U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

72–752 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NATIONAL YOUTH ANTIDRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 11, 2000

Serial No. 106–234

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

BOB BARR, Georgia

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

DOUG OSE, California

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

SHARON PINKERTON, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

CHARLEY DIAZ, Congressional Fellow

RYAN MCKEE, Clerk

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 11, 2000 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Forbes, Daniel, freelance journalist, Salon.com; David Maklan, vice president, Westat, Inc.; and Robert Hornik, professor, Annenberg School

for Communication ....................................................................................... 78

Jones, Renee, program director, Academy for Boys; Kevin, young person,

Maryland; Ibn Muhammad, young person, Maryland; and Kati Stephenson, young person, Orlando, FL .......................................................... 122

McCaffrey, Barry R., Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy ....... 13

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Evans, Kevin, young person, Maryland, prepared statement of .................. 132

Forbes, Daniel, freelance journalist, Salon.com, prepared statement of ...... 84

Jones, Renee, program director, Academy for Boys, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 126

Maklan, David, vice president, Westat, Inc., prepared statement of ........... 97

McCaffrey, Barry R., Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy:

Briefing charts ........................................................................................... 14

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Florida, prepared statement of .................................................................... 6

Muhammad, Ibn, young person, Maryland, prepared statement of ............. 136

(1)

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NATIONAL YOUTH

ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN

TUESDAY, JULY 11, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY,

AND HUMAN RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:18 a.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Mica, Gilman, Cummings, Tierney,

Mink, Schakowsky, Souder, Hutchinson, and Barr.

Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, staff director and chief counsel;

Charley Diaz, congressional fellow; Ryan McKee, clerk; and Jason

Snyder, Kelly Bobo, and Lavron Penny, interns.

Mr. MICA. I would call this hearing of the Subcommittee on

Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources to order.

This morning’s hearing will focus on the subject of evaluating our

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. We have three panels

today. The order of business will be first, opening statements by

Members and then we will turn to our panels. First we will have

Director Barry R. McCaffrey, the head of our Office of National

Drug Control Policy.

We will go ahead and proceed because we do have a full morning

here and we will be joined by other Members. We do have a full

agenda.

I will start with my opening statement.

Today’s hearing is the second in a series of oversight hearings by

this subcommittee which has focused on examining our National

Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. At a cost of nearly $1 billion

over 5 years, with another $1 billion in matching contributions, the

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is the largest government-sponsored, government-funded advertising campaign in U.S.

history. As such, it is imperative that this program is administered

effectively and also efficiently and, ultimately, that the campaign

accomplishes its goal of reducing drug use among our young.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy is responsible for the

development, implementation and evaluation of the National Youth

Anti-Drug Media Campaign. It is this subcommittee’s responsibility

to oversee their efforts. This subcommittee’s investigative authority

also extends to a host of other Federal departments and agencies

involved in reducing illegal drug use in America.

2

The predecessor to the current campaign was developed and run

by the Partnership for A Drug Free America from 1987 to 1997,

free of charge to the taxpayers. For over a decade, the Partnership

acquired donated air time from the big three television networks to

disseminate anti-drug messages nationwide and ad companies donated the creative talent to develop and produce the ads. In 1991,

the estimated value of these donations reached an impressive $350

million annually.

The Partnership’s experience has shown that when a strong antidrug message is communicated nationwide, and our media exposure is maximized, drug use in America drops. Based on the National Household Survey data, illicit drug use declined some 50 percent from 1985 to 1992, from about 12 percent to about 6 percent

of households.

Unfortunately, due to increased competition resulting from industry deregulation in 1991, there was a dramatic decline in donated media time. During this time, I proposed to the Office of

Drug Control Policy and the Federal Communications Commission

that the public had a right, as owners of the public airwaves, to

require a minimum level of public service announcement on the

drug issue. However, a compromise was reached that Congress

would fund media buys that would be matched by 100 donated

broadcast time or space. That is the current situation and law that

we live under, again resulting in $1 billion program with matching

contributions.

The Partnership and others worked to convince Congress to appropriate Federal dollars for media buys so the anti-drug message

could continue. In fiscal year 1998, Congress appropriated $195

million, $20 million over the President’s request, to support the na- tional anti-drug media campaign, $185 million in fiscal year 1999

and $185 million in fiscal year 2000.

While our first hearing on the campaign focused on the development and administration of the campaign, today’s hearing will

focus on the evaluation phase of the campaign. How will we measure whether our significant taxpayer investment has been effective

in accomplishing the objectives of the campaign. Have we reached

our target audience, have young people changed their attitudes

about drugs, have parents started talking to their kids more about

the dangers of drugs and ultimately, are kids using drugs less or

hopefully not at all?

Today, the subcommittee will learn more about both the progress

that has been made and the areas of concern that we still have.

In our last subcommittee hearing on this topic which was in October of last year, questions were raised about the need for a maze

of costly contracts and subcontracts to conduct the campaign. Questions were also raised about whether enough funds were going into

media buys noting that as much as $40 million was being spent on

other programs.

Additional concerns were focused on the payment of Federal

funds for activities that in the past had been donated or could be

obtained by partnering with other agencies and organizations. Serious questions were also raised as to whether a White House office

was in fact the right entity to properly administer and manage a

$1 billion program, something normally done by an executive

3

branch department or agency with a bigger staff, more contact experience and an Inspector General’s Office with established oversight procedures and safeguards.

As we now turn to evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign, we

must first examine the evaluation plan which is primarily being

administered by the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Taxpayers

will spend $35 million of taxpayer money over 5 years to evaluate

the campaign’s progress. At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves the question, what will we receive for the funds expended.

As I mentioned last October, I fully support reasonable evaluation research in this effort and I think it is necessary. However, we

have already spent millions of dollars on evaluation of phases I and

II of the campaign with very little to show for it.

As I understand it, because of the short duration of the first two

phases, a baseline was not established so no trend data is available. Furthermore, because we now have a different contractor

with a different survey method, the evaluation work in phases I

and II cannot be used in phase III. That leaves us wondering what

we receive for our initial millions of dollars already expended.

If we consider simply expanding existing federally sponsored research such as the project entitled, ‘‘Monitoring the Future,’’ a

project of the University of Michigan that has been tracking attitudes about illegal drug use and drug use trends for decades.

Hopefully, today’s witnesses will be able to answer some of these

questions. What about the campaign’s effectiveness? The White

House recently proclaimed a drop in teen drug use from 1997 to

1998 but in its biennial report entitled, ‘‘1999 Youth Risk Behavior

Survey,’’ the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that

drug use in America has increased throughout the 1990’s, including

last year. In fact, I think we sat right at this table and we were

briefed several weeks ago by the CDC on this new survey.

The survey found that while 14.7 percent of the students that

had been surveyed said they currently used marijuana in 1991,

that number almost doubled to 26.7 in 1999. The CDC also reported to our subcommittee that the lifetime marijuana use increased from 31.3 percent in 1991 to 47.2 percent in 1999 and that

current cocaine use more than doubled during the same period.

These discrepancies need to be explained. We really shouldn’t

fool ourselves or the American public into thinking there has been

short-term drop in teen drug use when in fact the opposite may be

true. While I believe General McCaffrey, the head of the ONDCP

has done an outstanding job in helping to get our national drug

policy back on track, nonetheless it is our subcommittee’s responsibility to conduct proper oversight of this most important and most

expensive antimedia campaign.

Unfortunately, several other controversial practices have also

raised a number of questions relating to this national media campaign that requires oversight of this subcommittee. First, in February of this year, a controversy erupted over the reported White

House practice of reviewing TV scripts for anti-drug programming

content prior to the airing of these shows. Cries of government interference and censorship were voiced in editorials and news broadcasts across the country. The ABC Television Network was particuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:08 Jun 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72752.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
4

larly vocal in their concern that this practice be halted immediately.

As reported by the New York Times on January 17, 2000, ‘‘Ms.

Fili-Krushel said ABC had decided not to participate this season

because the Government had asked to see the scripts before they

were broadcast.’’ As a result of the controversy, the ONDCP was compelled to

issue a White House press release which said, ‘‘New Guidelines to

Clarify Pro Bono Match Component of the Anti-Drug Media Campaign,’’ which was issued on January 18, 2000. At least one major

print publication, USA Weekend Magazine for USA Today, has declined to participate further in this portion of the campaign.

In a letter to me dated May 23, 2000, president and CEO, Marcia

Bullard, wrote, ‘‘I do have concerns about how the media campaign

was conducted and as a result, I do not intend to continue participating in the campaign under the parameters as I current understand them.’’ In a second embarrassing incident, a news report surfaced 2

weeks ago that accused the White House of secretly monitoring the

activities of Internet visitors to two ONDCP Web sites,

freevibe.com and theantidrug.com. Visitors to these Internet sites

were not notified that their activities were being monitored by the

insertion of so-called cookies into their hard drives. Again, cries of

Big Brother spying and invasion of privacy were heard nationwide

and the practice I believe was ordered stopped by the White House

chief of staff. However, damage to the program may have been

done.

While I support the overall anti-drug media campaign and in

particular, the concept of the media buys, I am not convinced that

we should be spending taxpayer dollars on programs that are less

proven and somehow detract from our ability to maximize our

media buys.

Furthermore, the subcommittee has reason to be concerned about

the recent national controversies surrounding the conduct of the

White House anti-drug media campaign. Sometimes poor decisions

and miscommunications on the part of overzealous staff and contractors have now called into question the credibility of the campaign with the very audiences that we are trying so hard to reach,

namely the youth of America and their parents.

Trust is a very important and essential ingredient in any national public education campaign. We cannot afford to have kids

thinking that every anti-drug message portrayed on television was

planted by the government. Likewise, we cannot afford to have

their parents fearing they are being spied upon every time they

visit a Government Web site for information, help or assistance.

Finally, as chairman of the subcommittee, I have visited a number of communities across the country examining our national drug

control efforts. In fact, we have held hearings from one end of the

country to the other. We almost always have a youth panel, individuals involved in law enforcement, prevention and education. Everywhere I go I ask people if they know about the national youth

anti-drug media campaign and if they have seen any of the ads or

any of our effort. Unfortunately, the reactions I get at the very best

are mixed. Students from hearings we have conducted in Texas,

5

Hawaii, Florida, Louisiana, Iowa, have raised questions about the

effectiveness of these anti-drug ads.

While I realize this is only a small sampling of those who have

seen the ads, clearly much more needs to be done to make certain

these ads are as effective and positive as possible. I look forward

to hearing from all our witnesses today as we seek to learn more

about the effectiveness of this national youth anti-drug media campaign. I look forward to working with General McCaffrey and all

the others in our various agencies dedicated to making this program a success.

I am pleased at this time to yield to Mr. Cummings, the gentleman from Maryland.

[The prepared statement of Hon. John L. Mica follows:]

6

7

8

9

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do thank you for calling this hearing. I would also like to thank

General McCaffrey for his strong leadership and cooperation with

Congress in fighting this war against drugs.

In particular, he has worked with me on several occasions and

has even come to my district on numerous occasions to discuss constituent concerns and to hear from youth in Baltimore.

I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, as I listened to your opening

statement I had my own concerns and I want to just express them

here and now.

One of the things I have noticed since I came to Congress is that

I remember my first hearing with General McCaffrey where he was

coming under attack from every direction. It seemed he couldn’t do

anything right. I wasn’t attacking him because I didn’t know him

but the other side was.

For some reason, we constantly told him whatever we do, and I

think we all agreed on this one point, we want tax dollars to be

spent in an effective and efficient manner. We said to him, you are

the boss; we want you to look at everything you are doing and try

to make sure we reduce this drug situation. As a matter of fact,

I remember one hearing where he had some goals and on the other

side, you all were trying to get him to up the goals to make them

almost unreachable.

The issue with ABC brought me to say what I just said. On the

one hand we say, we want you to spend these tax dollars effectively

and efficiently, and we want you to watch everything that goes on,

to be careful, work with private industry and I have also heard the

criticism in a hearing not too long ago that when we get these donations from the networks, there was a question raised as to

whether we were truly getting what we thought we were getting

in that we were looking at the programming and said, is having a

drug message in a program as effective as having commercials.

I am one who is always concerned about Big Brother looking over

our shoulders, but I must say to you that I think General McCaffrey has been sent all kinds of messages from this Congress and

I think it becomes difficult sometimes to figure out exactly what to

do and how to do it. Under all of those circumstances, I think he

has done a good job.

One of the things I was concerned about early on was a report

issued that said, even after this campaign had started, while White

teen drug usage was going down, drug usage in African Americans

and Latinos, if I remember correctly, was going up.

To General McCaffrey’s credit, I called him and said, I read this

report, I do not like this and I want it going down for everybody.

He immediately dispensed a team to Baltimore and they literally

sat down with I guess 150 teenagers from schools throughout the

city. He brought in the media experts, his staff and spent literally

4 or 5 hours with these young people reviewing the ads and giving

their advice with regard to those ads.

I know we have traveled throughout the country but in my district, young people face drugs being pushed at them every day.

Some of them when they go to school, they have to go through people who are pushing drugs. That is an everyday occurrence. These

are children that go to funerals three, four or five times a year beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:08 Jun 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72752.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
10

cause someone has been killed due to drug violence. So they see life

in the raw.

Most of those children, that 150, I would say 90 percent of them

said they were familiar with the campaign and the ads did affect

them. This was the issue, Mr. Chairman. When they looked at the

ads, there were three ads they liked, that they felt really hit them

hard.

The most popular ad was Lauren Hill and 95 percent of the kids

who had seen ads and said they were affected were affected by

Lauren Hill. I don’t know if you are familiar with Lauren Hill.

Mr. MICA. I have never heard of her.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I wasn’t familiar with Garth Brooks but now I

am but Lauren Hill is a young women about 22 or 23 years old who

is an unwed mother, who had a difficult life coming up—I think

she came up in the projects—and she turned her life around. In her

songs, she talks about the difficulties that she has come through.

I asked the young people, why is it that her ad affects you so

much and they said, because we think she understands what we

go through. That was a consistent message over and over. We believe, because she has experienced what we have experienced, that

is why the message affects us.

The second most popular ad was one with Serena and Venus Williams. They said this was less effective. Why? Because these girls

have had a nicer life and have not gone through the difficulty.

The last one, which was very interesting, was the frying pan ad

where the lady slams the egg and all that stuff but to his credit,

and this is the point I am trying to make, he came and spent 4

or 5 hours with some teenagers and had his media experts go

through those ads and they left with the commitment that they

could see where our young people were coming from, that they

would go back to the drawing board and look at how those ads

were being put out and whether they needed to find some more

Lauren Hills and people like that.

Simply put, I know we will give General McCaffrey an opportunity to say what he has to say but from what I have seen, I think

there has been a genuine effort by this General and his staff to do

the right thing. If something fell by the wayside, things can happen, as you know, and when you have a Congress of 435 people

yelling at you and 100 Senators yelling at you, telling you what to

do and how to do it, and then try to balance all of that with reports

coming out almost every month, I think it can get rather difficult.

General, I think the chairman has raised some very good questions and I think they are reasonable questions, but I also know

something else. Every time questions have been raised in the past,

you had a reasonable answer. I just want to make sure we understand what you are dealing with.

Last but not least, I leave you with this simple statement. You

need to continuously let us know how we can help you help our

children and help our society so those tax dollars the chairman

speaks about, are spent in an efficient and effective manner.

Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman from Maryland.

I am pleased to yield now to the gentleman from New York, Mr.

Gilman.

11

Mr. GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to welcome General McCaffrey before us this morning.

I want to thank my colleague from Baltimore for his good words

this morning.

I think it is important you are holding this hearing today to

evaluate the progress of our national youth anti-drug media campaign. We look forward to today’s testimony. We hope our panelists

have some positive words for us and the subject matter has had far

too much negative news throughout the Nation.

The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign does serve as a

vital component of a key pillar in our war on drugs, prevention and

education. For years, we have heard from the source countries that

America needs to do its part in reducing demand. Of course we

must not neglect the reduction of supply just as we try to reduce

demand. They have to be done simultaneously.

We need to do our part in drug education and prevention programs that can play a key role in meeting our goals. The idea for

a national media campaign, as we know, was born during the

Reagan administration which was fighting at that time a wave of

drug use and abuse among our adolescents and an unforgivably tolerant attitude toward drug use from the entertainment industry,

an industry we would hope would come on board and do a lot more

than they have.

The resulting creation of the Partnership for a Drug Free America in 1987 helped to usher in a longstanding series of anti-drug

ads which did prove to be of some effect at no cost to the taxpayer.

That, in part, helped lead to a steady decline in adolescent drug

use from 1987 until 1993.

The drug environment facing today’s teenagers has changed

drastically from that of a decade ago. Regrettably, drugs today are

cheaper, of higher purity, more readily available than ever before.

Furthermore, unlike a decade ago, the media does not emphatically

communicate the dangers of drug use, that drugs are not recreational, that drug substance abuse is deadly and can ruin and affect their lives.

Instead, more emphasis is being placed on efforts by the pro-legalization groups to decriminalize drug use through their campaigns of disinformation and focus on medical benefits of drug use.

Moreover, in doing that, the national media does not even pretend

to present a balanced story. The bulk of its sympathy seems to lie

with the pro-legalization people. That situation presents a greater

challenge to the organizers of the national youth anti-drug media

campaign than that faced by their predecessors. They are fighting

an uphill battle, but it is a battle we cannot afford to lose. Far too

much attention is being given today to creating a culture of tolerance for drug use. We have seen what that culture of tolerance can

do in some of our foreign nations.

More emphasis is needed to convey the point that the road to

hell is paved with good intentions and that this culture of tolerance

is sowing the wrong seeds, the seeds for greater social problems

down the road.

We all recognize that drug use is not glamorous and is full of

false promises that can only lead to self destruction. Routine drug

use eventually leads to addiction which destroys families, shatters

12

lives and leaves a landscape of wasted resources and unrealized potential behind.

The proponents of legalization have been focusing on their goal,

however misguided and self-serving that may be. We need to be

equally committed to our goal of prevention, of preventing the

youth of today from selling out their futures for a lifetime of substance addiction. For that, we need an effective means of communication of which a key component is our national youth anti-drug

media campaign.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for arranging this hearing. I think

it is very timely. We look forward to hearing today’s testimony.

Again, we welcome General McCaffrey our leading witness.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman from New York.

I am pleased to recognize now, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney.

Mr. TIERNEY. I have very short remarks.

I want to thank General McCaffrey for joining us today. I look

forward to hearing his comments.

I think we have been on a path of ignorance for a long time and

I think of late, we have come to a situation where we understand

education and information and preventive aspects are a part that

we have to really pay attention to. I want to hear what it is you

have to say and your efforts there, General McCaffrey.

Again, thank you for coming.

Mr. MICA. There being no further opening statements, we will

proceed to our first panel. Our first panel consists of: the Director

of our Office of National Drug Control Policy, Barry R. McCaffrey.

As you know, General, the purpose of our subcommittee is, first of

all, one of oversight and investigation and in that regard, we do

swear all our witnesses, so if you would please stand to be sworn

and raise your right hands.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. MICA. The witness answered in the affirmative. Again, welcome, Director McCaffrey, back to our subcommittee. As you know,

we do have investigations and oversight responsibility and we also

try to coordinate our national effort and our national policy on drug

use and abuse. We have tried to work with you as best we can on

making certain this program, a very extensive national program, is

a success.

If you will bear with me a second, we have been joined by our

ranking member, Mrs. Mink. I tell you I had no greater appreciation for Mrs. Mink than when I went out to do a hearing in her

district in Hawaii and I am sure everyone thought I would be out

at the beach watching the string bikinis and all of that, but I actually arrived early on a Saturday night, early Sunday morning, was

greeted by Mrs. Mink that Sunday morning after recovery and recuperation and we went immediately to the Honolulu police station. We spent the afternoon in a weed and seed program and then

she took me to the State prison where we met with the drug offenders, through the evening a working dinner and the next morning a long hearing. Then she ended with having me attend on Monday afternoon the drug court and then fly all night through Atlanta

and back to Washington. I know what she goes through, the flight

13

is just unbelievable. I don’t know how she does it and she came in

last night. So welcome back.

People don’t realize what Members of Congress go through. I did

it just once to attend and participate in a hearing in her district,

but I certainly admire her. I am pleased to welcome her even

though a few minutes late. I admire her leadership on this issue.

Before we recognize you, General, let me recognize our ranking

member.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If you had all that sympathy for my travel agonies, you would

have scheduled this meeting at 10 a.m. rather than 9 a.m.

That is all I have to say. Thank you very much.

Mr. MICA. We do have a full hearing of three panels this morning, so we did get an East Coast start. Again, thank you so much.

General, I apologize for the interruptions. We have been joined

by another Member but we will proceed at this time with your testimony. Thank you for your patience and your leadership. You are

recognized.

STATEMENT OF BARRY R. MCCAFFREY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Mr. Chairman, to you and the members of the

committee, I thank you again for the opportunity to come down

here and lay out our thinking and probably more importantly, to

hear your viewpoints and to respond to your interests.

With your permission, if I may suggest, I will enter into the

record three things; one, a statement that we put enormous efforts

into to try, to bring together in one document, cleared by the administration, the numbers, and the assertions upon which this debate can be better informed. I offer that for your consideration.

Also, I would offer copies of the briefing charts that I will walk

through briefly to try to capture the seven major points I will make

in my opening statement.

Then, finally, I think this has more value than anything else, are

some letters from constituent organizations who have shaped and

informed my thinking.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, the documents referred to will be

included in the record and so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Let me begin by recognizing some of the attentive constituencies who are here. First of all, most importantly, the

Executive Director of the Partnership for Drug Free America, Dick

Bonnette. As you know, they have been really the other pillar in

shaping this entire campaign. They bring to bear 10 years of experience. I also wish to thank Jim Burke, their chairman, and Dick

Bonnette for their leadership.

Art Dean is here, the CEO of Community Anti-Drug Coalitions

of America. During his short tenure of a bit more than a year, we

have increased anti-drug coalitions from some 4,000 to some 5,000.

We are moving in the right direction and that is with very modest

Federal dollars involved in this program. Some 400 community coalitions by the end of this year will have received startup moneys.

We also have present Wally Schneider, the president of the

American Advertising Federation. We are very proud that we have

both Shona Seifert from Ogilvy and Mather and Harry Fraizier

from Fleishman Hillard. Arguably these are two of the most sophisticated and competent organizations. Ogilvy Mather does our media

buying, does the heavy lifting, handles most of the money and

Fleishman Hillard is doing our outreach, integrated strategy, Internet operations, and so forth.

We also have the Ad Council’s two vice presidents, Donna Feiner

and Dianna Ciachetti and Dr. Linda Wolf Jones of Therapeutic

Communities of America. As you know, our purpose in this entire

prevention campaign is, in the coming 10 years, to reduce the 5

million chronic addicts who are causing $110 billion in damage in

this country each year and some 52,000 dead. We thank Dr. Jones

for her leadership.

Allen Moghul is here from NASADAD and Robbie Calloway from

Boys and Girls Clubs. If you want to look for a model on drug prevention programs, it is the Boys and Girls Clubs. Also with us is

Beth Walkinghorse from the YMCA. All of these are pretty good examples of how to go about keeping kids engaged with mentoring activities.

Finally, we have Jessica Hulsey here from the Drug Free Communities Advisory Commission. They have been a huge help to me.

Let me quickly put in front of your committee the key documents

that are the basis upon which this discussion has to proceed. The

most important one is the law. When people ask me what I am

doing on the media campaign, I was told by Congress what my purpose would be and given some pretty sensible parameters to go

about it. I would ask you to take that into account as we proceed

in this discussion.

We also wrote, with the help of contractors, a communications

strategy, ‘‘The Burgundy Bible.’’ This is the basis upon which the

media campaign in its entirety has proceeded; it is a pretty sound

piece of work. We will obviously revise it over the coming years as

the environment changes.

It is also important, particularly in this hearing where you are

going to get some valuable anecdotal insight from some young people, to note in passing that they are not in the target range of the

media campaign. They are older than the prime focus of the campaign.

27

This is the phase I of evaluation. We went to 12 cities and got

12 control cities and began with the off-the-shelf advertising material from PDFA, we paid a considerable about of money to have

some very clever people watch that baseline develop. I think a tremendous amount came out of it. Thank God we started small and

walked before we ran. I commend the phase I of evaluation to your

attention.

In phase II, we went national. We went national mostly with existing material but we again had some very sophisticated people

try and get an evaluation of whether the ads were being seen, were

they found to be credible, did they begin to shape attitudes. It was

backed up not just by baseline data—by the way, it was all collected in schools, so it has a different look, a more narrow look

than phase III. This is the outcome, which we have provided to

Congress, and it is extremely encouraging. I will put up one chart

to that effect.

Finally, if I may release to the committee today, the phase III

evaluation design. We have now got I think one of the most respected institutions in science in America, part of the NIH, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, headed by Dr. Alan Leshner, which

has provided through Westat Corp. and other subcontractors—the

Annenberg School of Journalism, and you will have testimony on

panel II from two of their scientists. This is their phase III design.

They are going to answer four questions. The first data from phase

III I will give you prior to September, I hope. In March we will

have the first real insights on how the campaign is evolving and

shaping youth attitudes, but over time, I think the money we are

spending on this evaluation is going to provide profound insights

that help us shape the evolving campaign.

If I may, let me put those in front of your committee to make

sure we don’t miss the rather obvious statement, that this is not

a seat of the pants operation. This is one of the most complex,

science-based and fully evaluated public health campaigns in history.

It is probably premature for me to make much of this yet, but

the General Accounting Office has done an in-depth study of the

media campaign. We have commented on their report. It has not

yet been formally presented to the Congress. We are extremely

proud of the professionalism and the blow torch of detail that GAO

brought to bear on this program.

I would be prepared to discuss their emerging insights. I think

it is extremely favorable, not surprisingly from the way we are

going about our business.

Let me run through seven slides very quickly. The first is to underscore, when we get in these discussions why we are doing the

following things. Let me start with the law, if I may. Why are we

doing various things? We are buying media space and time, we are

testing and evaluating, we are going to the entertainment industry

for collaborations all because it is in the law. We are doing interactive media activities.

Our children are on the Web. The eighth graders are on the Web

more than the 12th graders. For the first time in our history, we

now have more families with children 17 or younger who have

28

Internet addresses than newspaper subscriptions. That is why we

are in that part of the media.

We are doing public information; we have submitted our corporate sponsorship plan and we are clearly involved in partnership

and alliance with the major organizations that make America

work. We are heavily involved with the Rotary Club, Kiwanis, 100

Black Men, you name it, 41 civic associations have come together

to stand with us on this issue.

The strategy says we have 5 goals, with 31 objectives. As you

know, we have designed the campaign in accordance with the law,

and performance measures of effectiveness so that we can measure

what we are doing with the money you give us. The most important of any of these goals is goal 1. As you look at it, it goes right

to the heart of it. It says, ‘‘Focus on 56 million American children

and motivate them, shape their attitudes, primarily between the

6th and 12th grades to reject illegal drug use as well as alcohol and

tobacco.’’ That is what we are up to in the media campaign.

I would argue this campaign, in many ways, relates to most of

the other prevention and education activities we have going on.

That is why Art Dean of the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions so

strongly support this, because the media campaign builds community support for local coalitions.

Here is the shape of it, the six major components. Again, it is important for me to stress this isn’t a TV ad buy. This isn’t a radio

spot market ad buy. It is a lot more than that. It is an attempt

to get at interactive, to involve the entertainment industry, advertising, public information, corporate sponsorship as well as community partnerships. There are our three targets. It is not just youth

audiences. We are trying to shape and talk to moms and dads,

adult mentors, people who work with young people, influential

adult audiences. Those are the targets of the media campaign, the

anti-drug message.

By the way, for the first time in history, we are evaluating it specifically. We paid money up front. We have a science-based way of

telling not only that drug use in America will predictably continue

to come down but we will try and disentangle which influences created the most pay back for our tax dollars. I think we are going

to be able to cover that a bit the next panel will more knowledgeably address that thought.

There is a feedback loop there. Yesterday in reviewing my testimony, I was pretty adamant with NIDA. It is not enough. My colleagues I work with Ogilvy and Mather, Fleishman Hillard and 11

subcontractors—provide feed back so we can modify this campaign

and learn from it as it goes along.

Here is a quick look at it. We began hoping to hit a target audience. Jim Burke and I, on the back of an envelope, said we are

aiming for four times a week, 90 percent market penetration. That

is where we were headed. When you combine the paid component

and the matching component which you have required me, by law,

to get, 100 percent matching component, that is where we are. For

the general population, essentially we are up to seven times a week

with a 95 percent market penetration. When you look at the African-American population, it is similarly extremely high penetration

and Hispanic as well.

29

I might add we are watching 10 ethnic subcontractors’ work to

make sure we are not hitting our overall targets, as Mr. Cummings

pointed out, but also getting to communities the relevant antidrug

messages, so that the message in Hawaii, in Boise, ID, Newark and

Miami are all quite different. The drug threat, and the nature of

the community has to be taken into account.

Here is a matching component. There are a bunch of different

ways to dice it and I would be glad to respond to your questions

but let me give you the bottom line. Started in January 1998, we

are now at the 2-year anniversary of national media campaign. We

are starting our third year. The anniversary was only last week. The campaign has made Federal ad buys, $318 million, and I got

130 percent matching funding. If you take into account time and

space, programming, other corporate contributions, all together

that comprises 130 percent match, almost $1 billion in value to the

taxpayers. I mention this because I think the industry—advertising, entertainment—has been extremely supportive in general of

what we are trying to do.

Is there a payoff? Obviously it is premature to claim we have a

causal relationship between an ad and a youth attitude. Having

said that, I want to show you some clusters of studies that tend

to track together. That is what is happening right now. The statement posed ‘‘Kids who are really cool don’t use drugs.’’ More of

them are agreeing than prior to starting the campaign. In my

school, marijuana users are popular. It is going down dramatically,

not up.

We mentioned the household survey data which Secretary Donna

Shalala and I will put out again in late August. We don’t yet know

the results, but here is what happened last year. For 12 to 17 year

olds drug use went down 13 percent. It was statistically significant

in a mathematical sense. Some things, such as inhalant use, went

down dramatically. Cocaine use is down. Marijuana use is down.

What is the discrepancy between the CDC data that you mentioned and these studies? They are taken in different timeframes.

CDC is 1991 to 1998. This is an ongoing, huge data base, longitudinal study and it is saying last year, drug use went down. I hope

it continues to say that, although I am sure we will have some fluctuations off the mean as we work through this in the coming years.

That is one data point I would suggest you take into account.

There are others. Is it working? The pro bono match is coming

in—130 percent was the total figure but it is 107 percent pro bono

direct match. The Internet site Freevibe.com, you talk about leverage—1.8 million page views. These kids come to the site and they

stay. I am going to talk about ‘‘cookies,’’ as one of the top 25 people

in the country now who understand cookies, why we are trying to

evaluate these online programs.

Television programs, content, 100 million teen impressions, 250

million adult impressions, 63 percent of parents now reporting discussing risk of drug use, up from 53, dramatic changes, as shown

by the Center for Alcohol and Substance Abuse, at Columbia University.

We also went out there to build a coalition. One of the mandates

from Congress, and it was a sensible one, was make sure your dollars don’t dry up associated youth-oriented organization outreach

30

efforts. That is why Peggy Conlon and the Ad Council have been

so fundamental to what we have been trying to achieve. These are

just representative.

When you look down the organizations we partnered with and

see the impact of the pro bono match portion of the campaign on

their outreach, it is astonishing. The National Fatherhood Initiative is up 384 percent, Kids Peace, their hits in the first quarter

of 2000 were greater than the entire year of 1999; National 4-H

Council, I am about to go to an event with them, they’ve experienced a 20 percent increase in their volunteers; Crime Prevention

Council, a huge increase, $18 million worth of equivalent advertising; America’s Promise, Web site hits up 122 percent and that is

almost unquestionably due to the matching component of the ad

campaign that Congress authorized.

We do have some guidelines on pro bono match. We think the

thing has been run pretty sensibly but there was confusion. You

are going to hear from a journalist, Dan Forbes, about his reporting

on the matching content. I would just tell you up front the notion

that there was Government money being secretly paid to manipulate ‘‘Manchurian Candidate’’ style the minds of the American people is laughable. This was the subject of three congressional hearings, was on the front page of USA Today, was widely reported

throughout the industry. It was released by President Clinton and

me and Newt Gingrich and the Governor of Georgia on all national

TV in July 1998. It is the subject of those evaluations which I provided to Congress.

By the way, not 1 cent got paid to anybody for program content.

Media executives who chose to use program content as part of their

matching, around 15 percent of it—it was very important not to the

big media like ABC but to media with less financial resources. So

we wanted to make sure we gave producers, directors and artists

not only scientifically accurate information but the option of working the message into program content.

It is unquestionable that I am trying to get an anti-drug message

against methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, marijuana abuse into

popular culture. That is what we are trying to do. We clearly cannot take on any involvement in the creative process, we don’t want

to be involved in the review authority, I want Ogilvy Mather to do

that. They are a big, professional commercial operation and we

have to make sure, as we have in the past, that there is no spill

over or crossover into news editorial substantive content or reporting.

Here is a little insight on ‘‘cookies.’’ All of us ought to be concerned over privacy on the Internet. This is a valid concern and if

we don’t follow it closely, meaning the Congress and others of us

in Government, we will end up with a situation we don’t like. We

clearly do not want relational data bases in which people can monitor individual activity and tie it to a government agency by name.

That is what we are concerned about. Technically, in the coming

years that would absolutely be possible.

When we talk about cookies, what they were being used for, with

what impact? First of all, there is zero possibility that the cookies

being used by ONDCP could in any way be tied to an individual

person. You simply can’t do it. It is inert code. It is in there and

31

identifies that you came to freevibe.com, that you clicked through,

at what level you exited, how long did you stay there. If you come

back again to the site, it will say this computer has come back, give

them a new ad, but you cannot say that somebody typed in the

word pot, why don’t we report them to the DEA. This is ludicrous.

We have to make sure that technically we understand what we are

talking about.

Second, we ask the question do cookies have any value. Yes, they

do. If I put on cookie disable, and you ought to try it on your computer so that every time you are on the Internet, somebody tries

to insert a temporary or hard drive cookie in your computer, you

have to give individual permission. I guarantee that you are going

to turn it off after about a hour. There is a blizzard of these devices

to allow you to operate effectively on the Internet and allow us to

evaluate our media campaign.

People using cookies include the ACLU, the United Way, the Republican National Committee, the FTC, the Federal Reserve Bank

of Chicago, Representative Dick Armey, Representative Dick Gephardt, the Washington Post and Toys R Us. I just mention that because this is a tool of the modern age. It deserves your careful scrutiny. We ought to be concerned about it, but we also want to understand the technology we are now working with.

Let me tell you that my own assessment is we have gotten a

huge complex program up and running pretty effectively. You are

going to hear from kids who will say good or bad things. Remember

we are out there with focus groups of the right age population, including various ethnic backgrounds. We are modifying these ads so

they are science-based and they tell a story that is credible and

true to young people and their adult mentors.

Let me close by showing you a video. It will give you insight into

the nature of some of these video messages.

[Video presentation.]

Gen. MCCAFFREY. When that ‘‘girl power’’ ad showed with my

two daughters in the audience in Seattle last week, the entire audience stood up and cheered. It is a powerful message. Secretary

Shalala and I released it with 200 young women in the room to try

to get into play that we are focused on all children in America.

The final example I showed you was an example of two things.

Mr. Bill Cosby on program content, they chose to do so—producer,

the director, the writers of that video to include an anti-alcohol,

anti-drug youth message in their program.

The second part of it, when he talks of the 1–800 number, for

calling in, that is their matching public service announcement.

That is the power of this media communicating a science-based

message to our children. We ought to expect it to work over time.

The kids don’t have problems, we argue, the adults have problems.

This is part of our attempt to communicate with children.

Thank you again for the chance to lay out these opening statements. I look forward to responding to your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCaffrey follows:]

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

I will start with several questions and then yield to other Members.

First of all, we do have concern about getting to the target area

and population that is most affected right now. Mr. Cummings

brought up the fact of the impact particularly on African-American

youth and also Hispanic youth.

I notice from the statistics you gave us from the evaluation that

one of the lowest frequencies sort of hits on this coverage appears

to be the Hispanic population which has also been very heavily impacted. Is there some mechanism in place now to readjust the frequency of these ads and the targeting of these ads to the groups

most affected.

We are seeing again a dramatic rise with some of the minority

population in drug use and abuse but it doesn’t look like we are

hitting the mark with one of those populations, at least the one

provided to the subcommittee.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Your concern is one I share. We are certainly

paying a lot of attention to it. This is a $36 million effort in multicultural media plan focus. We have 11 subcontractors. It is the

largest multicultural, ongoing program by the U.S. Government.

We are getting 86 percent of the Hispanic audience 3.7 times a

week but we are worried. There is a tougher group to reach which

is the Native American population.

It is not just getting to them with a credible message but finding

ways to evaluate it, to know who is hearing and reading what we

are doing. We do focus on Hispanics. Seventeen Hispanic magazines carry our ads in them and we think we will get a better impact in the coming year. It is complex getting to Chinese-American

populations, Samoan populations, Native Americans. We have to be

very worried about it.

Mr. MICA. We have some concern about the minority populations

and the statistics we are seeing, particularly Hispanics which

shows the lowest frequency.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. And one of the highest expenditures I might

add.

Mr. MICA. Again, my question is we need some mechanism to

change or some other way to get to that affected population.

One of the other concerns is you presented the indicators of success in 12 to 17 year olds—inhalant use down, cocaine use down,

marijuana use down. I pulled the CDC records and this is from

1997–1998, ‘‘Youth Risk Behavior Trends,’’ it does assess this every

2 years. In fact current cocaine use, if we take 1997–1999, went

from 3.3 to 4 percent. Maybe you can provide the subcommittee

with an explanation or maybe a more up to date analysis of what

is happening. In the cocaine use specifically, this shows an increase

among the youth.

Would you like to respond or provide us an answer?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I think probably it would be useful if we sat

down and wrote you an answer. The CDC report, the bottom line

is, 1991 to 1999 and our statement tracks the last 2 years.

Mr. MICA. I have 1997 and 1999.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. They are two different studies. I can’t respond.

65

Mr. MICA. If you could look at that because we are very concerned.

The other thing that concerns me in conducting the hearings

around the country is inhalant use may be down and marijuana

may be down in these populations. We are seeing an absolute incredible explosion in things that aren’t even on these charges— methamphetamine.

I think they told us in Dallas in the last 2 years, 1,000 labs had

been busted. We were in Iowa 2 weeks ago and 800 labs for production of this stuff—we didn’t even have method figures.

In my area, we held a hearing on club drugs, ecstasy, GHB, all

of these new designer drugs which are absolutely exploding among

young people.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Steroids and performance enhancing drugs as

well.

Mr. MICA. Yes. Are we keeping up with the problem. I am very

convinced what we are doing is necessary but are we keeping up

with what is happening with our young people.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. There is no question the drug threat our children face is dynamic. It is not today what it was 10 years ago or

5 years ago. Drugs like GHB or PCP, methamphetamines, high purity heroin, I would almost term them new drugs. If it is 6 percent

purity, you have to inject it; if it is 50 percent purity, you can stick

it up your nose which is why kids are dropping dead in Plano, TX

and Orlando, FL and other places.

We also have to change our prevention media campaign to take

into account those dynamics. It doesn’t happen everywhere in the

country at the same time. There is not a national drug problem.

There are only a series of community drug epidemics, so we have

to shape the message in Hawaii to be quite different than the one

in Orlando.

Mr. MICA. These charts were provided to us by the Sentencing

Commission. It shows 1992 with crack in yellow. This is to 1994,

1995 and methamphetamine is not even on the chart in the beginning and we get down to 1999, we have an incredible increase in

crack and methamphetamine that just about covers the whole Nation. It is new drugs that are out there. Is the program effective

in targeting these new drugs is my question?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. And I think the answer is yes, we are taking

into account the evolving drug threat. We have new ads coming out

on ecstacy in August. The Web site initiative clearly gets to that

kind of problem. We are trying to provide feedback to the entertainment industry so they are aware of the new evolving threat.

We have a public information campaign going on and we are creating methamphetamine ads which will be on the air.

Crack use is probably not up, except in a few localities. Methamphetamine has spread dramatically from a California-based

drug threat to now almost the dominant drug problem in the Midwest, the far western States, Hawaii and Georgia. It is spreading.

We do have a methamphetamine strategy. We have updated this

strategy. We have resources and research and education. We have

law enforcement initiatives. We are going to try to do to

methamphetamines what we didn’t do to cocaine in the 1980’s

when it devastated America and left us with 3.6 million chronic coVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:08 Jun 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72752.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
66

caine addicts. We are going to try to make sure 10 years from now,

when my daughter is the drug policy director, we won’t be looking

back on this era and saying we ignored it for 5 years and it got

out of control.

Mr. MICA. There has been controversy over the editing and reviewing of TV scripts before they aired. I would like to know your

response to the question if they were reviewed by the White House

prior to airing?

I also understand you are on the verge of publishing new clarifying guidelines on the media match component of the campaign.

Maybe you could provide the subcommittee with the status?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I tried to address it during my opening statement. I have a chart available. We have already published new pro

bono match guidelines. We sent them out to the industry for comment. We are preparing to send copies of these revised guidelines

around the country to our stakeholders. They are on the Web. I

want to make sure we listen to our stakeholders and we can evolve

these further if there are different viewpoints. So far they have

passed muster with the people they went to.

I think the only thing I would say that we have clarified is to

ensure there is no question in the minds of producers and writers—

that there will be no decision by Ogilvy Mather on granting pro

bono matching credit to a program content until after it has been

aired. That should be the assumption prior to, as well as following,

publication of these revised guidelines.

I think it was very helpful, the uproar that followed the inaccurate reporting on this issue.

Mr. MICA. I will yield to Mrs. Mink at this time.

Mrs. MINK. I am interested in the ad campaign you were discussing. What was the major criticism in the way that it was handled

which prompted you to put out revised guidelines?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I think one of the problems was that we have

two things we are trying to do. One is sort of a mechanical process.

You want to comply with the law and grant matching credit. It was

15 percent last year and you want a mechanism to do that. There

has to be some filter. Is it science-based. It has to be clear that

Ogilvy Mather, the contractor, will do that in accordance with published industry standards. That has to be acceptable to the creative

people of America.

Then you have a second thing you are trying to achieve. The

Congress gave us more than $600 million last year to fund the National Institute on Drug Abuse, so we want to make this information available to a writer, producer, director so they can be better

informed on how to craft their own messages about drugs. That

means NIDA has to continue as the Department of Defense does

to provide feedback to the creative industries.

We have them separated and we have a published document now

that hopefully will clarify that.

Mrs. MINK. It was the involvement of the Government in assessing whether to grant them that exception, was it not. It was not

a criticism of Ogilvy in terms of their professional work but it was

the insertion of the Government?

67

Mr. McCaffrey. Right and that part seemed to be completely

overstated. There was no government manipulation of scripts. That

just wasn’t happening.

Mrs. MINK. Now that you have changed the guidelines, how do

you protect against that in the guidelines?

Mr. McCaffrey. I think saying no one will review matching credit

until after it has been shown is a healthy thing. I think when you

read the guidelines, it says the science-based feedback is separate

from the process of granting pro bono credit. That is a good clarification. I think the fact the scrutiny was brought to bear on the

subject is more than appropriate.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I might add to get a little balance with this,

we have a pretty good working relationship with the television industry and the print media in America. They weren’t over here

raising cain about this. ABC testified in front of Congressman

Kolbe’s committee, their TV executives did, about the program

matching content. He called a hearing specifically on this issue and

they testified saying it is OK.

I think what happened was the way it was reported initially, on

a Friday, of a long weekend, without much news, talking about a

secret program, government money buys industry compliance. That

was not what was actually happening.

Mrs. MINK. It is exactly that point that gives me some concern

because I had come to the conclusion reading those discussions that

this was a program that was conducted completely in accordance

with the standards of the industry. Now you are saying, we are reacting and we have new guidelines. So that is the reason for my

question. Why change the guidelines if there was nothing wrong in

the first place?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I think the guidelines we published are helpful. I think the fact we won’t review again until after it airs makes

it quite clear. There is still the concern on the part of many, does

the fact you are getting matching guidelines credit back into the

creative process. I think the creative industry would say no, that

is laughable. They don’t want government interference in a free

and open and creative process and I think we feel the same way.

Ms. MINK. On the methamphetamine issue which is very critical

in my State, you said earlier you are developing a strategy to attack this new crisis. Can you elaborate on what that strategy is in

terms of the media campaign to reach the constituencies affected,

particularly the children?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. We have a strategy. In 1997, Tom Constantine, of the DEA really got it rolling. We brought in the whole

country’s law enforcement people. We tried to learn about this horrifying thing that was happening in front of us. We then had a regional conference in California, which is where the problem was

the worst, to learn what California authorities thought was happening. We had Senator Dianne Feinstein and Attorney General

Dan Lungren there.

Then we had a national methamphetamine conference in Omaha,

NE following which Janet Reno and I produced the national methamphetamine strategy. We had a new law passed in Congress that

described what was against the law. A year later, I revised the national methamphetamine strategy.

68

There is a prevention component, an education component, a law

enforcement component.

Mrs. MINK. I am referring to specifically the media campaign requirements that need to be changed because of this new crisis. How

are you changing it, what directions must the media take in order

to specifically address this audience?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Two things. One is the media campaign—in

many cases when you look at the message, the six communication

strategies—including parental effectiveness, personal consequences

of drug abuse—when you look at what we are trying to achieve,

that message doesn’t necessarily talk to a apecific drug but

drugged behavior. So I think the general campaign has enormous

consequences on, whether it is meth or MDMA.

We are also specifically developing methamphetamine ads, not

just on television and the radio and print media but also inside the

DARE Program, which has 26 million kids involved in school-based

prevention activities. In every one of these areas, you will see a

prevention education message.

We are going to the medical community, we have written op-eds

in newspapers, so it is pretty multifaceted. We are trying to educate America on this new problem.

Mrs. MINK. If the measure of success of the media campaign is

achieved by a diminution of the addiction to methamphetamine,

and that doesn’t occur in the next year’s assessment and so forth,

then you have to conclude that the media campaign is not reaching

the community affected. That is what concerns me because there

is this rising crisis and nothing seems to stand in its way in becoming even greater. In my community, I don’t see any strategy that

is specifically directed to this particular drug and its increased consumption in my State.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Let me pull together some thoughts about Hawaii and what you should see now and in the coming years on the

meth strategy. I can assure you your law enforcement people are

already aggressively confronting the issue. There are Web sites to

educate yourself about methamphetamines in six languages—Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Korean, Spanish and English. The

ecstacy radio ads will be out in August. The DARE Program will

face up to this issue. So you will see a prevention education, law

enforcement consultation.

We have new laws on the control of precursor chemicals, the

pharmaceutical industry is working with us in a very positive manner to shrink wrap defredrin tablets. DEA is aggressively going

after pharmaceutical houses that misuse their economic opportunity to sell hundreds of thousands of tablets to some storefront

operation. We do think we are coming to grips with it.

The two major meth-producing nations on the face of the Earth

from our perspective are Mexico and California—and both of those

we are targeting. The Mexicans are horrified at this thing also. So

we have a huge problem, no question. This is the worst drug that

ever hit America, bar none.

Mr. MICA. Yield now to the vice chairman of the subcommittee,

Mr. Barr, the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. BARR. I am also concerned about methamphetamine. As a

matter of fact, today in the Judiciary Committee we are taking up

69

the Methamphetamine Antiproliferation Act which has some problems because it contains some extraneous provisions that a number

of us are concerned about.

What I hear from the folks down in Georgia, particularly out of

the Atlanta office is not that we need new laws, we just are not

enforcing the existing laws. I don’t speak primarily about the drug

laws themselves but problems with INS and what seems to be an

unwillingness, given the prevalence of the methamphetamine problem involving illegal aliens, particularly in the Georgia and Atlanta

areas from Mexico, to work closely and aggressively with DEA and

our other law enforcement agencies in partnership with INS to use

our drug and immigration laws to get these people out of our communities.

That is something I don’t know the extent to which you can work

on but I hear about that on a fairly regular basis from the law enforcement folks, including DEA in the Atlanta area. Any help you

can be in getting INS to be more of a partner in this would certainly be appreciated.

Is the President firmly committed to this youth drug strategy?

The reason I say that is as the chairman indicated, the times in

which we saw a significant and sustained decrease in youth use of

drugs was when we had President Reagan and Ms. Reagan out

there very, very vocal on a regular basis talking about the Just Say

No Programs. In the public’s eye, this was obviously an important

part of that administration’s agenda.

That continued with President Bush who as Vice President was

very active under President Reagan in getting that antidrug message out.

I look back over this administration, which has been in office almost 8 years now and you could count on less than the fingers on

two hands the number of times this President has spoken out on

this issue. I don’t know if he prefers to do all his work outside the

public eye, whether he really is committed to this, how many times

you have met with him personally on this, but I suspect we are

going to continue to see these problems by the tremendous efforts

by you and the DEA folks. I have tremendous regard for both of

your organizations.

We seem to have a President that has a funny way of showing

concern about this problem, by not talking about it. Do you meet

with the President on a regular basis to discuss this? Is he engaged

with it? Is he firmly committed to it and what are some of the indices of that if he is?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Written into the law, and it was revised 2

years ago, I am a nonpartisan actor in government, that I am forbidden under the law to take part in electoral politics, I am not

registered with either party and I didn’t ask for this job. I took it

because I felt it was an obligation, and because my dad told me to

do it.

Having said that, I would tell you unalterably the President of

the United States has backed his team. It is a team effort—Janet

Reno, Donna Shalala, Dick Reilly and I are sort of the heart and

soul of the effort. In the 5-years I have worked this issue, from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2000, the budget went up from $13.5

billion to $19.2 billion. We increased the program on prevention

70

education by 54 percent. We increased our drug treatment dollars

by 32 percent. The research budget went up 36 percent. We took

the drug courts and increased them from 12 to more than 750. We

took the media campaign from an idea that Jim Burke and I had

over a table and we are now in to our third year of a $1 billion

advertising campaign. By the way, it is working.

The President’s personal commitment has never been a question

in my mind. He signs all of our documents. I brief him on it. His

OMB Director and I have choking fights every year over the budget. I automatically appeal to the President and every year, I have

gotten more money in prevention, treatment, research and so forth.

I think the team effort is there. I think the Congress of the

United States voted for all this money, so there has been bipartisan

effort from this committee and others—Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Hoyer, Senator Campbell and Senator Dorgan have backed us on what we

have tried to do. I am extremely proud of the team effort.

Mr. BARR. I don’t take issue with that. It is a team effort but

when I look back at the two prior administrations and the high

profile each one of our prior Presidents gave to this issue in terms

of their public pronouncements and their visibility, which is an important part of it, I see why we are talking about a media campaign and the perception of engagement. The perception of caring

can be very important. I just don’t see that component of it.

If you could go back to the issue you talked with Mrs. Mink

about, the methamphetamine strategy, is a part of that going to be

some recommendations for increasing the Immigration Service’s

real life, actual on the street commitment to working with DEA as

opposed to seeming to thwart their efforts in our communities to

work the methamphetamine problem as it relates to illegal aliens?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I wouldn’t know why you would characterize

that problem in that manner.

Mr. BARR. It is what I hear from people. Perhaps because of my

background as a U.S. Attorney I hear from these people and they

let me know how things are working. These are folks at the working level in DEA and they express tremendous frustration.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I think there is no question we have a huge

amount of money flowing into the southwest border. We are trying

to work in cooperation with Mexico, we have increased fencing, low

light TV, increased the size of the border patrol from 3,000 to over

7,000. In my view the border patrol ought to be more than 20,000

professionals who speak Spanish, who are 25 or older, fully trained,

mature women and men, so we have a lot of work to do.

Congress has finally given us the tools so that the U.S. Customs

Service can have the intelligence and the nonintrusive inspection

technology to protect the American people in the coming years. It

is going to take a long time to do this. We have a huge open border

between Mexico and the United States. That is good. There are

nearly 100 million Mexicans down there, they are our second biggest trading partner. This isn’t North Korea, these people are part

of our culture. That is all well and good. Now we have to find ways

to work on respectful cooperation to enforce the law.

I agree with your concern and we have to give the Federal agencies the resources they need to do their job. I think we are moving

in that direction but it is going to be painful work.

71

Mr. MICA. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am so pleased that Congressman Barr and I do

agree on something and that is that we have a tremendous regard

for you. I have said that all along. I want to say I told you so but

I am not going to say that.

This methamphetamine problem isn’t an immigration problem.

Can you show me the map again? It looks like it is all over the

place, it is not just on the border. Can you comment on that? I am

confused about what Mr. Barr was saying.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I think the meth problem, probably in the addiction sense, is the worse drug we have ever seen. What it does

to brain function and Dr. Alan Leshner can provide you with some

pretty decent studies. One moderate dose or a year of fairly low

level dosage rates may do irreparable harm to neurochemical function of the brain.

From the law enforcement perspective these people turn paranoid, start tweaking, their personality unravels, they get emaciated, their teeth rot and it is unbelievable what meth is doing to

humans. It is happening Thailand, China, Japan, not just the

United States. This started in California and used to be just a

biker, gang thing. Now it is young White males in beautiful western States and rural communities in the midwest, Georgia and

beautiful Hawaii.

The couple of thousand labs taken down in this country last year,

a couple of thousand mom and pop, Bevis and Butthead idiots making methamphetamine in their hotel room, in a warehouse, leaving

it in the rug, pouring it down wells, in streams. They get the recipe

off the Internet, buy the materials which are common precursor

chemicals, hydriatic acid, red phosphorous, ephedrine, with consequences that are devastating.

Where is it being made? Is this a Mexican problem? There is a

lot of Mexican organized international crime involved. Mr. Barr is

quite correct. We have to work strongly with Mexico—the Amescua

brothers, the gang, this criminal organization in northwestern

Mexico is responsible for a good bit of it.

There are four counties in southern California that may produce

half of all the methamphetamine in the United States but there are

labs everywhere. There are labs now in rural Georgia, producing a

couple of ounces a day. People rotting out their noses. Children are

in the places where it is being cooked and being exposed to these

fumes. Never mind the paranoid behavior of their parents who are

making the drug and using it.

DEA has gone aggressively after them and so have a lot of the

State police. GBI is doing extremely well. I think it is organized,

we are moving ahead. We do require a better prevention media

campaign strategy targeted on this drug specifically, along with

others now—ecstacy, MDMA. A lot of our kids don’t think ecstacy

is dangerous. They simply think don’t drink booze, drink a lot of

water, you will be just fine.

We think we are going to raise a generation of children with high

vulnerability to depression if we don’t persuade them to not use

ecstacy.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You showed us those ads. Why did you show us

those ads?

72

Gen. MCCAFFREY. The girl power shows you we have incredibly

creative media. That ad, I love. We have a 60 second version, a 30

second version, a version on radio. We are trying to remind everyone the drug problem isn’t unique to minorities, it isn’t males, it

isn’t city people, poor people, crazy people, it is your children, whoever you are. That includes our girls.

Mr. CUMMINGS. When I saw that ad, I couldn’t help but think

about the Just Say No campaign but here we were saying, just say

yes. I wrote down—future, hope, dreams, power, self love, healthiness, woman power. Just from watching that little ad.

It seems there are two different types of ads. Some say this is

what is going to happen to you.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Negative consequences.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Another says you have a lot to live for. Are we

going more in one direction than the other?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. It is probably worth having another hearing in

September when we get the next wave of data out of NADA and

Westat Corp. When you watch what Ogilvy Mather and Fleishman

Hillard have done with this, it is really impressive. We have six

communication platforms we are working. We are flighting these

ads in chunks of 6 weeks, so wherever you go, we are there with

a similar message during the same time period.

We are doing the concept of branding which has tremendous

power. One of those ads I showed you, the first one, ended up with

what is your anti-drug? This generation, young people, personal

choice, what do you want your anti-drug to be? The answer will be

opportunity.

Mr. CUMMINGS. As a Congress, what can we do? Do you think

we are doing what we are supposed to do to be supportive of your

efforts? I know you catch a lot of heat but I think you are doing

a great job. I say that anywhere, I don’t care where I go. I want

to make sure we are doing what we are supposed to be doing to

support your efforts. Is there anything you need from us that is

reasonable that you really need that you haven’t gotten?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I actually think Congress has been tremendously cooperative, I have learned a lot coming over here and listening to Rob Portman, Dennis Hastert, Steny Hoyer, you, others,

Senator Campbell, Orrin Hatch, Joe Biden. You have given us significant resources and with some exceptions, it seems to me you

have given me broad gauged guidance to go out there and do this

job. It is working.

The only thing I might caution you is that this is not a trick campaign, this isn’t a Clinton administration effort. This is a 10-year

struggle for the future of our children. So you have to let this thing

bite in, let us have some constancy to it. Let us work this problem

and I would say about 2 years out, I would be astonished if you

are not going to see dramatic impact over the dollars you put into

this.

You put under $200 million in and we spent $36 billion on prisons last year. If I am modestly effective with this, and we are going

to do better than modestly, you are going to like what you see in

the coming 5 to 10 years.

Mr. MICA. Yield to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder.

73

Mr. SOUDER. A couple of different things. One is that many of us

understand that there isn’t going to be an instant solution and that

the data isn’t going to drop suddenly. We do want to see the methamphetamine data because we are hearing that all over the country. In my district, the problem is starting rural and moving urban.

We may see a drop in one part of the program which may not be

attributable so much to the anti-drug campaign as to shifting of

types of drugs. We have to make sure that is occurring too.

I am not looking for solutions that show 10, 20 percent drops

every year because part of our problem with the drug question is

that we keep acting like they are silver bullets and you have said

many times, there aren’t silver bullets. It has to be sustained, consistent and over time.

What would undermine this tremendously is that every year we

show these big drops when in fact on the street we are still seeing

arrests and the problems in our hometowns. So don’t try to overimpress us, make sure you get a blend of statistics and I understand your media problem with it.

The biggest problem in my district still remains, and will probably continue to remain, the marijuana use in our country. In 1997,

you clearly stated in front of Congress it was the administration’s

position that State legislation on medicinal marijuana is legally inoperative because it is contrary to Federal law. Is that still your

position?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I have gone through a couple of tutorials from

the Department of Justice to try to make sure I understand fully

the situation. The bottom line is Congress told the States they

could legislate in this arena. So the States clearly have the authority to set penalties for drug law violations and these are not conflicting, State and Federal functions.

The current medical marijuana laws are deemed to not be operative when it comes to the Federal law. There it is. We have Federal

law that says you may not grow, possess, sell or use marijuana. We

have FDA and NIH laws that say, doctor, if you want to prescribe

a drug, you have classes of medicines, a pharmacy, clinical trials

and smoked marijuana isn’t part of that process.

THC is available in a pharmacy as Marinol. So, the bottom line

is right now, we don’t have a conflict with Federal law. It is operative.

Mr. SOUDER. In 1997, you said the Federal response had four

goals, preserving established scientific, medical process for determining safe and effective, which certainly the State laws don’t, protecting our youth, which for example, the California laws clearly

don’t; upholding existing Federal law, which the California law certainly doesn’t and preserving drug free work places.

It has been all over national TV, these pot clubs and other

things. I just wondered if there is any Federal response.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. It is a strange situation. I share your concern.

At one point, we had 36 States that passed laetrile laws demanding

that ground up peach pits be seen as an available useful medication for prostate cancer. This whole thing was laughable, it was

nonscientific.

I am not sure what the way out is. I would suggest one thing.

I think this media campaign, one of the many benefits of it, is it

74

is reminding parents in America you actually don’t want your children involved in drug taking behavior, medical or any other. You

want to try to keep your youngsters not smoking cigarettes, smoking pot, abusing alcohol, never mind sticking heroin up your nose

and dropping dead. I think that is how the American people feel.

Mr. SOUDER. I know your frustration too because you have expressed it before but when George Soros and others put millions of

dollars into calling illegal narcotics medicine it does not help us

when we are trying to do an anti-drug campaign through the U.S.

Government. Yes, we are trying to counteract that but we need

public and private officials speaking out all over this land or we

undermine the very thing we are trying to fund.

I think many of your ads have been impressive and I know it is

difficult. I have one suggestion I would like to encourage you to

look at. We have seen the difficulty. Apparently the rule is that it

is OK for liberals to insert their messages in television, whether

through the writers, producers or general philosophical attitudes

but the second a message is a conservative anti-drug message, all

of a sudden it is censorship or manipulation. I believe there has

been a lot of unfair publicity about it even though we are all uncomfortable with it being tied to the money.

The networks ought to be doing this type of thing voluntarily. It

shouldn’t have to be tied to whether or not we are doing advertising or whether it is part of their mix to get dollars from the networks. It is something they ought to be doing in the course of their

responsibility.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. I think they are. One of ABC’s answers was

minus the mix, they were already exceeding their target. ABC has

not walked away from program content that is science-based and

has an anti-drug message.

Mr. SOUDER. Rather than having Congress prescribe this, one of

the things I would like to see you undertake in a scientific way

rather than us having to wait for the political way is some sort of

aggressive report card. I understand what Congressman Cummings

was talking about, a positive as well as negative message and too

often we only focus on the negative. We need to have the positive

messages in it.

Just like we are trying to stimulate a positive from the networks,

we need a report card for abuse of our children through bad messages coming through the media.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. We have one. We paid for Mediascope to do

analysis of home videos, television, radio, music.

Mr. SOUDER. I have heard you testify to some of that but as a

monthly clear thing on this show, in this effort in the media, watch

as parents and the general public and hold a direct accountability

for the media, not just to pay advertising and give a positive but

there is a negative just like we do on countries. We ought to be

having a narcotics report on our country like we do on Mexico and

others and Central and South America. I would hope we would

have the carrot and stick.

As a supplement to that, in the Olympics, you referred to a lot

of what we have done. I wonder if we have a strategy for the Olympics, where clearly we have had abuse of other types of narcotics,

possibly even a Disneyworld-like thing after some of the events

75

where some of these clients of Fleishman Hillard and Ogilvy

Mather, not just with taxpayer money, with some of their ad dollars with some of the winners saying, ‘‘I did it, I did it clean. I am

healthy and more better for it’’ at a time when many young kids

will be watching.

Clearly we don’t have the ad dollars to buy lots on the Olympics

but here is a place where both the networks and the advertisers

could do us a tremendous favor. I wonder if you have done anything regarding the Olympics at this point?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. We have a terrific program working with the

International Olympic Committee and with the U.S. Olympic Committee and the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. I think it involves

a series of things and I would be glad to update you.

We did get some money from Congress and we are supportive of

the setup of the U.S. Antidoping Agency which Frank Shorter, our

famous gold medalist, is now heading as chairman of the Board.

We also stood behind the beginning of the Worldwide Antidoping

Agency, the first meetings of which took place in Lausanne. I am

a delegate, part of the governmental oversight international body

to keep them on track trying.

A huge problem here in this country is we had hundreds of thousands of young people, around 300,000 last year, who were using

performance enhancing drugs. We have also worked with the sports

community in general in the United States. We have a problem.

We have professional sports where in some cases there is no common standard what drugs are outlawed and what are the testing

requirements, and are they being enforced. Is andro a legal drug

to be used? The Olympic Committees say no, professional baseball

says yes.

In the coming years, what you will see is the U.S. Antidoping

Agency will publish standards of what drugs are illegal, how you

test for them will protect athletes’ rights, to make sure they are not

vulnerable to false testing. We have to do better than the disgraceful performance in Nagano that we saw or in the Europe Grand Bicycling Race. We are spinning out of control. We are working and

we are getting tremendous cooperation. The NBA said they would

put in their contract no marijuana use.

Mr. SOUDER. Thanks again for your leadership. You have been

sometimes a solo voice taking the flack that many of us take in our

districts but not on a national level. I want to thank you for your

leadership. It doesn’t mean we can’t be critical on some subpoints

and try to work to make it better, but overall, we thank you very

much for your leadership.

Mr. MICA. The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I wanted to followup a bit on what Congressman Souder mentioned in terms of monitoring the television and

movies.

It may be my imagination but it seems to me that more and

more movies are showing people smoking and that it is associated

with being cool, the rougher, tougher and cooler a movie is, the

more smoking that goes on. I wonder considering if you want to

talk about the largest number of deaths and illness caused by a

substance, we are certainly talking about tobacco. Is there any

76

monitoring and what we are doing in the media about the use of

tobacco?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Tobacco specifically, the use of tobacco and alcohol to include under age youth which is against the law is not

part of my legal portfolio. We did put it in the national drug strategy because that is a part, we said, of the general view of gateway

drugtaking behavior. None of the appropriated dollars you give me

are going on antitobacco or underage drinking. The matching component, we are doing, so we have the largest anti-alcohol underage

drinking ad in history going but it is a matching component.

The tobacco use by underage users, I am talking to in coordination with the group that manages the State Attorneys General

money and the fund that was set up. They are out there with more

money than we have totally. They have a huge amount of money.

It seems to me it is $250 million. They are trying to sort out how

they will go about this campaign.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. You talk about science-based responses to the

problem of drugs. Research done for SAMHSA indicates that afterschool programs and alternative activity programs are the most effective way of preventing adolescent drug abuse. Yet it is my understanding that the Federal Government is spending about twice

as much on TV ads than we are on after-school programs.

I realize it is a multi-pronged approach we want to take, but do

you think we should be investing more in after-school programs.

The Children’s Defense Fund estimates that about $5 billion is

needed to adequately address the need for after-school programs.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Let me get the numbers. I agree to your central point. If you want to see success on any drug programs, you

go to the Boys and Girls Clubs, the YMCA sports programs, the

Elks youth programs. Children in schools are pretty safe, few

drugs, little violence, little teenage sex, huge number of adults with

college degrees who will love and care for them. The problem starts

when they walk out the door. Our communities have to organize

ourselves to deal with that subject.

Part of that, the media campaign, is targeted on helping to create

strong community, anti-drug coalitions. That effort is lead by Art

Dean, the CADCO CEO, I would suggest the media campaign adds

to that process.

I agree with your central point. The media campaign has to

shape the youth attitudes, shape adult mentor attitudes and add

energy to community coalition formulation. It is a tremendously,

highly leveraged behavior. We are talking essentially $185 million

a year that gets to all of our children in America multiple times

a week. It is unbelievable, almost eight times a week. It has to be

a multifaceted program.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me ask a question about how we define

success. I know you have stated in the past your drug strategy is

based on hard data and promised measurable results in your performance, measures of effectiveness and pledge to reduce the number of chronic drug users by 20 percent by the year 2002.

In your National Drug Control Strategy, 1999 on page 15, you

say, ‘‘At this point, no official, survey-based, government estimate

of the size of the drug-using population exists.’’ I am wondering

without a baseline, without really knowing accurately what the

77

universe is, how can we really measure the effectiveness of any

program?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. It is difficult. I would argue when we started

this process, one of the biggest shortcomings was the lack of widely

agreed upon scientific data. Most of these issues we work, international financial policy or highway construction, we argue the hypothesis, we don’t argue the facts. In the drug issue that wasn’t the

case.

We have put a lot of effort into trying to ensure we have first

rate, scientifically valid data. If I remember there are five major,

federally funded studies that have been going on many for years,

Monitoring the Future, Household Surveys and they are surveillance systems, they watch what goes on.

You have to know the study to say which population it gets at

well and which ones are we less sure about. Household Survey

doesn’t go to people living under a bridge, so you undercount the

5 million chronic addicts. When you go to monitoring the future,

you are talking a youth-based population and their attitudes.

We do have pretty darned good data. That was the 1999 strategy

you are talking about. Here is the 2000 report that Congress required me by law each year to provide. This is the first one and

it is not good enough but this is the first piece of paper where we

say, here is what we think we are achieving. The numbers are getting better.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So you feel pretty confident when you say

there has been a 13 percent decline in youth drug use, that is an

accurate number?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. We have a cluster of different studies, some of

them first rate, others less so. The cluster is saying the message

is being heard. The hard work by coalitions, the pediatricians of

America, the TV ads. We think drug use and youth attitudes and

parent attitudes and parent/child communication, that these variables are moving in the right direction.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Of that 13 percent, you do feel confident that

you are able with some accuracy to attribute which of the various

programs, be it advertising or other strategies, that are the most

effective?

Gen. MCCAFFREY. The creative process is a pretty rigorous one.

Partnership for Drug Free America really organizes this for us.

There are 200-plus advertising agencies and it is harder work now

than it was 3 years ago because now they get a strategic message

platform, you have to produce a message for that platform in Spanish by February that has to go through the Partnership for Drug

Free America Creative Review Committee, it has to go to Ogilvy

Mather, we do focus groups on it, we include the Annenberg School

of Journalism. We test the ad.

I end up approving these since I am legally accountable to you

for spending this money in a sensible manner and then out they

go. That has been hard work but I think Ogilvy Mather and their

subcontractors and Fleishman Hillard have done a brilliant job. We

have some first rate material. That is what you are seeing, third

generation.

We are on the Net in six languages, we are out there in 11 languages in America, we have 102 different market strategies. The

78

strategy in your State is quite different than Congresswoman

Mink’s. We are evaluating it. We have the numbers and we are

going to show them to you periodically.

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Let me just say that I certainly find the girl

power ad very empowering and very exciting. I congratulate you on

that.

Mr. MICA. I don’t see we have any other Members with questions

at this point. We do have some additional questions we would like

to direct to you for responses and we will include those in the

record. Without objection, the record will remain open for a period

of 2 weeks if that is acceptable to the minority for additional comments or material to be included as part of this hearing. Without

objection, so ordered.

We thank you again for coming today. We are sorry there are

some controversial matters dealing with the program but we do

want to make certain it stays on target, that we meet our objectives, that the Congress cooperates with your office in making this

a success and we have a great deal at stake and a tremendous responsibility to the American people.

I don’t think there has ever been a challenge that I have personally faced and you have sometimes in the military that you have

worked with in your career. It is easy to put together a program

and a plan and execute it. I know in the private sector in business,

I found the same type of approach works. However, we are dealing

with something that is beyond anything I have seen and it is a personal challenge for me and I know for you. We appreciate your cooperation and will continue to work with you.

We will excuse you at this time and we will call our second

panel.

Gen. MCCAFFREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. The second panel today consists of Dr. David Maklan,

vice president of Westat, Inc.; Mr. Robert Hornik, professor,

Annenberg School for Communication; and Mr. Dan Forbes, freelance journalist with Salon.com. We would welcome these three

panelists.

I would inform the new panelists this is an Investigations and

Oversight Subcommittee of Congress, particularly of the Government Reform Committee and in that regard, we do swear all of our

witnesses. If you will remain standing, I will swear you in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. We have a policy of asking our witnesses to limit their

oral presentations to 5 minutes. Additional length statements or

material will be submitted for the record upon request to the

Chair.

With those comments, I would welcome and recognize Mr. Dan

Forbes for his comments and testimony.

STATEMENTS OF DANIEL FORBES, FREELANCE JOURNALIST,

SALON.COM; DAVID MAKLAN, VICE PRESIDENT, WESTAT,

INC.; AND ROBERT HORNIK, PROFESSOR, ANNENBERG

SCHOOL FOR COMMUNICATION

Mr. FORBES. Thank you for the opportunity to address you this

morning.

79

My name is Daniel Forbes. I am a freelance journalist have been

doing so for approximately two decades.

The National Youth Anti-Drug Campaign, the ONDCP’s paid social marketing effort, has generated no small amount of controversy in the last 6 months. Writing for salon.com and elsewhere

it is a controversy I have been able to observe close hand. I trust

you will permit a few insights.

A complicated program of Federal financial incentives rewarding

anti-drug themes and some of the Nation’s most popular sitcoms

and dramas was initiated in the spring of 1998. This was prior to

Congress actually asking for this sort of pro bono match. During

the course of the 1998–1999 television season, ONDCP financially

endorsed anti-drug motifs contained in specific episodes of numerous shows. Programs such as ER, Chicago Hope, Beverly Hills

90210, Drew Carey Show and Smart Guy freed up advertising time

that the broadcaster owed to ONDCP.

The networks were afforded the opportunity, should they choose,

to sell that advertising time at full price to private clients. My initial estimates as published in salon.com valued the program at less

than $25 million. ONDCP has confirmed that at $22 million.

In late March, I also described a program of financial incentives

that applied to several national, nonfiction magazines as well, operating on the same paradigm of rewarding or potentially rewarding

anti-drug motifs.

More recently, the agency has come under fire as folks are aware

for the cookies inserted in the computers in a just released GAO

report. I would submit the taxpayers should wonder where their

money is going. I don’t believe these figures have been disclosed.

I was invited by the committee and took my obligation seriously

to present new material, not to reiterate what I had said in the

past. Of the initial year’s funding of $195 million, several sources have told me approximately only $120 million was actually spent

on advertising the first year. In the subsequent 2 years has not

risen far above $130 million for the total media by that annual figure and has almost certainly remained below $140 million.

I believe this is new information. For its part, the lead ONDCP

advertising agency, Ogilvy and Mather Worldwide is said to enjoy

typically $18 million or more annually of taxpayer funded income.

Some approximately $10 million is designated as covering O&M’s

overhead cost and $8 million is designated for staff salaries. That

means that $10 million of overhead, which is described to rent,

health benefits, retirement and the like, is paid for by the taxpayers. Therefore, income from other private Ogilvy clients does

not have to meet that obligation and falls directly to the firm’s bottom line. As I was told, ‘‘This makes every other Ogilvy account

more profitable.’’

ONDCP financial year 2000 operating plan places O&M’s total

annual budget at $166 million. Of that, $21 million is listed as

‘‘labor production.’’ Several million of that can be assumed to be advertising production costs and Ogilvy absorbs much of the rest in

its own coffers.

The American people might also wish to know that according to

ONDCP’s fiscal year 2001 budget summary, the media campaign is

listed under the special forfeiture fund, ‘‘All resources are 100 perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:08 Jun 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72752.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
80

cent drug-related.’’ As I read that, the media campaign paves the

way for public acceptance of more enforcement and thus more asset

seizures which in turn financing the following year’s media campaign. If I am reading this incorrectly, I welcome correction.

The question arises how effective is this advertising at curbing

drug use? Congress has stated its belief that the campaign ‘‘performance measures should capture the use of all categories of drugs

as well as changes in attitudes.’’ The House has stated its expectation of ‘‘concrete results by the year 2001. The Committee will

closely track this campaign and its contribution to achieving a drug

free America. The Committee anticipates future funding will be

based on results.‘‘ With a skeptical Republican majority, Congress breathing down

its neck every year, ONDCP is under considerable pressure to show

results in the various annual, national drug use surveys. Mr. Alan

Levitt, the ONDCP campaign media director told me when I interviewed him in the spring of 1998, ‘‘Unless we show results that it

is working, I don’t know if we will have more than two or 3 years.’’ This gets to the point that the Congresslady from Illinois was questioning Mr. McCaffrey on.

Move forward 2 years, referring to 1999, half a year after the

campaign was launched nationally, not the requisite 2 or 3 years

that they anticipate to have an effect, Mr. McCaffrey stated 2 days

after the Salon story broke that ‘‘Drug use by America’s youth declined 13 percent. We believe this decrease is due in part to the

higher profile the media campaign has brought to the problem.’’ Three days later, Mr. McCaffrey’s assertion was even more unabashed, ‘‘Most importantly, as reported in August 1999, youth

drug use is down 13 percent.’’ He appeared on CNN Talkback Live

and stated, ‘‘I have to underscore that I think the programmatic

has been enormously effective and helpful in creating that 13 percent reduction.’’ The recent data on slipping teen drug use is awkwardly premature. Mr. McCaffrey told the United Nations in June 1998, ‘‘Experts advise that we will not see significant behavior changes

among our audiences for at least 2 years.’’ If the campaign was

rolled out in 1998, 1999 was a scant half a year.

A Department of Health and Human Services report shows lower

drug use in 1998, etc. The report adds, ‘‘Real declines in use far,

far in advance of any anticipated supposed effect of the ads underscores the vagaries of drug use data.’’

Let me go to a second revelation here this morning as will be discussed in an upcoming issue of Salon. ONDCP’s paid media campaign was engendered, the belief from this quarter, at least in part,

let me stress in part, at a meeting in Washington convened by Mr.

McCaffrey several days after the passage of medical marijuana

voter initiatives in Arizona and California in November 1996.

Attendees at the November 14, 1996 meeting in Washington included the Director, members of the senior staff, Thomas Constantine of the DEA, some dozen law enforcement personnel from

Arizona and California and eight representatives of drug policy organizations that endorse ONDCP’s approach.

I have obtained two separate copies of notes summarizing the remarks of attendees at this meeting. The contemporaneous notes

81

surfaced as part of the discovery process in the Federal lawsuit

Conant v. McCaffrey, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. This suit seeks to permit California doctors to discuss medical marijuana with their patients.

These are contemporaneous notes written in a rather clipped

parlance but given that description of their diction, a district attorney from Arizona stated, ‘‘Even though California and Arizona are

different propositions, the strategy proponent is the same. It will

expand throughout the Nation if we don’t all react.’’ React indeed

they did. Congress passed the initial funding for the media campaign less than a year later.

Most trenchant perhaps were the remarks of two representatives

of the Partnership for a Drug Free America, Richard Bonnette,

PDFA’s president, and Mike Townsend, executive vice president, as

well as Dr. Paul Jellanick, senior VP at the Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation. The Johnson Foundation is a major funder of the Partnership for a Drug Free America.

In summary form, the notes read as follows: ‘‘Mr. Townsend:

California parents, tell them what the national partnership, i.e.,

the Partnership for a Drug Free America, is concerned about what

they can do about spending money to influence legislation. What

can the Partnership for a Drug Free America do to spend money

to influence legislation.’’ Prior to that an unidentified participant asked, ‘‘who will pay for

national sound bites? The campaign will require serious media and

serious money.’’ This is at a meeting to address the passing of the

marijuana initiatives in those two States.

Jim Coppel, whose organization you have heard mentioned here,

Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America, is quoted as saying,

‘‘We need to go State by State, money to do media. CACA is trying

this seriously. We need to frame the issue properly. Expose the

legalizers as using the terminally ill as props.’’ The Partnership’s Richard Bonnette stated, ‘‘We lost ground one,

no coordinated communications strategy, didn’t have the media.’’

Most telling perhaps is this remark from PDFA’s funder, Dr.

Jellanick, ‘‘The other side’’—proponents of medical marijuana—

‘‘would be salivating if they could hear the prospects of the Feds

going against the will of the people. It is a political problem.’’

Mr. MICA. I am going to have to interrupt, Mr. Forbes. Your time

has expired. If you can begin to conclude and maybe hit on your

major points. As I mentioned, if you have lengthy statements we

will be glad to submit the entire statement to the record.

Mr. FORBES. When Mr. Diaz of your staff invited me here, he indicated I would be the only person opposing the views of the rest

of the panel. He said I would have the amount of time I needed

to make my point, so I will endeavor to summarize my remarks.

Mr. MICA. We will put your entire statement in the record.

Mr. FORBES. I do need several more minutes.

Mr. MICA. If you will go ahead and begin to conclude because I

do want to give the other two panelists adequate time.

Mr. FORBES. I would point out Mr. McCaffrey had at least 2

hours. As I was told, I was the only person providing an alternative

point of view, I would trust you might be interested in that. I will

do my best to be brief.

82

Mr. MICA. We want to be reasonable but I would ask you to

please try to begin to conclude. We will take your entire statement

and include it in the record.

Mr. FORBES. ONDCP has denied influencing scripts stating in

January, ‘‘At no time during the process did it or any person affiliated with the media campaign suggest changes.’’ Mr. McCaffrey

stated here this morning there was no government manipulation.

My article, Washington Script Doctors quoted both ONDCP consultants and the shows’ producers on government alteration of an

episode of the WB show Smart Guy. These specifics are never addressed.

It involved the previously rejected script that was resurrected for

the financial incentive program. ONDCP and its consultants offered ‘‘a few dictates’’ said the show’s executive producer, Bob

Young. One consultant who worked on the script notes that the

substance abusing terms were changed from appealing characters

to losers. ‘‘We showed they were losers, put them in the utility

room.’’ ONDCP’s involvement in shaping this script is underscored by

Alan Levitt’s e-mail sent out in May 1999 alerting recipients to the

show’s airing. It reads, ‘‘For your information, see Smart Guy. We

worked a lot on that script.’’ No force of law underscored the script

doctoring. It was a financial incentive.

I have much material here underscoring that point. Let me skip

to my next point.

After stating the programs would no longer be reviewed until

after the ad aired, ONDCP contractors will continue to use a formula-based approach for the pro bono match credit evaluation. Indeed, this is continuing this spring’s shows such as Cosby, Party

of Five, King of the Hill, NBC’s Saved by the Bell, etc., have been

valued at many thousands of dollars.

To my knowledge, there has not been an indication concurrent

with the broadcast of these financial considerations. I would ask

the committee the issue looms whether the networks are breaking

the payola regulations. In fact, enforcement action is currently

being considered by the FCC as to whether all scripts receiving financial consideration from ONDCP need to indicate that fact during the course of the broadcast.

Is the American public receiving good value for their investment?

The question arises how many of these shows would have run anyway? In the Washington Post in January, a CBS spokesman says

all the shows we have were going to go on anyway. So I don’t know

what the problem is.

In a Senate hearing in early February, ONDCP announced

Viacom’s VH–1 Behind the Music documentaries was valued to the

tune of almost $1 million. Generally speaking, the rise of drug

abuse and subsequent rehabilitation of rock stars is the sole topic

of Behind the Music.

All sorts of fudging occurs, cross promotional possibilities

abound. For one ad meeting, ABC’s matching obligation, a casually

dressed Michael Eisner, Disney’s CEO, stood in front of Cinderella’s castle at Disneyland to urge parents to talk to their kids

about drugs. We can imagine the response of some viewers at

home. Oh, look, George or Betty, that nice man, I think he is the

83

head of Disney, he certainly cares. If Johnny gets his grades up

like he promised, let us take him to Disneyland.

Rather than Disney having sold this spot match for the required

50 cents on the dollars, we can estimate it was sold for perhaps 70

cents on the dollar.

Another issue is whether ONDCP broke the law by having Mr.

McCaffrey appear on the Fox broadcasting nonfiction show, America’s Most Wanted. The law clearly states no media campaigns are

to be funded pursuant to this campaign, shall feature any elected

officials or cabinet level officials absent advance notice of Committees on Appropriations and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

ONDCP says the main goal is just to ensure accurate portrayals

of drug use. According to its own report issued a few months ago

back in January, ‘‘Illicit drugs were infrequently mentioned and

rarely shown in primetime television. In the few episodes that portrayed illicit drug use, nearly all showed negative consequences.’’

Overall, teen viewers were exposed to very little illicit drug use and

what little there was, did not glamorize drugs. I would say that the

accurate portrayal is in place already.

In a similar vein after disclosure of incentives for magazines, editors defended the practice saying that articles would have run regardless. The committee may wish to ask is it getting its money’s

worth.

ONDCP has acted as a catalyst to various motifs that have some

very positive interaction with parents and the like. In other cases,

negatively valued themes reflect the social engineering that is more

subtly manipulative and more chilling. Young characters are pressured to figure who bought the alcohol or marijuana to a party as

on Smart Guy and Cosby.

The fall issue of the Journal of Health Communication observes

it is not the merits of a political argument that are important but

rather the relative success of proponents and opponents in framing

the debate. Edward Bernays, the acknowledged chief of the practice

of public relations wrote in a book titled Propaganda published in

1928, ‘‘If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group

mind, it is now possible to control and reinvent the masses according to our will without them knowing it.’’ Referring to this as the

‘‘engineering of consent’’ Bernays added ‘‘Those who manipulate

this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.’’

That concludes my testimony. On a personal note, I had the

honor of testifying before the Senate in February before Senator

Ben Nighthorse Campbell’s subcommittee. Remarkably enough,

Senator Campbell told me I had ‘‘done a service to the country’’ in

remarks after the hearing. My testimony does not currently appear

on the Appropriations Committee Web site. I was told yesterday

this would not be rectified. So much for honest competition in the

marketplace of ideas.

I trust that my testimony before this committee will not suffer

the same fate.

Thank you for your attention.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes follows:]

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

Mr. MICA. We will include, and you have our commitment, your

entire testimony as a part of the record. Also, without objection, we

will include in our record your Senate testimony. We want to try

to be fair and give every side airing before us. We appreciate your

testimony.

We will withhold questions until I have heard from the other two

panelists. At this time I am pleased to recognize David Maklan,

vice president of Westat, Inc. Welcome, sir, and you are recognized.

Mr. MAKLAN. I am David Maklan, vice president of Westat. We

are responsible for conducting ONDCP’s evaluation of the National

Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Accompanying me is Robert

Hornik, professor in communications at the Annenberg School for

Communication.

To make clear our roles, Mr. Hornik has lead responsibility for

study design and analysis and I have overall responsibility for contractor performance with particular focus on study operations.

I would like to interject here that despite earlier comments, we

are not here to present a position. Mr. McCaffrey wisely asked

Alan Leshner and NIDA to take the lead in conducting an independent evaluation of phase III of the media campaign and that is

indeed what we are trying to do to the best of our ability.

From its inception, ONDCP believed that the evaluation was important to the overall success of the campaign and therefore included an evaluation component in each of the three campaign

phases. Phase I was the 26 week case control pilot test implemented in 12 metropolitan areas across the country that focused on

television ad awareness; phase II released the media campaign to

a national audience in July 1998 with an objective of increasing the

awareness of antidrug messages among youths and adults, obviously not stating the full case. Phase III initiated in September

1999 marked the full implementation of the media campaign.

It is our task, the Westat-Annenberg Team, to determine how

successful the media campaign is in achieving its goals for phase

III. In doing so, we paid careful attention to the lessons and experiences of phases I and II and have used them and other sources of

information to guide our design.

While there are hundreds of questions that the evaluation will

attempt to answer, there is one overarching question, whether observed changes in drug use or drug attitudes can be attributed specifically to the campaign. In my few remaining minutes, I will summarize the study design and Dr. Hornik will then focus on the discussion of how we plan to approach the measurement of media

campaign effectiveness.

From the start, we believe that data from three existing data

sets were crucial to measuring prevalence of substance use and certain attitudes related to substance use. These are the National

Household Survey on Drug Abuse that Mr. McCaffrey mentioned

several times, Monitoring the Future, and the Partnership Attitude

Tracking Survey. However, we also recognize that changes in drug

use attitudes and prevalence rates by youth might be the result of

many factors in addition to the campaign. Therefore, in order to

make reasonable claims that the campaign was responsible for the

change, our evaluation has to go well beyond the analysis of trends

in existing data.

95

Based on guidance from NIDA’s expert panel, Westat’s 30 years

of program evaluation and survey research experience, and the

Annenberg School’s communication research expertise, as well as

lessons learned from the previous phases, we adopted an approach

that differs in important respects from that used during the prior

phases.

First, our basic evaluation approach is to study natural variation

in exposure to the media campaign. This means comparing groups

with high exposure to groups with low exposure. To this end, we

will look for variation across media markets, across time, within

media markets at a single time, and across individuals. If variation

in media exposure can be found, we will then determine whether

there are any preexisting differences between the groups that

might explain both the variation in exposure and any variation in

outcomes. To this end, we developed theoretic models of media

campaign influence which are summarized by the four figures attached to our written testimony.

Second, the evaluation team developed the National Survey of

Parents and Youth which emphasizes measurement of drug attitudes, exposure to the media campaign, family and peer variables,

and a variety of risk factors. While NSPY will also attract change

from 2000–2003, its principal purpose is to monitor the success of

the campaign in reaching its target audiences and then convincing

audiences to adopt desired attitudes, intentions and behaviors.

NSPY has a number of features that are new or unique among

national surveys in this field. First, it will generate semi-annual reports on campaign status, the first of which is scheduled for delivery later this summer. We will also prepare a number of special reports that will examine specific campaign effectiveness issues in

considerable depth.

Second, children as young as age 9 will be included in the survey.

Third, each sampled youth will be paired with a parent allowing

for direct examination of aspects of parent/child relations and the

collection of family history and other background data.

NSPY data will also be collected using audiovisual, self interview

computer systems, thereby increasing the reliability of the survey

and permitting each respondent to view and listen to actual campaign messages when being asked exposure questions.

NSPY also includes improved measures of exposure to ONDCP’s

anti-drug messages as well as a richer set of measures of beliefs

and attitudes sensitive to the specific messages of the campaign.

Finally, three or four interviews will be conducted with each

youth and parent at approximately yearly intervals. This will permit measurement of change in personal attitudes, behaviors and

other factors, and the application of more powerful analytic techniques to determine causal influences.

With respect to the survey proper, we decided to implement an

integrated, in-person household-based approach to surveying youth

and their parents for a variety of reasons including response considerations, the ability to conduct longer interviews, and the ability

to collect year-round data.

NSPY has a two-phase design where the first phase recruits a

sample of eligible youth and their parents, and a second phase folVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:08 Jun 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72752.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
96

lows them for 2 or 3 additional years. Recruitment is broken into

three national cross-sectional surveys, or waves, that each lasts

about 6 months.

Data collection started in November and we completed the first

nationally represented recruitment wave at the end of May. The

second recruitment wave is now underway and the followup phase

will commence simultaneous with the third recruitment wave in

January 2001 and continue through June 2003.

I will now turn the microphone over to Mr. Hornik who will summarize our approach to the measurement of media campaign effectiveness.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Maklan follows:]

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

Mr. MICA. Recognize at this time, Robert Hornik, professor with

the Annenberg School of Communication. You are recognized, sir.

Mr. HORNIK. Our task is to answer four questions. We need to

say whether the campaign is actually reaching its audience, whether there is desirable change in beliefs and outcomes, whether we

can attribute those changes in beliefs and outcomes to the campaign itself, and what else we can learn that will help the campaign operate more effectively.

What are the approaches to answering those four questions?

First, how do we measure exposure to the campaign’s messages? As

you know, the campaign will publish information about how much

media time they have purchased for each channel and each audience of youth or parents, which they summarize as gross rating

points.

Our task is to assess whether those campaign efforts broke

through into the minds of the audience. Can they recall the ads

and other messages that were shown. To do that, we really have

three approaches. The first are fairly traditional, general questions

about exposure, radio and television, print, movies, outdoor advertising and Internet. These measures provide a general assessment

of exposure but really not a very precise one.

We also measure exposure in a unique and more powerful way.

We show respondents up to four television ads and up to three

radio ads at full length on their laptop computers. They actually

get to see the ads. The ads we show are all ads that have been

broadcast nationally in the 2-months previous to the interview. We

ask each respondent to tell us whether or not and how often they

have seen the ads and how they evaluate them.

In order to be sure people aren’t just claiming to see ads when

they haven’t, we also ask each respondent whether he or she has

seen an ad that has never been broadcast. That gives us a benchmark for true exposure.

We will also be measuring how the rest of the campaign, not only

the ad campaign, is reaching audiences. We know the campaign is

working with national and local organizations and corporate partners. It is disseminating information through press releases and

other public relations technology. To capture those efforts, we ask

about frequency of exposure to antidrug stories on a variety of

media channels. We ask about the extent to which respondents

have heard public discussion of several drug issues.

We ask about the amount of drug talk within families and among

friends about drug issues. We will see whether the intensity of

campaign efforts are translating into changes in what people hear

and what they talk about.

The second evaluation question we addressed is whether the outcomes are moving in the right direction. We measure behavior of

youth, of course, trial versus regular use of marijuana and

inhalants primarily with some additional measurement of alcohol

and tobacco use.

We measure the beliefs and attitudes that have been shown to

be related to those behaviors. We measure the perceived social

pressures to engage in these behaviors. For example, what peers

are doing, what confidence respondents have in their ability to say

115

no to resist drug use, what parents and friends would say about

drug use.

We are also measuring the beliefs and behaviors of parents, particularly parent/child discussions about drug use and parent monitoring of and engagement with their children’s lives.

Our first round of data collection will tell us what these beliefs

and behaviors are now and in subsequent rounds, we will look for

change in those outcomes.

The most difficult task we face is the third one, making a clear

case that the campaign caused any observed changes. Starting at

the end of the first year with our report due in March 2001, we

will report about the association of exposure and outcomes. For example, we will report whether the youth who report heavy exposure to campaign messages are more likely than others to have desirable beliefs about negative mental consequences of marijuana

use.

We use a sophisticated statistical technique called propensity

scoring to increase our confidence that observed differences are due

to the campaign and not the result of outside causes.

Starting with our report due in March 2002, we will begin to

supplement these cross sectional causal analyses with longitudinal

ones. As Dr. Maklan explained, our current survey design follows

the same national sample of youth and their parents for 3 or 4

years. We will know whether a teen’s trajectory toward or away

from drug use is influenced by early exposure to messages.

We will see whether those effects differ depending on the characteristics of the youth or depending on the attitudes of peers or depending on actions taken by his or her parents. We will see whether the effects differ depending on the youth’s contact with other

antidrug institutions—schools, out of school programs, religious institutions or general media exposure.

The final category for our research is the help we can provide to

the ongoing campaign. While our central task is evaluation as independent evaluators, we think we will have evidence about exposure

to advertising and about the link between beliefs and behavior that

can be exploited to improve campaign operations. Later this summer, we will have the first of our semiannual reports based on data

collected through the end of May. It will discuss exposures achieved

in the first part of phase III based on beliefs and behaviors and the

relationship to drug use.

So we think we have a strong evaluation design. We will follow

the same nationally representative families and their children for

3 or 4 years. We will measure exposure ads in a unique and powerful way. We will see how the campaign works as it complements

other forces in children’s lives and we will have measures of each

of the steps in the process from exposure to beliefs, to social norms,

to skills, to intentions and behavior.

Thank you for your interest. Dr. Maklan and I would be pleased

to respond to any questions.

Mr. MICA. I will start with a couple of questions. First, Mr.

Maklan, how long have you had the contract for evaluation?

Mr. MAKLAN. The contract was signed at the end of September

1998.

116

Mr. MICA. What type of compensation or remuneration are the

terms of the contract?

Mr. MAKLAN. The total contract value over the 5-year is slightly under $35 million.

Mr. MICA. Is that entirely Westat?

Mr. MAKLAN. Westat and our subcontractors.

Mr. MICA. You have that for the 5-years and you have been in

it since September 1998?

Mr. MAKLAN. Correct.

Mr. MICA. You have a subcontractor?

Mr. MAKLAN. Our principal subcontractor is the Annenberg

School.

Mr. MICA. How long has Annenberg School of Communication

been a subcontractor?

Mr. MAKLAN. They were included in our original proposal before

the work, so they have been on since day one.

Mr. MICA. One of the things that concerns me is this started in

September 1998 and they have been on board since the beginning.

I have a copy of a memorandum of NDRI, National Development

Research Institute, progress report for March 2000, just a few

months ago. It says summary of work and accomplishment of significant events, with a special report completed in December 1999.

NDRI staff was uninvolved in any specific work under this contract

during February 2000. No other work effort was requested by

Westat staff. Problems encountered and suggested solutions, no

problem arose except no work requests were obtained from Westat.

Several months ago I contacted Dr. David Maklan informing him

one, we had not received ongoing communications regarding the

status and progress. This had been agreed and had not received

any information regarding the specific work that would be requested from NDRI beyond the December 1999 report.

We have you all involved in this evaluation, we have a subcontractor which you just testified has been on board as part of the

original proposal. I have a memo that says up through March, the

subcontractor, at least the ongoing communication, status and

some of the progress reports, had not been collaborated or worked

with the subcontractor.

Mr. MAKLAN. Mr. Congressman, we put together a team and the

team members had specific roles. The NDRI was brought on board

to help us think through the beginning of the design, aspects of the

design and to help put together the instrument and think about

some methodological issues.

The second task they were assigned that they were willing and

able to pick up was to participate in special analyses I mentioned.

There are semiannual reports and there are four special analyses

that could be done under the contract. They were brought in to

help work on those special analyses after the initial design phase.

Those special analyses cannot really take place in great depth until

we have data. The report they mentioned is here, has been delivered.

Mr. MICA. They were part of the contract from the beginning and

they didn’t have work to do until the initial data was compiled?

Mr. MAKLAN. No, sir. They had two activities. The first activity

was to participate in the design and the design of the questionVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:08 Jun 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72752.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
117

naire. They were involved in that quite heavily, both their office in

New York and their office in North Carolina. That phase ended.

Their next assignment is going to be involvement in the special

analyses reports. Only one such report has even been specified because the other three cannot take place and be specified until further on into the study. They did have a major role in that special

report which is now at ONDCP and NIDA for their review and will

be released shortly.

They had a major role. There are three chapters in there and

they wrote much of the second chapter. After their work on that

activity was completed, there was no more activity for them until

we get to another place.

Mr. MICA. What is their compensation as a subcontractor? Mr.

Hornik, maybe you could tell us?

Mr. HORNIK. I am not from NDRI, sir.

Mr. MICA. I know, but what are the terms of the subcontract to

Annenberg?

Mr. HORNIK. $200,000 a year, about $1 million in total.

Mr. MICA. One of the questions and problems that has arisen is

the evaluations from phases I and II produced certain information

and data. There has been concern expressed about the inability to

have that baseline transfer over into the evaluation in phase III.

Is this a real problem? Have we evaluation and work from the first

two phases that is not transferable into this third phase or a data

base that doesn’t match?

Mr. MAKLAN. They used a basic school-based methodology to collect information from students. As I said in my testimony, we did

review that, had briefings from ONDCP and NIDA on that campaign. The information on the design and strengths and weaknesses of the two phases were discussed at the expert panels that

NIDA put together. So we did learn a lot and NIDA learned a lot

from those two previous studies.

It was the feeling of the expert panel and ourselves when we put

together a proposal for how to do the study that given the real objective of phase III was to focus on does this campaign specifically

impact behavior, attitudes and knowledge which was not the principal, detailed focus of the previous two phases, they had other objectives in mind, as well as looking at that, but ours was to look

at that and we needed a methodology that was more pointed to

that objective.

Mr. MICA. The baselines of data do not match, right? We don’t

have a comparison from the beginning through this year? We will

not be able to compare phase I, phase II and phase III?

Mr. MAKLAN. That is absolutely correct. You have to remember

phase I was done in 12 metropolitan areas so it was not a nationally representative sample, so you wouldn’t want to go forward on

that to evaluate a whole campaign. That was not the purpose of

phase I.

In phase II, they used a school-based approach and there were

other techniques that improved the objectives we were looking for.

Mr. MICA. The other thing we heard today is measuring the success of the program, evaluating the program as far as the impacted

populations. First of all, with the minority population, we still see

a lack of effectiveness in the program in the minority population,

118

particularly the Hispanics by the data presented to the subcommittee.

The second you heard a lot of focus on is even the scope and nature of the drug problem is dramatically changing, since 1997 or

1998 when we started this. We are now talking about meth, designer drugs, substances that weren’t even on the charts. Are we

able to evaluate the effectiveness of the program that has been designed to deal with the emerging, changing dynamics of the drug

problem?

Mr. HORNIK. Part of our evaluation will incorporate data that

will represent a baseline. That is the material from the Monitoring

the Future Study, the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse,

and the survey from the Partnership for a Drug Free America. Our

goal would be, for things we don’t have our own measures for from

a baseline, to try to capture from those surveillance systems where

there are changes in terms of drug use and certain classes of attitudes and beliefs.

What we can do that they are unable to do? We have much more

sophisticated measures of exposure to the campaign. That will

allow us to try to attribute the specific changes we see to the specific campaign’s influence.

The Congresswoman this morning was concerned about the

claimed 13 percent decline, and asked whether it all comes from

the program. This design will permit us to try to say not just that

there is a decline, which is what we can get from the existing surveys, but also that the decline is likely due to operations of the

campaign.

Mr. MICA. You have to understand our concern and our frustration because when we started, we committed a lot of money to evaluation of the program. Now, we are told we have a different data

base baseline in phases I and II of the evaluation which can basically be thrown out or starting out in phase III and have a new

data baseline.

Once the data is gathered, how long will it take to analyze the

data and establish a baseline? When can we expect to have some

solid evaluation of the results of the program?

Mr. HORNIK. In about a month. Our first report will be due at

the end of August. We are writing it now on the basis of data collected through the end of May. That will be powerful in terms of

describing the levels of exposure to advertising, and evaluation of

ads. It will also describe existing beliefs and behavior.

In our next report, March 2001, we will begin to talk about the

association between exposure and outcomes, to what extent are the

kids who are exposed versus the kids who aren’t exposed different

in their beliefs and behavior, controlling for all those outside factors that might be influencing those two things.

Really in two phases, we will have some answer to your question.

At the end of the summer, we will be talking about whether the

campaign is reaching the audience and in March we will begin to

talk about evidence for effects.

Mr. MAKLAN. It is important to recognize that ONDCP believes,

as do a lot of others, that there are many paths to changing peoples’ attitudes, knowledge and beliefs and these paths may take

different lengths of time. In terms of assessing outcome, some outVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:08 Jun 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72752.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
119

comes may happen in a short run for some people, and other outcomes will take longer for other people. So in terms of assessing

the campaign’s full impact, Mr. McCaffrey mentioned 10 years, we

have to finish in 5 years from the start of our contract, but we will

not know the full impact of the campaign over 5 years until that

time.

Back to your second question on the changes and mentioning different drugs coming into play and so forth, our job is to evaluate

the campaign that is out there. To that end, we meet and talk on

the phone with Oglivy and the other members of Mr. McCaffrey’s

team as to what exactly they are doing, they are planning to do in

the future and so forth. We work quite closely and very intensively

with them to be able to determine exactly which ads they are going

to be running, at what time, so we can show our respondents the

ads that will be part of their campaign. We don’t want to evaluate

the wrong campaign, so we try very hard to keep abreast of whatever they are planning to do in the media campaign. That is what

we are trying to influence.

We are going to go through revision of our instrument because

the campaign is making a shift in response to changing circumstances and we are going to have to shift a little bit in terms

of what we are doing to keep abreast of their efforts.

Mr. MICA. You are in the third year of the contract?

Mr. MAKLAN. We are still in the second year.

Mr. MICA. We expect some initial results based on the new evaluation process within the next 30–60 days?

Mr. MAKLAN. At the end of August or September.

Mr. MICA. Then with what frequency will we see evaluations?

Mr. MAKLAN. Every 6 months.

Mr. MICA. The other problem of concern is getting an evaluation

that really gives us some measure of the effectiveness of the ads,

any of the programs. We are funding most of this, two-thirds of this

in ads and other programs. Are you involved in anything other

than the ad evaluation?

Mr. MAKLAN. We are mostly involved in their media campaign efforts but I think Bob is a better person to ask.

Mr. MICA. Could you tell us? Mr. Forbes testified and we have

had Mr. McCaffrey give us the percent spent on ads and media but

there is another part of this and there is a substantial tens of millions of dollars going into other efforts. Are you also evaluating

that part of the program?

Mr. HORNIK. Yes, we are in a variety of ways. First, we ask each

child and adult about their involvement with other activities and

ask whether they have had any exposure to drug education, antidrug education activities. While the campaign isn’t creating all of

it, we should be able to see whether that is changing over time.

Similarly, we ask about levels of discussion in the home about

drugs, from the parent’s point of view, from the child’s point of

view and to try to see whether that is changing over time. One of

the ways the program will work, if it works, is by creating a change

in the public communication environment. How much noise there

is in the environment about drugs? So we have a variety of measures that should be able to be sensitive to those changes as well.

120

While we are working particularly hard on the ad exposure part,

we also have a variety of measures that are designed to capture the

other aspects of the program.

Mr. MICA. Have you had complications in gathering the necessary data to conduct your evaluations, Mr. Maklan?

Mr. MAKLAN. I don’t know of any large complicated survey that

doesn’t experience some difficulties. Yes, we have learned as we

have gone along. One of the major problems we hit early on was

we recruited many interviewers and at about the time we were recruiting, with a lot of competition from the Census and so forth, so

we had to be careful in that effort. We have learned from that experience and digested what we have done to remain within the

available funds.

Generally, I don’t think we have experienced anything that in

any way will jeopardize our effectiveness to evaluate the campaign.

We will be collecting data from over 5,000 parents and over 7,000

kids multiple times for each of those respondents. Our response

rates are quite nice, so we are not worried about the long run ability to conduct and provide useful information to the committee and

elsewhere.

Mr. MICA. Another concern the subcommittee has is there is a

$35 million price tag to this evaluation over 5 years. It sounds like

we have done several phases initially and I am sure there is some

substantial cost and set up. What percentage of the contract has

already been expended or incumbered?

Mr. MAKLAN. I don’t have the exact number, sir, but it is somewhere around 15 to 18 percent—I am sorry. It is close to about 35

percent.

Mr. MICA. Once the original survey is done and we establish the

data base, is there any possibility of there being reduced costs at

the other end or is this already a fixed contract we are obligated

to?

Mr. MAKLAN. In order to accomplish the design and come up

with the sample size to make any real meaningful statements of

cause and effect, we are going to need the full resources of the contract.

Mr. MICA. Could you supply the subcommittee with the specific

amounts that have been expended to date and received by Westat

and exactly where we are and what you anticipate your expenditures to be?

Mr. MAKLAN. Yes, I would be glad to.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Forbes, you have spent a great deal of time looking at this whole program as a professional journalist and conducted a good deal of investigative reporting. You said today that

some of the figures that have been given by ONDCP about what

is spent on media was not what was intended by Congress, where

most of the money should go. Maybe you could tell us where you

got the information? I think you said $120 million of the total going

to ad buys. You also felt that the major contractor was also taking

an inordinate amount for administration of the program. Could you

elaborate on what you think should be done and what is being

done?

Mr. FORBES. Inordinate is your characterization; I simply supplied the figures I was confident of. My posture before this commitVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:08 Jun 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72752.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
121

tee is to adopt the same standards that apply to me as a journalist

publishing in the national arena. I would feel very confident in

using these figures in any article I publish, they would be independently fact checked by a separate journalist. However, people

would lose jobs faster than your head would spin if I mentioned

their names in this committee.

The $120 million figure was given to me by at least four individuals. The figures of $10 million contribution to overhead and $8

million for staff salaries at Oglivy has been given to me by two individuals with knowledge of this. That is the standard for publication. I also felt comfortable with that because as I mentioned

ONDCP’s fiscal year 2000 operating plan, of which I have a copy,

indicates $21 million for Ogilvy is listed as labor/production, nothing to do with purchase of ads. That corroborates the basic ballpark

figure.

When I use that $18 million total that was on the low range of

what I was told. My sources indicated that it may have been a couple million higher but I was conservative in my estimation.

Mr. MICA. There also has been a great deal of controversy about

the match credit. Under the law, we put certain amounts of hard

Federal dollars in this but we also require a match credit. You

heard the Director of the Office of Drug Control Policy say there

are new guidelines. Have you reviewed the guidelines? Are these

adequate? Are these understandable and do you think they will

clear up the controversy?

Mr. FORBES. I have been extremely reluctant to visit the ONDCP

Web site from my professional computer. I say that not in jest. I

was aware of the guidelines that were established in January as

the Washington Post editorial put it, shortly thereafter characterizing ONDCP’s response, ‘‘No, we have not reviewed scripts in advance and by the way, we will not do it again.’’

As a journalist, I was quite intrigued to hear Mr. McCaffrey’s

characterization of new guidelines and as soon as I can get myself

to a service bureau, I certainly will go on their Web site. I cannot

speak directly to them.

Mr. MICA. What do you think the impact of this controversy has

been on participation of the media and also credibility of the campaign?

Mr. FORBES. The participation, certainly ABC has indicated they

are pulling back. Some of the other networks have indicated their

distaste for this, the distaste for the metaphorical spanking that

they were given by the press. Magazines have certainly pulled

back. You mentioned Ms. Bullard’s letter, the chief of the USA

Today Week End.

It is a conundrum frankly because of the fact the embedded messages in programming are far more effective than advertisements.

Any ad, however slick, however glamorous, a woman destroying a

kitchen with a frying pan, is greeted by defensive screen. It is well

established in the public health field that favored characters, modeling behavior, over the course of a half hour or a hour long show

will actually affect behavior.

On the other hand, the question arises is the public comfortable

with that, with the government influencing television content with

122

financial incentives to that degree? It is a conundrum for the American people to decide.

Mr. MICA. We appreciate your comments to the subcommittee

and participation. You have provided us with some areas we may

want to review and some criticism of the program. I don’t know if

you had other areas you wanted to cite at this time to bring to the

attention of the subcommittee?

Mr. FORBES. No. I certainly appreciate your attention and thank

you for the invitation.

Mr. MICA. I don’t want to cut you short. We do have three votes

on the floor and I do want to thank both Mr. Maklan and also Mr.

Hornik for their participation. We will also have some additional

questions from the subcommittee and we have requested some data

in the hearing today.

Since we have votes, we will recess the subcommittee for lunch

for 1 hour and reconvene at 1:15 p.m. I will excuse this panel at

this time.

Thank you for your participation and cooperation.

[Recess.]

Mr. SOUDER [PRESIDING]. Our next panel consists of: Renee Jones,

the program director for the Academy for Boys, along with Kevin,

Ibn, and Kati.

Thank you for being patient with us. We had a series of votes

between 12 noon, and 1 p.m. that scattered us.

All your testimony will appear in the record in the hearing

books. I am looking forward to hearing your testimony. Ms. Jones.

STATEMENTS OF RENEE JONES, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, ACADEMY FOR BOYS; KEVIN EVANS, YOUNG PERSON, MARYLAND;

IBN, YOUNG PERSON, MARYLAND; AND KATI, YOUNG PERSON, ORLANDO, FL

Ms. JONES. Good afternoon.

My name is Renee Saunders-Jones, director, Karma Academy for

Boys. I have been there since 1987.

I am humbled and honored to speak to you on behalf of my program, Karma Academy for Boys, and the National Youth Anti-Drug

Media Campaign.

Karma Academy is a long-term, residential treatment program

for adolescent boys between grades 9 and 12. We provide treatment

from a holistic, therapeutic approach. The residents receive therapeutic treatment from trained therapists, receive their high school

education from Montgomery County teachers who come to Karma’s

facility to teach. As a matter of fact, three residents just graduated

from high school this past June.

The residents learn job readiness skills by being responsible for

all of the household chores, meals, laundry, etc., as a group. Every

month the residents participate in a wilderness challenge program.

For example, they just returned from a whitewater rafting trip.

They go caving, camping, hiking and rapelling, to name a few activities.

The majority of the residents’ time is spent in therapeutic

groups. We have a chemical dependency group, Narcotics Anonymous comes every week and present. We also have a juvenile sex

offender treatment program, confrontation group which deals with

123

anger management, psychotherapy groups, groups for survivors of

sex abuse, survivors of physical abuse, and grief recovery. We also

facilitate a multifamily group and individual family groups every

week for the residents and their families.

The program is confrontational in nature and holds each resident

responsible for their behavior as well as for their fellow residents’

behavior. The program has three major objectives that each resident must master before they can graduate from the program.

The three components are: each resident must take responsibility

for their own behavior; each resident must work through their family issues and each resident must work toward completing their

high school education. The parents or guardians must participate

in the treatment with the youth.

Karma has been in existence since 1971 and is located in Rockville, MD. Since the beginning of Karma, we have worked with over

650 young men along with their families. Many of our graduates

have their own businesses, have served in the armed forces and are

hard working, tax paying citizens. Our success rate is about 35 to

40 percent.

Many of the youth that come to Karma arrive through the court

system of the Department of Juvenile Justice. They have committed a crime or violated their probation and need a comprehensive

treatment program that will deter them from becoming a hardened

juvenile criminal.

I have witnessed firsthand how illegal drugs have caused many

youth to feel that it was virtually impossible for them to change

and have a future. Julian was one such youth. He had been on

drugs since age 12. He had used alcohol and all types of drugs,

marijuana, heroin, LSD, cocaine and various other types of pills.

He was from a middle-class, white family from the Eastern Shore.

When I met him at Karma he was 16. He had been to three other

treatment programs and was still in need of treatment. He was on

prescription medication for depression when he was admitted to

Karma. By the way, none of our residents are on prescription medication to control their behavior. Either they learn how to control

their behavior and express their feelings appropriately or they lose

the opportunity to work at Karma.

Julian’s parents were discouraged and unwilling to participate in

our treatment program in the beginning. However, I agreed if they

would come initially once a month to the family meetings, I would

admit Julian to the program.

Julian was not used to working on his issues but he was used

to getting over on staff and having his own way. He soon found out

that the longer he fooled around at Karma, the longer he would

stay at Karma. After almost 4 months of testing our program, Julian decided that he didn’t need to be on any medications. After

that decision was approved by the psychiatrist, his parents and our

staff, Julian began to make progress.

Within 3 months, he was one of the most respected leaders

among his peers. Julian graduated from Karma in 1999 and graduated from high school this past June 2000. It took him 16 months

to complete our program. However, now he has been enrolled and

accepted to enter the Air Force. He is a new person with a new atVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:08 Jun 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72752.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
124

titude. It took a lot of hard work on everyone’s part for Julian to

become successful.

Julian’s family shared their doubts and fears of him ever

amounting to anything significant prior to his coming to Karma on

the night of the graduation with new families. Now they are looking forward to his accomplishments and his personal success in the

Air Force.

I have observed that youth are motivated to change their lives

for the following reasons: one, when they see an adult, a staff, family member or teacher or mentor genuinely believes they have the

ability to change; two, when they experience success in areas where

they have failed; three, when they learn how to express their feelings without acting them out in a negative manner; four, when

they hear from people who tried the negative and inappropriate

paths of life and failed; and five, when they understand there is

power and healing in forgiving others and in one’s self.

For some youth, I have seen how giving their lives to God has

helped them to realize they can have a new life regardless of the

negative actions they had been involved in their past. I believe in

order for the youth of America to become drug free, we as Americans must see each young person as our own. We must become

willing to reach out and touch their lives in a way that will have

meaning and impact. Parents must stop working hard and long

hours and spend time at home with their families.

Extended family members have to take the time to share their

live experiences with the younger members of their families so that

the youth can learn from their experiences. We must provide positive activities for the youth so that their time will not become idle.

Last month, I went with the residents to visit a maximum security prison in Jessup, MD. The residents participated in the Reason

Straight Program. The impact of the inmates sharing their stories

of how and why they were incarcerated for life influenced several

of the residents at Karma to become more diligent and dedicated

to working through their treatment issues when they returned to

the program.

I believe if the youth of America could hear from reformed notorious drug lords like Rafel Edmunds, who is now a participant in a

program like Reason Straight in a penitentiary in Pennsylvania via

television media, many youth would think twice about becoming a

part of that lifestyle.

I believe that men and women who are incarcerated but who

have been rehabilitated should be a part of the anti-drug media

campaign. The most effective media campaign against drugs should

consist of real graphic facts about the results drugs will have on

a young person’s life in today’s world. We must no longer take a

soft approach in this campaign. We must say it loud and say it

strong, drugs destroy and they will destroy any person who allows

the substance to be a part of their lifestyle.

I recommend that funding is made available for cities and States

to sponsor activities in the communities that would appeal to families with children of various ages. Youth need a place to go in their

community that is safe and drug-free. We need to increase the community activity centers in the neighborhoods all over America.

125

In order to affect change among the youth of America, the media

campaign to be drug-free must speak to the diverse group of American youth.

I look forward to being of further assistance to you as we work

together to rid America of drug abuse and drug distribution. We

must let America know that drugs are tools of destruction.

Thank you for this opportunity to make a difference for my country and may God bless America.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:]

126

127

128

129

130

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Your turn, Kevin.

Mr. EVANS. Good morning, Members of Congress.

My name is Kevin Evans. I am happy and honored to be here

to speak on behalf of Karma Academy for Boys and the National

Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.

I have been a resident at Karma Academy for 171⁄2 months. I

have been there to receive help and treatment for many issues including drug usage and drug distribution. I am here to share my

views on the media campaign against drugs, what methods I think

would be beneficial to keep American youth from using drugs and

how Karma Academy has helped me decide to never sell illegal

drugs again. While at Karma, I have also developed a positive mental attitude to remain drug-free.

I live in Charles County, MD. My mother is a single parent with

two children. My mother had struggled financially and I decided to

help her by selling drugs to purchase food and clothing for myself

and my sister. I also had a paper route which she thought was the

method I was using to make money.

Initially, I did not use drugs, I sold them. I began to use drugs

because of the problems in my life and peers I hung around with.

My drug problem affected my family relationship, my school and

my social interaction with others. I used drugs for 3 years. I started when I was 12 years old.

Yes, I remember the TV ads about just say no to drugs, the ad

commercial which said this is your brain on drugs and the young

girl running around smashing things, stating this is what drugs

will do to you. Those commercials caught my attention while I was

watching TV but when I had to make a decision as to whether I

would use drugs, I never thought about those commercials.

I am not saying the commercials weren’t good, but that they did

not impact me strong enough to influence me not to use drugs. I

think the most effective commercials and advertisements against

drugs should demonstrate just what drugs would do to the human

body. I think they should be played on TV and videos should be

mailed to homes once a month that have teenagers.

I have seen videos like these while at Karma and they made a

powerful impact on me. The commercials should be relevant to today’s youth issues and not out of date. I think people who are recovering addicts should share their stories about negative impacts

of drugs on their lives in commercials because it is real coming

from them.

I would also like to suggest that more funding go to providing

recreational centers and activities for teenagers and young people

in their communities. Many times teens use drugs because there is

nothing else to do. Teenagers need appropriate places to go and

hang out and talk with their friends and appropriate adults. I believe if there had been a recreation center in my community, the

drug usage among teenagers would be lower. The drug dealers in

the community always provided a place for teens to hang out but

drugs also came along with it.

While I have been in Karma, I have learned the real facts about

the negative impacts drugs will have on my life. I have also had

the opportunity to participate in various wilderness activity proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:08 Jun 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72752.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
131

grams, for example, whitewater rafting, rapelling and camping,

just to name a few. These are activities that I now know and enjoy.

The teens in my neighborhood have never had these experiences.

Karma’s program allowed my mother and I to rebuild our relationship and to learn how to communicate with one another. I now

know how important it is for teens to be able to talk with their parents openly. I am thankful that I had the opportunity to come to

Karma, although initially for the first 3 months, I would ask the

Director, Renee, to let me go to another program where there were

girls.

However, the staff worked with me and never gave up on me and

now I am about to graduate from the program before the summer

ends, I hope. I know that programs like Karma make a difference

in teenagers lives because it made a difference in my life. I am now

aspiring to become a chef. I look forward to my future and to going

home a new person.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of my country.

I want to see America become drug free.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Evans follows:]

132

133

134

135

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for coming today, Kevin.

Ibn.

Mr. MUHAMMAD. Good morning, Congress. My name is Ibn Muhammad.

I am happy to be here to speak on behalf of the Karma program

and the National Media Campaign against drugs.

I have been at Karma for over 15 months for issues other than

drug using or drug selling. I made a choice when I was 15 years

old to not use drugs or sell drugs. In my neighborhood in Baltimore, I saw firsthand the bad effects of illegal drugs on friends and

neighbors that didn’t have a job, a place to live or food to eat. All

they did was hang on the corner using drugs and selling drugs.

I remember the ad on TV using an egg to show what happens

to your brain when you use drugs. I also remember the ad where

the young lady slams the frying pan all over the place. These ads

stood out in my mind as the effect drugs could have on me. When

I saw the people in the neighborhood using drugs, I thought of the

TV ads, of the lady with the frying pan and the egg.

My grandfather’s use of drugs also had a great impact on me not

to use drugs. He talked to me often about how bad drugs would affect me, my family if I brought them into the house. He also talked

to me about how drugs would hurt me and destroy my future. His

words helped me to keep drugs out of my life. I think if more parents and grandparents talked to their teenagers about the horrible

impact drugs would have on them and their families, many teenagers would not use drugs.

I think ads that show how illegal drug use will affect a teenager’s

life would stop a teenager from using drugs. While I have been at

Karma, my choice to remain drug free became stronger. Every

week we have a therapeutic group called Chemical Dependency

Group. The group watches videos and discuss how drugs hurt the

body and learn firsthand how drug use has affected our families in

a bad way. We read and discussed articles about drugs. Also at

Karma every week we hear from recovering addicts from Narcotics

Anonymous, different people who come and share their life stories

about using illegal drugs.

All these experiences impact me in a strong way. I know I will

never use any illegal drug as long as I live. The knowledge I have

now has made a big positive difference in my life.

I thank you for having this opportunity to speak and to make a

difference in my country.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Muhammad follows:]

136

137

138

139

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Kati.

Ms. STEPHENSON. Good afternoon, Members of Congress.

My name is Kati and I am a grateful, recovering addict. I always

had huge dreams and goals for myself and it never involved becoming a drug addict. My life soon became a vicious cycle of hospitals,

in and out of them, overdosing, jail, totaling cars, losing my friends

to drug overdoses. My life was completely out of control. I didn’t

know how to stop.

On May 29, 1999, I was court-ordered to a women’s recovery

home, the Lisa Maryland House in Orlando, FL where I stayed 1

year and recently graduated. Here, I learned the skills I needed to

live life. This place saved my life. I feel like I literally have a

chance to live again and hopefully to help someone else from going

down the same road I chose.

This past year, I haven’t paid much attention to television but

I have gotten a chance to view some of the ads recently. I honestly

don’t understand why so much money is being spent on this media

campaign when it could be spent on a more personal approach with

the youth, like groups organized of young people in recovery who

could go around speaking to elementary, middle and high schools

or it could be used for more treatment centers. It seems to me you

could spend all this money on advertising but if you have no place

to place them, then what good is it.

I don’t think the drug problem is getting any better. People keep

getting addicted and dying from this disease because there was no

help for them. It seems if money went to treatment, we would save

a lot more lives. I have lost many friends to this disease, a lot who

died because they had no place to go. Over the past few days, I

have been able to ask around some young people and to get their

opinions on some of the ads. Not many even knew of them. If they

did, they felt the ads were very impersonal and very vague, very

surface.

Before I started using drugs, the commercials were pretty much

a joke to every one around me. When I was actively using, I really

could have cared less. I truly don’t feel the ads are persuasive one

way or another. I feel the main emphasis should be placed on personal contact with the youth and toward treatment.

I strongly, strongly feel that it hasn’t been the millions of dollars

spent on advertising that helped get my attention; it was the love,

guidance and hope from those who had been there before me and

their personal efforts to let me know what they had to go through.

Those are the people who really changed my life.

All I have to offer you is my personal experience. Through that,

I hope to help save someone else from suffering and going down the

same path.

Thank you for listening.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you all for your testimony. I appreciate you

being patient and also being willing to share the different levels of

what you have been through. Maybe I can start with Kati with a

few questions.

When you were first becoming an addict, did you go through any

DARE program? Did you go through any kind of program at school

that was prevention oriented?

140

Ms. STEPHENSON. No, I didn’t.

Mr. SOUDER. Your school didn’t have any. Had you heard people

talk about why drugs were bad?

Ms. STEPHENSON. I can remember a couple of times where they

had assemblies with the DARE program and stuff but it was

maybe once a year. It wasn’t very involved. I know I didn’t get very

involved in it.

I grew up not wanting to use drugs. I was against it because it

had run in my family but when the time came in high school, everyone was doing it and I saw they were having fun doing it, and

I just wanted to have fun and be a part of it.

Mr. SOUDER. Treatment isn’t a prevention program, treatment is

a program that once people are addicts, it is one of the ways we

try to help people recover, although even in a successful program

like Karma, 35 percent success rate which is actually pretty high,

most treatment programs have nearly a 90 percent failure rate.

Nevertheless, we put a billion and some dollars into treatment because we have to at least try, and some people will be very successful. Some of the people who are successful may have an occasional

relapse but that is still different than being an addict. It is still not

a prevention program.

What would you do to try to reach people like you who kind of

knew it was bad but you wanted to try to fit in with your peer

groups and you didn’t see any immediate bad effects, what would

you do now that you are 22, say you have some kids down the road,

what would you do as a parent, what would you want your school

to do?

Ms. STEPHENSON. I think the most effective would be people who

have been through it, younger people that have been through it

who can reach the kids on an individual level as a peer, not like

a motherly figure or a counsel, more someone they can relate to.

Mr. SOUDER. Would you have listened to them at that time? If

some kid, 22, came back and said, I was messed up, I thought it

was cool to go to parties and fit in, you would have been more likely to listen to someone at 22 than somebody at 50? Part of what

we are trying to figure out is what really would you listen to, not

what we think somebody would listen to because we are spending

real dollars here. Kids are really dying in my hometown and

around the country. In Orlando, many kids died of heroin overdose.

You were one who was fortunate who didn’t.

It is very hard because young people always think they are going

to live and it is not going to be them.

Ms. STEPHENSON. I totally agree with that. I know at that age,

I felt invincible but I don’t really remember ever seeing what really

happens to someone who is really overdosing. At that age, I don’t

remember seeing that. That is the only thing I can think of, maybe

more graphically being shown.

Mr. SOUDER. If they had drug tested you at school, what do you

think that would have done?

Ms. STEPHENSON. I know it would have made me think the drug

problem was being taken a lot more seriously than I think kids

think now.

Mr. SOUDER. A number of schools I have been, about the only

kids who favor drug testing were kids who had a drug problem beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:08 Jun 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72752.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
141

cause they said they might have been caught. The kids who don’t

have a drug problem think drug tests are terrible. Those who aren’t

really wrestling with the problem think they are terrible but it lets

some kids who really want to avoid it use it as an excuse. One of

the things you addressed that we hear all the time is the social

pressure, you want to fit in, you want to have a fun time.

Kevin, both you and Ibn mentioned the egg commercial. What

did that mean to you? Clearly you had some idea that it wasn’t

good for you, that it would mess up your head but you got involved

anyway. Did you think it was not going to mess up your head?

Mr. EVANS. I didn’t go as far as heroin and really hard drugs.

I was using gateway drugs. If I had continued to use drugs, I probably would have been as far as heroin and stuff like that. I never

used that, and I saw a lot of people use those types of drugs and

what it did to them but it was just the point of rebellious as older

people trying to tell me you can’t use drugs, drugs will do this and

this to you. All of the younger people were like, drugs are fine. I

was going back and forth with two different generations. One generation was telling me one thing, and the other generation was telling me another. I thought the younger generation knew more than

the older generation so in a way, it made me go to the younger generation and use drugs even though I knew some of the stuff the

older generation was telling me.

Mr. SOUDER. My dad once gave my school band instructor a

plaque that he thought was hilarious and the band instructor

thought was hilarious but all of us in the band thought it was really stupid. It said, ‘‘Why can’t all of life’s problems come when we

are young and know all the answers.’’ It is not that you know more

when you are a kid, it is that you don’t realize what you don’t

know. As you get older, it gets more frustrating rather than less.

You said the reason you got involved in drugs was to provide

books, clothes and other things for you and your family. You have

now been through a program that has told you about the evils of

drugs. At the same time, that still doesn’t address necessarily the

question of how you had the problem in the first place. In other

words, your’s seemed to be economic. Was it that you didn’t feel

that the risk was as high as what your gain was and was this to

get better gym shoes and nicer clothes? Is that what your orientation was? What would you do differently now? How would you tackle the same problem? If you were back then, 12 years old, just

starting into it, what would you do differently?

You had a paper route and you were trying to earn money?

Mr. EVANS. Yes, I was. Back then, I didn’t really like depending

on people, I didn’t like asking people for things because I thought

it would bring me down, so I did the next thing, even though it was

wrong, selling drugs. After a while of being with the drugs, bagging

drugs, you were like, well, since I am doing this, let me see what

it feels like because the people I am giving it to say it is good, so

I am going to try it just once.

If I was there now, I would not even deal with drugs, even if I

seen the good effects—so-called good effects of what drugs did to

you, I would still not use it because I knew stuff now and I have

dealt with the problems I was dealing with back then.

142

I would pretty much depend on other people because I am not

old enough—now I am old enough to get jobs so I can get a job but

back then I wasn’t old enough to get a job and I would pretty much

depend on people. I would be the child and not the parent.

Mr. SOUDER. My youngest son is 12 and then I have a son who

is 22 and a daughter who is 24. The toughest period is when you

are 12 to 14 and that is when you are going through a lot of

changes, you are very impressionable, and it is a very hard age for

any adults to try to reach young people.

You said to some degree you felt if you knew how bad things

were going to be, but at that age, isn’t it kind of hard to look at

it and feel that? You probably had people in your community that

you saw, guys whose lives didn’t amount to much, yet it didn’t stop

you?

Mr. EVANS. No, it didn’t stop me. I just wanted to do my own

thing. I just wanted to do whatever I wanted to do, even though

I seen all the bad effects of what drugs did to them, their families,

social life, their whole life. I would ruin their whole life from having money, having a nice house to not having anything, losing their

family members and out on the street with nothing. I just pretty

much wanted to do my own thing.

Mr. SOUDER. Ibn said that his grandfather had a big impact on

him. Did you have any male family members that were an example

to you anywhere along the line, an uncle, a grandfather? One of the

problems is finding models to model. Did you have any in your

community? Is that something that would have made a difference?

Mr. EVANS. I have two uncles. One uncle is in the military, so

I really didn’t see him a lot. As I was growing up, I wanted to be

like him, I wanted to go into the military, I wanted to be just like

him but after a while, I was I never see him, I don’t know what

he does so he didn’t really become a big factor in my life.

My other uncle helped me a lot, he was a good role model for me

but he had other kids so he was putting more of his time on his

kids. I just veered off to my older cousins and my older cousins

were doing the same thing that I was doing after a while. So I had

a role model, an older man, and he died when I turned 11, so that

role model was gone and there weren’t any other role models, so

the role models I took were the people outside having fun, doing

drugs and selling drugs.

Mr. SOUDER. Ibn, you said your grandfather had a big role and

that you were convinced not to use drugs. You went into this program when you were 15?

Mr. MOHAMMED. I came into the program when I was 16.

Mr. SOUDER. You said this solidified your commitment. Do you

think you would have drifted into drugs if you hadn’t gone into this

program?

Mr. MOHAMMED. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. Were you hanging around with people that were already kind of troubled and did some of them do drugs?

Mr. MOHAMMED. Yes. I was hanging around people that did

drugs but I thought about it and I was thinking about what my

grandfather told me too, so that is why I didn’t do drugs. My

grandfather gave me the advice, don’t do drugs, and he told me the

143

effects if I did drugs. So I took the initiative then, don’t do no

drugs.

Mr. SOUDER. Ms. Jones, I wanted to ask you about your 35 percent success rate. What precisely does that mean, kids who after

they graduate, haven’t gotten in trouble with the law?

Ms. JONES. Basically what that means is we have tracked for a

year graduates; because it is real hard to stay in touch with families after a year period. We measured that. So what it means is

that those young people have not become involved in the juvenile

justice system. They have reported and their families have supported their report that they did not get involved with drugs again.

Mr. SOUDER. The other two-thirds, have they ranged in extent of

problems and are they drug problems, other problems?

Ms. JONES. What we found is that the offenders who came because of drug using, half went back to using or selling and the

other half didn’t use drugs or sell drugs but had car thefts or truancy.

Mr. SOUDER. In other words, they might not have wanted to get

their clothes through drug sales but they got them through something else?

Ms. JONES. Right. What we have been able to ascertain is that

the message we are putting out, the message we are giving them

about the ill effects of using and selling drugs has made an impact.

We have also been able to see the impact of how our drug message

has helped other siblings in the family, as well as the parents. Because sometimes we have parents who come to Karma and they

have substance abuse issues, maybe not as serious, they are minimizing it but we have to address that issue also which we haven’t

factored in the data. But we have their report that they have

stopped using because we will not return a youth to his home

where the parents are still practicing using drugs or alcohol. So we

have been able to affect change on that level also.

When parents take a stand because a child will tell the parent,

look at you, you are using. You bought me the drugs, you helped

me and the parent has to face that reality and that has happened

in several cases in the home where the parent is outraged that

their son is using and selling but not totally looking at the fact

they were the door for their son. That has really opened the eyes

of the parents.

We have had parents go into treatment while they were first in

treatment with their son, then they had to come clean with us and

say, I have to go into treatment, so I will be missing for several

months because I have the same issue my son has and if it wasn’t

for you, I really wouldn’t have addressed my issue too.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you know what percentage of your success rates

parents went into treatment?

Ms. JONES. We didn’t have lots but all the ones that reported, it

is 100 percent, so I would say I have been there 13 years and I

have had about 10 cases like that over the course of the 13 years.

Mr. SOUDER. Is yours a religious program?

Ms. JONES. No, it is not. As part of the Department of Juvenile

Justice, the Comar regulations, it is required of us as a program

to make church available to them. So we have a sign-up sheet if

144

they want to go to church and we have to take them to a church.

That is part of the State mandate.

Mr. SOUDER. Have you seen that kids who make a personal commitment are more likely to stay successful?

Ms. JONES. Yes. I have seen that. Because of the Narcotics Anonymous program and the AA which emphasizes the spiritual, higher

power, that also allows the young people to feel God can help them.

A lot of the young people have that in their background. When they

were young, ‘‘my grandmother took me to church’’ or ‘‘I used to go

to church’’ and they remember that and it triggers those memories.

In church, that gives them the strength, so I have seen that as an

effective tool. A lot of the boys’ evenings start beginning a relationship with God as a result of going to church with their buddy because it is a way to get out of the house, it is better than nothing.

So they will sign up and go to church. It has a positive effect too.

I have seen that through the course of my time being there that

some of the boys have made decisions to change their lives and

have a cleaner, more moral life because of going to church and having that available.

Mr. SOUDER. How do you address the question that the environment you are providing is a relatively artificial environment and

where they may be thrown back into is such a total contrast that

it makes the transition difficult? In other words, you are providing

order; as soon as they leave, they may not have order. You talked

about going on your wilderness trips. You have been able to see

that world and now you have extra responsibility to try to reach

other people. At the same time, it is going to be difficult all of a

sudden going back to an environment that may be tough.

Ms. JONES. One of the major components of our program is the

final phase, a transition phase, called phase II. During that phase,

you have to go back because that is the reality of life. You have

to reestablish yourself. What I have seen is that when the youth

go back as Kevin, he is a different person. He is not the same person mentally that he was when he came to Karma. He has a new

attitude, he has a new way of looking at things and he realizes that

they are going no where and guess what, I am going somewhere.

I have had former residents go back to their community and run

groups and help their peers because of the skills, the tools they

have picked up. So when a youth decides inside, and that is really

where we need to emphasize helping young people to realize their

strength within themselves, when they realize that, it doesn’t matter what environment they are in because they have the strength

within themselves like we do. We might have friends all around us

doing something inappropriate, but we choose not to because of

who we are inside ourselves.

That is what happens for the boys and some of the parents have

moved. They are able to move, they make plans because they realize this environment is horrible. I want him to have a new school,

a new set of friends, a new opportunity, so they are able to move

to another community where some parents aren’t. That is why we

really emphasize if you are not changing within, you are going to

be right back.

The program is very hard and tough. It is not easy and it is long.

It is not a quick fix and I think that is one of the things we as a

145

country need to look at, the 30 days, the 90 days, it is not going

to work because the issues are so deep, they come from a place

where the kids aren’t able to really let it out. Anybody can do 90

days, anybody can do 30 days but to really have to stay and deal

with issues day in and day out is going to be hard and that is when

the change comes.

Mr. SOUDER. To give the cliche, there is a current song that has

been out there at least in the last month that love is the only answer. Ultimately, it probably is.

What we are going to try to do in Government and the hearing

today is focused on particularly the advertising but we have had

hearings over the last year, at least 35 or 40 hearings all over the

country. I have been down to Orlando once, we have had two hearings in Florida, we have been literally all over the country, as well

as Chairman Mica and I have been down to South America five

times in the last 5 years.

On the Education Committee, we are looking at education programs, we are looking at treatment programs, we are looking at alternative programs, we are looking at school counseling programs

where kids do the peer counseling with each other. I am a big

booster of entrepreneurial education. One thing that is really clear

is almost every person that has dealt drugs actually is a mini-businessman. If we can figure out how to get you guys into the regular

business, every one of you can earn money and be a hustler but in

a positive way not just in a street way.

I haven’t seen kids in any district, whether rural or urban, who

at 8 and 10 years old who don’t have big dreams. Somewhere those

dreams are getting lost and we need to tap into that.

The question we are asking today is—and you saw the ads earlier that were aired—what can we do to reshape the image or is

there anything in those ads that would really reach you before you

got involved in the problem. Advertising is pretty much wasted

once you are in the middle of the problem because once you are in

the problem, you need shock therapy almost. The court gets you

and then you get into it or a drug test catches you and you are

forced to deal with your problem.

When you are right at the early edges, mixing a little alcohol and

marijuana, maybe a little something else starting with tobacco, it

could be a gateway type drug, what at that point or before you

reach that point, what ad would be able to reach you or would anything? Could you comment, each of you on the ads we saw earlier

today which are only part of the ads?

Ms. JONES. I think what stood out for me the most about those

ads, both of them, they were in black and white. We live in a color

generation. My children refuse to look at anything that is in black

and white, they say that is the olden days. They won’t look at it,

and I have 14, 11 and 8.

To give you all the feedback, that has to change because children,

today’s youth, just turn it off, automatically they don’t look at black

and white. They know color. If you put those ads in color, those pictures are going to be vivid. The brain is going to take a picture and

they will see Rodney on heroin, see the blood, see that and they

will remember that because that is today’s youth.

146

I believe the media probably put it in black and white so that

it probably wouldn’t be so graphic but we live in a graphic society.

Our youth and children are looking at everything the way it really

is. That is my first comment on that.

The other comment is with Rodney on Heroin. The message is

good but the word that we hear is heroin. I don’t know if that is

just for a certain market or all across the country but when we talk

about teenagers, we are talking about youth who are going to start

with alcohol and marijuana. If we want to get their attention, we

need to put together an ad that is going to give them that message—alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, crack, heroin, LSD. They need to

see if you start here, you are going to end up here and then the

casket.

So the message is good for Rodney, but it is not going to stay

with a kid who is at a party and someone brings out a joint because they will say, Rodney, heroin, I am all right. I am not like

Rodney because that is the way these boys think. They are concrete. So the ads have to be on the level that the youth are on.

The ad with the young ladies did not hold my attention. It was

too fast. I really didn’t know they were talking about drugs because

the message is opportunity. No young person is looking for opportunity. If we are going to give them a message to stay off drugs,

we need to give them a message that drugs destroy. That is why

I emphasize that. They need to have one message. If I use drugs,

I am destroying myself. If you ask any kid in America, do you want

to destroy yourself? No. If you use drugs, you will. That is going

to stick with them and to present that in a colorful way is going

to stick with a kid of any age.

That is my feedback. I think opportunity is an adult word, an

adult concept, it is not for today’s youth.

Mr. SOUDER. Kevin, in looking at the Rodney ad, presumably the

first ad probably didn’t move you a whole lot, in the Rodney ad,

how would you make that so that it would have related to what

you saw in your neighborhood that would have impacted you? How

would you draw the parallel because you are looking at it and

going I don’t want to be like him.

Mr. EVANS. I would have added more drugs to that like all the

drugs and I would show the true effects of what the drugs do to

you. Youth these days, if you see someone in the casket, well, he

is dead, I saw someone dead on the street the other day so we want

to see what it really does to you, how it deteriorates your body and

stuff like that. That would have a real impact because nowadays

video games, a lot of blood, a lot of body parts, stuff like that.

Younger kids are so involved with video games and seeing a lot of

blood and body parts and other stuff that if you showed the true

effects like what it does to your liver and what it does to your

lungs, your mouth and how it eats at your body, would have an impact. People would remember that.

I remember I saw a video at Karma of heroin and how needles

and all that other stuff. I really don’t like needles. Not too many

young kids like needles either, so I remembered that and I remembered one of the men on there was using heroin. He first started

using heroin and then a year later, he had AIDS, he went from 150

pounds to maybe 90 pounds. You could see all his bones. I rememVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:08 Jun 20, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00150 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\72752.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
147

ber that and the needles in the body, how they showed him and

all the stuff he went through. I remember that and it stayed in my

mind. That was a good video. I would think more graphics and just

straight, to the point and not veer off with opportunities and stuff

like that. Stick straight to what drugs will do to you and how it

will mess you up.

Mr. SOUDER. Ibn, what would you do if you were the ad manager

and your job was to reach kids 15 years old?

Mr. MOHAMMED. I would try to get videos to the house where

they live and try to convince the parents to tell them to sit down

and watch the video and watch the effects of drugs and how they

will end up if they keep on doing drugs and stuff like that.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you think they would be more convinced if they

had a bunch of other kids who were 18 or so who said, I tried some

pot, I didn’t think anything was going to happen to me and here

is what happened because the problem is nobody thinks they are

going to start with heroin. You don’t think that would necessarily

convince them either?

Mr. MOHAMMED. I would try to convince them to stop using that,

probably show more, as Kevin said, more graphics and stuff like

that or any other use of drugs. I would try to get a counselor or

some other person who did drugs and got off of drugs, send them

to a local rec center or something like that. They probably would

come down there and talk to them about the effect of drugs, how

he got on drugs and then made a big turnaround and got off it, and

became a clean, healthy strong man.

Mr. SOUDER. Kati, you get the last word. You said earlier that

you didn’t think the ads were very effective and didn’t know if any

ad could be effective. I am interested in your comments particularly

on the first ad because the theme of that seemed to be trying to

say women have had lots of opportunities and all of a sudden

young girls have opportunities that young girls didn’t have when

I was growing up, even before me, so don’t blow it. That didn’t have

any impact on you?

Ms. STEPHENSON. It was a nice commercial but it was kind of

like common. There are a lot of commercials out there like the

Hallmark kind of thing. I think if you are going the commercial

way, it would have to be something more drastic like they said, like

with the color.

I was thinking before I began using I thought of a drug user as

a heroin junkie. I would never get to that point, so it was OK to

do the other things. I think on commercials, it was always showing

the bottom of the bottom, it never really showed the whole process.

I was in school and I was a cheerleader and I was in student government and I didn’t think I would end up using heroin, but it did

happen to me. Maybe if you could make the commercials relate

more to in my area who are in school and are getting addicted just

as well as any others.

Mr. SOUDER. It is interesting because you are all challenging a

fundamental assumption and that is we don’t like to motivate you

by positives, we would like to tell you about hopes, dreams, say

don’t rather than just point the finger all the time. Most of you are

saying, scare us to death. It is an interesting panel.

148

Ms. JONES. I understand what you are saying because I get feedback from the parents. They say, you are too hard, Renee, you are

scaring them, you don’t understand. The boys come to my defense

and say, she has to say that to us because they realize that if I

went the route of the parents, I would be just like them. That is

I guess the message the kids are getting, the soft pat on the back

messages from a lot of different sources, but if we really want to

make an impact on them as a country through this media campaign, as they are saying, we really need to let them know the real

truth.

As you said, the mind is thinking I am invincible. It is really not

going to happen to me. The truth is, it is going to happen to you

if you put this in your life. We just went to Blake High School in

Silver Spring to do a presentation. We spoke to over 150 10th graders, did a drug prevention program. All of the boys participated

and shared their stories. What was outstanding for me was the

feedback, because we did evaluations, which was the kids liked

hearing from them rather than hearing from me. I did the academic part, this is what will happen, see the drug, I had the charts

and all that.

What stood out for the kids was hearing from other boys and

they asked questions. What happened then, students asked are you

glad you are in the program, would you rather be home? They said,

yes, I would rather be home, I wish I didn’t do drugs, I wish I had

made better choices and I saw some eyes click because the kids did

say yes, I use, I use, they weren’t ashamed but it did help them

to hear from other peers that using drugs destroyed my life.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for coming today. I want to

encourage each of you and all of the young guys who have been in

the program who have been very attentive here today because all

of us make mistakes but now you have another chance. You have

a great chance to have an impact not only on your own life but others lives because you have seen what it is like on both sides. Many

of us didn’t get that opportunity and don’t appreciate it. Now you

have a little extra responsibility in this country to try to reach others in addition to having the great opportunity of a lot of years left

in your own lives.

With that, our hearing now stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

Æ