137",
  "mergedAt": "2026-10-27T08:10:57.000Z",
  "number": 15,
  "state": "closed"
}

be39e645f9291ea3931584665b011df77bfa8340e4d32f36562eb526f8e62396

github-pull-request · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "base": "905bdd27bb5f16027c3b3ad3c0f5ee3fc18e3e45",
  "draft": false,
  "head": "510320528e89f45caa9c42eb5a6eda3d6ad1bede",
  "mergeCommit": "3a57d24acc6efd4eb3ae60c59da36ea17c023fb9",
  "mergedAt": "2026-10-26T05:24:43.000Z",
  "number": 3,
  "state": "closed"
}

1ec26b57bd6ef466311b11958d47e9d144ec150ea5689838ae8036eb363aacbf

github-review-list · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "prNumber": 3,
  "reviewIds": []
}

3b7b719dbdd25b9937ba6c640f7234921611db30818b5675db41b9fa3534d926

github-issue · 2026-10-27T08:20:16.587Z

Observed public object

{
  "commentCount": 0,
  "number": 1,
  "state": "open"
}

b411d756f95b7434bc8a2a73dd5599f751afe621b2ab673c0e2e7b056d37bb14

Corrections stay public

This ledger reads checked-in public evidence. It does not read private browser registers, publish a local result, assign reviewers or rate charities. New evidence and corrections enter through the repository’s public contribution process.

How to contribute or challenge a claim