Testing the Anti-Drug Message in 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign 

Phase I (Report No. 2) 

12 American Cities 

i  ̧ i!i~  ̧ ̧ ̧ 

/ 7 5 ~9~ 

Testing the Anti-Drug Message in 12 American Cities 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: 

Phase I (Report No. 2) 

March 1999 

Barry R. McCaffrey 

Directoi' 

ExeCutivb Office of the President 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

PROPERTY OF 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NOJRS) 

Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849-6000 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy, acknowledges the 

following people who contributed substantively to this effort: John Carnevale, 

Director, Programs, Budget, Research, and Evaluation, ONDCP; Terry Zobeck, 

ONDCP Project Monitor, for his overall project direction and review; 

M. Fe Caces and Anne Pritchett, ONDCP Programs and Research, and 

Daniel Rader, Deputy General Counsel, ONDCP, for their review, input, and 

guidance; Sherrie Aitken, President of CSR, Incorporated, James DeSantis, 

Project Manager, and their dedicated research staff for their data collection, 

analysis, and writing; CSR's Graphics and Publications Departments for their 

graphic design, editing, and word processing; Ed Bergstein, Fred Nicholson, Alka 

Gupta, and the staff of Audits & Surveys Worldwide, for their collection and 

analysis of survey data; and Arthur Hughes, Chief, Epidemiology Research 

Branch, Zili Sloboda, Director, Susan David, Research Coordinator, and the staff 

of the Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research, National Institute on 

Drug Abuse, for their invaluable input. This report was prepared by CSR, 

Incorporated, under Contract No. SF8C01. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

i From the Director ................................................................................................................................. 

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... 111 

E-1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 

1-1 1. Background and Introduction .................................................................................................. 

1-1 1.1 The Media Campaign Design ............................................................................................. 

1.2 Strategy for Evaluation of the Media Campaign ................................................................ 1-3 

1.3 Implementation and Evaluation of Phase I ......................................................................... 1-5 

1-8 1.4 Organization of the Report ................................................................................................. 

2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Selection of Phase I Evaluation Sites ................................................................................. 2-2 

2.2 Survey Methodology .......................................................................................................... 2-8 

2.2.1 Selection of the In-School Survey Population ........................................................ 2-9 

2.2.2 Selection of Parents for Parent Telephone Interviews .......................................... 2-17 

2.2.3 Survey Instruments ............. : ................................................................................. 2-20 

2.2.4 Measuring Change Using Survey Data ................................................................. 2-21 

2.2.5 Interpretation of Survey Findings ......................................................................... 2-22 

2.2.6 Presentation of Survey Findings ........................................................................... 2-23 

2.3 Site Visit Study Methodology ..,,, .... ,..,, .............. , .... ,,.,,,...,., . ...... ...................................... 2-24 

2.3.1 Conducting Focus Groups ................................................................................... 2-24 

2.3.2 Conducting Key Informant Interviews ................................................................. 2-26 

2.3.3 Site Visit Protocol ................................................................................................. 2-28 

2-29 2.4 Media Monitoring Methodology ...................................................................................... 

2.4.1 Television Monitoring .......................................................................................... 2-29 

2.5 Gross Rating Points and Other Media Buying Information ............................................. 2-30 

2.6 Integrative Analytical Approach ....................................................................................... 2-31 

2.7 References ................. ~ ....................................................................................................... 2-32 

3. Aggregate Survey Results .......................................................................................................... 3-1 

3-2 3.1 Youth Findings ................................................................................................................... 

3.1.1 Sample Profile: Comparability of the Target and Comparison Youth Samples, 

and Consistency Between Baseline and Followup ................................................. 3-2 

3.1.1.1 Race and Ethnicity ................................................................................... 3-3 

3.1.1.2 Age ........................................................................................................... 3-3 

3.1.1.3 Grade ........................................................................................................ 3-4 

3-4 3.1.1.4 Family/Household Status ......................................................................... 

3.1.2 Risk Status of Target and Comparison Site Populations: Drugs Youth "Have 

Heard Of". ......................................... i ..................................................................... 3-4 

3.1.3 Risk Status of Target and Comparison Site Youth: Trial Drug Use Among 

Youth ...................................................................................................................... 3-7 

3.1.4 Youth Awareness of the Ads .................................................................................. 3-8 

3.1.5 Youth Awareness of the Ads: Differences by Four Demographic 

Characteristics~Grade, Sex, Ethnicity, and Locale ............................................ 3-10 

3.1.6 Perceived Effectiveness of the Ads Among Youth .............................................. 3-10 

3.1.7 Perceived Effectiveness of the Ads Among Youth: Differences by Four 

Demographic Characteristics--Grade, Sex, Ethnicity, and Locale ...................... 3-12 

Office of National Drug Control Policy v 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

, 3.2 

il, 

3.3 

? 

3.4 

3.1.8 Youth Awareness of the Risks of Drugs. ............................ , ................... i..........:...3-13 

3.1.9 Youth Awareness of the Risks of Drugs: Differences by Four Demographic : 

Characteristics--~-Grade, Sex, Ethnicity, and Locale .... . .................. . ...... ...:..:: ....... 3-15 

3.1.10 Youth Attitudes Toward Drugs ............... ............................................................. 3-15 

3.1.11 Youth Attitudes Towards Drugs: Differences by Four Demographic 

Characteristics--Grade, Sex, Ethnicity, and Locale ............... . ............................ 3-17 

3.1.12 General Sources of Information on Drugs Among Youth.. ....... i....i ........... : ......... 3-17 

3.1.13 Sources of Information on Drugs Among Youth by Four Demographic 

Characteristics--Grade, Sex, Ethnicity, and Locale ................ .............. ,... .......... 3-18 

Teen Findings ......... ,...~.:- ...... :'::'"" ": ..... • ........ .~ ........ : .............................. i..:..:.. .................. 3-19 

3.2.1 Teen Sample Profile: Comparability of the Target and Comparison Teen ~. : 

Samples Between Baseline and Followup ................................... . ............. : .......... 3-19 

3.2.2 Risk Status of Target and Comparison Sites: Baseline Teen Drug Use.,.... ......... 3-19 

3.2.3 Awareness of the Ads ............................. ............... . ................................. i.....~ ....... 3-23 

3.2.4 Awareness of the Ads Among Teens: Differences by Four Demographic 

Characteristics: Grade, Locale, Ethnicity, Gender .......................... ..................... 3-26 

3.2.5 Perceived Effectiveness of the Ads Among Teens..~ ............................................ 3-28 

3.2.6 Perceived Effectiveness of the ,Ads Among Teens: Differences by Grade, 

Locale, Ethnicity, Gender ................................ .................. ............. :..:.~....,....,:: ....... 3-28 

3.2.7 Awareness of the Risks of Drugs Among Teens .......... ....... : ........ .....:. ....... _. ........ 3-28 

3.2.8 Awareness of the Risks of Drugs Among Teens: Differences by Grade, 

Locale, Ethnicity, and Gender ........................ . ......... i.. ................. .,..: .................... 3-29 

3.2.9 Attitudes Towards Drugs Among Teens ...................................... ....... .... i....... ...... 3-29 

3.2.10 Sources of Information About Drugs Among Teens ....................... ..i.........; ......... 3-30 

3.2.11 Sources of information About Drugs Among Teens: Differences by Grade, 

Locale, Ethnicity, .and Gender ~ ....................................................... ............ : ......... 3-32 

Parent Findings ................................................................................................. ~..::..i ........ 3-33 

3.3.1 Sample Profile: Comparability of the Target Site and Comparison:Site 

Parent Samples, Between Baseline and Followup ............................... :,.., ............. 3~33 

3.3.2 Risk Status in Target and Comparison Sites: Parental Attitudes ~: ' 

Towards Drugs ......................................................................................... i. ............ 3-34 

3.3.3 Awareness of the Ads Among ParentS ..... i ..................................... '..: ........ i.... ...... 3-37 

3.3.4 Awareness of the Ads Among Parents: Differences by Five Demographic 

Characteristics: Parental Age, Age of Their Children, Level of Education, 

Household Income, Gender, and Ethnicity .................... , .............. ..'.i .................... 3-39 

3.3.5 Perceived Effectiveness of the Ads Among Parents ................. ... ................. . ....... 3-42 

3.3.6 Perceived Effectiveness Of the Ads Among Parents: Differences.byFive 

Demographic Characteristics--Parental Age, Age of Their Children, Level 

of Education, Household income, Gender, and Ethnicity ..... ........... i ........... ~ ....... 3-44 

3.3.7 Parental Attitudes Toward DrUg Use ............................................ i..' ..................... 3-45 

3.3.8 Parental Awareness of the Risks of Drugs: Differences by Five Demographic 

Characteristics--Parental Age, Age of Their Children, Level of Education, 

Household Income, Gender, and Ethnicity .............................. . ............................ 3-47 

3.3.9 Discussion of Drugs With Child ................... i .................. . .................................... 3-48 

3.3.9.1 Discussion of Drugs With Children: Differences by Parental Age, 

Age of Their Children, Level of Education, Household income, 3 49 

Gender, And Ethnicity. 

Conclusion ........................................... i .................................................... ---. ............. i ...... 3-49 

VI 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Table of Contents 

4. Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results ................................................................................... 4-I 

4.1 Awareness of Specific Media Campaign Ads .................................................................... 4-3 

4. I. 1 Summary of Survey Findings on Awareness of Specific Ads ................................ 4-3 

4.1.2 Use of Media Monitoring Data to Interpret Survey Findings ................................. 4-4 

4.1.3 Use of Media Buy Information To Interpret Survey Findings ............................... 4-6 

4.1.4 Use of Site Visit Data To Interpret Survey Findings .............................................. 4-9 

4.2 Perceived Effectiveness of Anti-Drug Ads ....................................................................... 4-I I 

4.2.1 Summary of Survey Findings on Perceived Effectiveness of Anti-Drug Ads ..... 4-11 

4.2.2 Use of Site Visit Data To Interpret Survey Findings ............................................ 4-11 

4.2.2.1 Recommendations for Improving Anti-Drug Ads ................................. 4-14 

4.3 Awareness of Risk of Drugs ............................................................................................. 4-16 

4.3.1 Summary of Survey Findings on Awareness of Risk of Drugs ............................ 4-16 

4.3.2 Use of Media Monitoring Data To Interpret Survey Findings ............................. 4-17 

4.3.3 Use of~Site Visit Data To Interpret Survey Findings ............................................ 4-18 

4.4 Attitudes Toward Drugs ......................................................................... . ......................... 4-22 

4.4.1 Summary of Survey Findings on Attitudes Toward Drugs ............ i ..................... 4-22 

4.4.2 Use of Media Monitoring Data To Interpret Survey Findings ............................. 4-23 

4.4.3 Use of Site Visit Data To Interpret Survey Findings ............................................ 4-24 

4.5 Sources of Information About Drugs .................................. ,. ............................................ 4-25 

4.5.1 Summary of Survey Findings on Sources of Information About Drugs .............. 4-25 

4.5.2 Use of Media Monitoring Data To Interpret Survey Findings ............................. 4-26 

4.5.3 Use of Media Buy Information To Interpret Survey Findings ............................. 4-26 

4.5.4 Use of Site Visit Data To Interpret Survey Findings ............................................ 4-27 

4.6 Parent-Child Discussions About Drugs ............................................................................ 4-28 

4.6.1 Summary of Survey Findings on Parent-Child Discussions About Drtigs ........... 4-28 

4.6.2 Use of Site Visit Data To Interpret Survey Findings ............................................ 4-28 

4.7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 4-29 

4.8 References ......................................................................................................................... 4-30 

5. Site-Level Results ............................................................................................. .......................... 5-1 

5.1 Atlanta ................................................................................................................................ 5-5 

5.1.1 Intervention ............................................................................................................. 5-5 

5.1.2 Survey Findings ..................................................................... . ................................ 5-6 

5.1.2.1 Youth ........................................................................................................ 5-7 

5.1.2.1 Teen .......................................................................................................... 5-8 

5.1,2.2 Parents ............. : ..... . .................................................................................. 5-9 

5.1.3 Community Impact .......................................................................................... • .... 5-10 

5.1.4 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 5-11 

5.2 Baltimore .......................................... . ............................................................................... 5-12 

5.2.1 Intervention ........................... ~ ................................................................ ~ .............. 5-12 

5.2.2 Survey Findings ................................ i ...... , ............................................................ 5-13 

5.2.2.1 Youth ........................................... , .......................................................... 5-14 

5.2.2.2 Teens ...................................................................................................... 5-15 

5.2.2.3 Parents .................................................................................................... 5-16 

5.2.3 Community Impact ............................................................................................... 5-16 

5.2.4 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 5-16 

5.3 Boise .............................. i ...................... i ............................ , .............................................. 5-18 

5.3.1 Intervention ........................................................................................................... 5-18 

5.3.2 Survey Findings .................................................................................................... 5-19 

Office of National Drug Control Policy vii 

J 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.3.2.1 Youth ...................................................................................................... 5-20 

5.3.2.2 Teens ...................................................................................................... 5-21 

5.3.2.3 Parents ... ................................................................................................. 5-22 

5.3.3 Community Impact ............................................................................................... 5-23 

5.3.4 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 5-23 

5.4 Denver ............................................................................................................................... 5-25 

5.4.1 Intervention ........................................................................................................... 5-25 

5.4.2 Survey Findings .................................................................................................... 5-26 

5.4.2.1 Youth ...................................................................................................... 5-27 

5.4.2.2 Teens ...................................................................................................... 5-28 

5.4.2.3 Parents .................................................................................................... 5-29 

5.4.3 Community Impact ............................................................................................... 5-30 

5.4.4 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 5-30 

5.5 Hartford ................................................................................................. : ........................... 5-32 

5.5.1 Intervention ........................................................................................................... 5-32 

5.5.2 Survey Findings .................................................................................................... 5-33 

5.5.2.1 Youth .............................. , ....................................................................... 5-34 

5.5.2.2 Teens ...................................................................................................... 5-35 

5.5.2.3 Parents .................................................................................................... 5-36 

5.5.3 Community Impact ............................................................................................... 5-38 

5.5.4 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 5-38 

5.6 Houston ............................................................................................................................. 5-40 

5.6.1 Intervention ........................................................................................................... 5-40 

5.6.2 Survey Findings .................................................................................................... 5-41 

5.6.2.1 Youth ...................................................................................................... 5-42 

5.6.2.2 Teens ...................................................................................................... 5-42 

5.6.2.3 Parents .................................................................................................... 5-43 

5.6.3 Community Impact ............................................................................................... 5-44 

5.6.4 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 5-45 

5.7 Milwaukee ........................................................................................................................ 5-46 

5.7.1 Intervention ........................................................................................................... 5-46 

5.7.2 Survey Findings .................................................................................................... 5-47 

5.7.2.1 Youth ...................................................................................................... 5-48 

5.7.2.2 Teens ...................................................................................................... 5-49 

5.7.2.3 Parents .................................................................................................... 5-50 

5.7.3 Community Impact ............................................................................................... 5-52 

5.7.4 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 5-53 

5.8 Portland ............................................................................................................................. 5-54 

5.8.1 Intervention ........................................................................................................... 5-54 

5.8.2 Survey Findings .................................................................................................... 5-55 

5.8.2.1 Youth ...................................................................................................... 5-56 

5.8.2.2 Teens ...................................................................................................... 5-57 

5.8.2.3 Parents .................................................................................................... 5-58 

5.8.3 Community Impact ............................................................................................... 5-59 

5.8.4 Summary of Findings ............................................... ......................... ................... 5-60 

5.9 San Diego ....................... ................................................................................................... 5-61 

5.9.1 Intervention ........................................................................................................... 5-61 

5.9.2 Survey Findings .................................................................................................... 5-62 

viii Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Table of Contents 

5.9.2.1 Youth ...................................................................................................... 5-63 

5.9.2.2 Teens ...................................................................................................... 5-64 

5.9.2.3 Parents ................................ • .................................................................... 5-66 

5.9.3 Community Impact ............................................................................................... 5-67 

5.9.4 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 5-68 

5-69 5.10 Sioux City ......................................................................................................................... 

5.10.1 Intervention ........................................................................................................... 5-69 

• 5.10.2 Survey Findings ......................................... • .......................................................... 5-70 

5.10.2.1 Youth ...................................................................................................... 5-71 

5.10.2.2 Teens ...................................................................................................... 5-72 

5.10.2.3 Parents .................................................................................................... 5-73 

5.10.3 Community Impact ................................................................. • .............................. 5-74 

5.10.4 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 5-74 

5.11 Tucson ........ . ..................................................................................................................... 5-76 

5.11.1 Intervention ........................................................................................................... 5-76 

5-77 5.11.2 Survey Findings .................................................................................................... 

5.11.2.1 Youth ...................................................................................................... 5-78 

5.11.2.2 Teens ................................. • .................................................................... 5-79 

5.11.2.3 Parents ........................................................... ......................................... 5-80 

5.11.3 Community Impact ............................................................................................... 5-81 

5.11.4 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................... 5-82 

5.12 Washington, D.C ................................................................................................. : ............ 5-83 

5.12.1 Intervention ........................................................................................................... 5-83 

5.12.2 Survey Findings .................................................................................................... 5-84• 

5.12.2.1 Youth ................................... • .................................................................. 5-85 

5.12.2.2 Teens ...................................................................................................... 5-86 

5.12.2.3 Parents .................................................................................................... 5-88 

5.12.3 Community Impact ............................................................................................... 5-89 

5.12.4 Summary of Findings ..................................................................... : ..................... 5-89 

5.13 References ......................................................................................................................... 5-90 

6. Lessons Learned .................................................................................. ....................................... 6-1 

6.1 Lessons Relating to the Effectiveness of the Phase I Campaign ........................................ 6-2 

6.1.1 Lesson 1: Phase I Resulted in Increased Awareness of Anti-Drug 

Advertisements ....................................................................................................... 6-2 

6.1.2 Lesson 2: Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Phase I Ads Varied By Age 

of the Viewer .......................................................................................................... 6-3 

6.1.3 Lesson 3: Youth and Parents Did Learn Some New Facts About the Risks 

of Using Drugs ...................................................... .................................................. 6-4 

6.1.4 Lesson 4: The Media Campaign Changed Some Attitudes Towards Drug Use ..... 6-5 

6.1 ~5 Lesson 5: The Media Campaign Did Have an Impact on Target Communities ..... 6-6 

6.2 Lessons That Will Inform the National Media Campaign .................................................. 6-7 

6.2.1 Lesson 6: Inconsistent Teen Views About Marijuana Affect Their Perceptions 

6.2.2 

6.2.3 

6.3 

of Anti-Marijuana Ads .................................... • ....................................................... 6-7 

Lesson 7: Parents Are One of the Key Information Sources on Drug Use 

Dangers ................................................................................................................... 6-8 

Lesson 8: Anti-Drug Media Ads Can Be Improved ............................................... 6-9 

6.2.4 Lesson 9: Surveying Students in School Settings Is Problematic ........................ 6-10 

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 6-11 

Office of National Drug Control Policy ix 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

6.4 References ............................................................................................ ............................ 6-11 

Appendix A: Television Media Monitoring Data 

Appendix B: Youth, Teen, and Parent Surveys 

Appendix C: Weighting Procedures 

Appendix D: Analytic Approach and Statistical Testing 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 
LIST OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 1-1 

Exhibit 2-1 

Exhibit 2-2 

Exhibit 2-3 

Exhibit 2-4 

Exhibit 2-5 

Exhibit 2-6 

Exhibit 2-7 

Exhibit 2-8 

Exhibit 2-9 

Exhibit 2-10 

Exhibit 3-1 

Exhibit 3-2 

Exhibit 3-3 

Exhibit 3-4 

Exhibit 3-5 

Exhibit 3-6 

Exhibit 3-7 

Exhibit 3-8 

Exhibit 3-9 

Exhibit 3-10 

Exhibit 3-11 

Exhibit 3-12 

Exhibit 3-13 

Exhibit 3-14 

Exhibit 3-15 

Exhibit 3-16 

Exhibit 3-17 

Exhibit 3-18 

Exhibit 3-19 

Exhibit 3-20 

An Overview of Timing of Data Collection ............................................................... 1-7 

Media Campaign Phase I Target and Comparison Sites ............................................ 2-5 

Demographic Characteristics of Phase I Target and Comparison Sites ..................... 2-6 

Replacement Compariso n Sites ................................................................................. 2-9 

School Response Rates for Target and Comparison Sites I ...................................... 2-11 

Overall School Response Rates ........ ........................................................................ 2-11 

Student Response Rates ........................................................................................... 2-12 

Number of Student Respondents in Target and Comparison Sites .......................... 2-14 

Number of Schools Surveyed in Target and Comparison Sites ............................... 2-15 

Calculation of Parent Response Rates ...................................................................... 2-19 

Number of Completed Parent Interviews ................................................................. 2-20 

Increases, Due to Watching TV, in Youth Awareness of the Dangers of Drugs ....... 3-3 

Youth Sample Demographic Characteristics ............................................................. 3-5 

Responses to Youth Questionnaire in Percentages: Aggregate Target and 

Comparison Sites ....................................................................................................... 3-6 

Ad Awareness: Percentage of Youth Who Saw Specific Ads "Often". ..................... 3-9 

Youth: Significant Differences in Responses From Baseline to Followup 

Between Target and Comparison Sites, by Demographics ...................................... 3-11 

Youth's Awareness of the Risks of Drugs: Percentage Saying Drugs Are 

"Very Dangerous". ................................................................................................... 3-14 

Increases in Teens Reporting TV Commercials as a Source of Information 

About the Risks of Drugs ......................................................................................... 3-20 

Increases in Teens' Reported Level of Exposure to Anti-Drug Ads ........................ 3-20 

Teen Sample Demographic Characteristics ............................................................. 3-21 

Responses to Teen Questionnaire in Percentages: Aggregate Target and 

Comparison Sites ..................................................................................................... 3-22 

Ad Awareness: Percentage of Teens Who Saw Ads "Often". ................................. 3-25 

Teens: Significant Differences in Responses From Baseline to Followup 

Between Target and Comparison Sites, by Demographics ...................................... 3-27 

Sources of Information About Drugs: Percentage of Teens Who Said They 

Learned "a Lot" About Drugs From Specific Media ............................................... 3-31 

Increases in Parents Reporting Ads as Sources of Information 

About the Risk of Drugs ........................................................................................... 3-33 

Parent Sample Demographic Characteristics., ......................................................... 3-35 

Responses to Parent Questionnaire in Percentages: Aggregate Target and 

Comparison Sites ..................................................................................................... 3-36 

Ad Awareness: Percentage of Parents Who Saw Specific Ads "Often". ................. 3-38 

Parents: Significant Differences in Responses From Baseline to Followup 

Between Target and Comparison Sites, b.y Demographics ...................................... 3-40 

Effectiveness of Ads: Percentage of Parents Saying They "Agree a Lot" 

With the Statement .................................................................................................. 3-43 

Parents' Awareness of the Risk of Drugs: Percentage Saying There Is "Great 

Risk" in ................................................................................................................... 3-46 

Office of National Drug Control Policy xi 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 4-1 

Exhibit 4-2 

Exhibit 4-3 

Exhibit 4-4 

Exhibit 4-5 

Exhibit 4-6 

Exhibit 5-1 

Exhibit 5-2 

Exhibit 5-3 

Exhibit 5-4 

Exhibit 5-5 

Exhibit 5-6 

Exhibit 5-7 

Exhibit 5-8 

Exhibit 5-9 

Exhibit 5-10 

Exhibit 5-11 

Exhibit 5-12 

Awareness of Campaign Ads: Aggregate Youth, Teen, and Parent Data .................. 4-2 

Estimated Average GRPs for the Paid Anti-Drug Television Ads Included 

in Phase I Survey Instruments .................................................................................... 4-7 

Phase I Planned Monthly GRP Distribution for All Media Combined ...................... 4-8 

Total Estimated Purchased GRPs for Broadcast and Cable TV ................................. 4-8 

Frequency of Airing of Paid Anti-Drug Ads, by Target Site for Cable and 

Broadcast .................................................................................................................. 4-10 

Estimated Purchase GRP Delivery for Youth/Teen and Adult Television Buys ..... 4-10 

Awareness of Campaign 

Awarenesff of Campaign 

Awareness of Campaign 

Awareness 

Awareness 

Awareness 

Awareness 

Awareness 

Awareness 

Awareness 

Awareness 

Awareness 

of Campaign 

of Campaign 

of Campaxgn 

of Campaign 

of Campmgn 

of Campaign. 

of Campaign 

of Campaign 

of Campaign 

Ads in Atlanta/Memphis .................................................... 5-6 

Ads in Baltimore/Memphis I ............................................ 5-13 

Ads in Boise/Eugene .................. . ..................................... 5-19 

Ads in Denver/Austini : .................................................... 5-26 

Ads in Hartford/Nashville j .............................................. 5-33 

Ads in Houston/Dallas ..................................................... 5-41 

Ads in Milwaukee/Nashville ............................................ 5-47 

Ads in Portland/Eugene ~ .................................................. 5-55 

Ads in San Diego/Phoenix .......... ..................................... 5-62 

Ads in Sioux City/Duluth ........................ ......................... 5-70 

Ads in Tucson/Austin ...................................................... 5-77 

Ads in Washington, DC/Birmingham .............................. 5-84 

xii Office of National Drug Control Policy 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

INTRODUCTION 

This report presents findings from the evaluation of Phase I of the National Youth 

Anti-Drug Media Campaign (the Media Campaign) sponsored by the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). The Media Campaign is the largest and 

most comprehensive anti-drug media campaign ever undertaken by the Federal 

Government. It is further distinguished from earlier efforts because it features 

paid advertising. 

The Media Campaign is being implemented in three phases, each of which will be 

evaluated. The purpose of this report is to measure the effectiveness of the Phase I 

paid campaign, which includes 62 different interventions through television, 

radio, newspapers, and outdoor billboards. The particular focus of this report is 

the effect of the paid television advertising on awareness of anti-drug messages 

among youth, teens, parents, and other adult influencers. 

The overall communication objective for Phase I was to reach 90 percent of the 

primary target audience once per day for the first two months of the campaign, 

and then for the balance of Phase I the goal was a 90 percent reach with a 

frequency range of 4 to 7 each week. Parents and other adult influencers were to 

be the focus of 40 percent of the messages and youth aged 9 to 18 were the 

emphasis of 60 percent of the intervention, prioritized as follows: young teens 

aged 11-13, teens aged 14-18, and youth aged 9-10. 

The major findings of the evaluation are as follows: 

The findings from school- and telephone-based surveys, focus groups, and 

interviews with key informants in the target sites and comparison sites 

indicate that the paid placement of anti-drug advertisements resulted in greater 

increases in awareness of anti-drug ads in target sites than in the comparison 

sites. 

Survey findings regarding awareness of a sampling of paid anti-drug ads show 

that when all target sites collectively are compared to all comparison sites 

collectively, the target sites consistently experienced greater increases in 

levels of awareness from baseline to followup, as follows: 

For all four paid ads on the youth survey, the overall percentage 

difference between target and comparison sites from baseline to 

followup was statistically significant, and substantially so, with net 

differences that ranged from 11 to 26 percent. 

Four of the six paid ads on the teen survey showed statistically 

significant differences in the net percentage change. The overall 

percentage difference between target and comparison sites from 

baseline to followup ranged from 12 to 27 percent for three of the 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-1 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

ads; the overall percentage difference for the fourth ad was a 

modest 6 percent, which may not be considered significant in a 

practical sense. 

- Four of the five paid ads on the parent survey showed overall 

percentage differences between target and comparison sites that 

were statistically significant. Only one of the ads, however, 

showed a net percentage change that might be considered 

significant in a practical sense (10 percent); the net percentage 

change for the others was relatively small, at 4 and 5 percent. 

• Again looking at target and comparison sites in the aggregate, media 

monitoring and survey data, supported by media buying plan data, show that 

the number of times an ad was shown and the time it was shown are correlated 

to audience level of awareness of the ad (i.e., the greater the number of times 

shown and the more often it was shown during the prime viewing hours of its 

intended audience, the greater the level of awareness). 

• Site-specific data clearly show that when an ad was purchased in some sites 

but not in others, the level of awareness of the ad was consistently greater in 

the sites where the ad was purchased as opposed to being broadcast as a PSA. 

• Survey data also show that paid advertising was .an effective way to reach 

youth, teens, and parents. For youth, Exhibit 1 illustrates the increase in the 

Exhibit 1 

Increases, Due to Watching TV Ads, in Youth Awareness of the Dangers of Drugs 

O) 

.o 

O) 

El. 

100, 

80. 

60,~ 

40" 

20' -- 

O" -- 

80 

75 

Target Comparison 

[] Baseline I 

• Followup 

Agreed that "TV ads or commercials make you more aware of how 

dangerous drugs are."* 

*Significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison 

sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

E-2 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Executive Summary 

percentage of youth in target sites who agreed that television ads made them 

more aware of how dangerous drugs are. For teens, Exhibit 2 presents the 

increase in the percentage who agreed they learned "a lot" about the risks of 

drugs from TV commercials and Exhibit 3 shows the increase in the 

percentage of teens who reported seeing or hearing ads about the risks of 

drugs every day or almost every day. For parents, Exhibit 4 illustrates the 

increase in the percentage who strongly agreed that the anti-drug commercials 

made them more aware of the risks of using drugs, those who strongly agreed 

that the anti-drug commercials gave them new information or told them things 

they didn't know about drugs, and those who strongly agreed that the antidrug commercials made them more aware that America's drug problem is 

something all families should be concerned about. 

From baseline to followup, parents in target sites showed increases in 

perceptions of the risk of their children regularly using marijuana, 

cocaine/crack, heroin, inhalants, and methamphetamines as well as trying 

inhalants, methamphetamines, heroin and cocaine/crack. In comparison sites, 

the percentages of parents who perceived these drugs to be of risk to their 

children decreased or remained the same. Although the differences were not 

great, the net difference between target and comparison sites was statistically 

significant. The changes are illustrated graphically in Exhibit 5. 

The Media Campaign Design 

After more than a decade of steady decline in the reported use of drugs by 

teenagers, from 1992 to 1996 national survey data (Monitoring the Future) 

showed an increase in drug use by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders and a 

corresponding steady decrease in their disapproval of drug use and perception of 

the risk of drug use. The 1996 Monitoring the Future study found that more than 

half of all high school students use illicit drugs by the time they graduate, and 

more than 20 percent of youth surveyed reported using marijuana in the past 

month..., 

In i997, the number one goal of The National Drug Control Strategy became to 

"Educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and 

tobacco." The second objective in support of that goal is "Pursue a vigorous 

adve~ising and public Communications program dealing with the dangers of drug, 

alcohol, and tobacco use by youth." The President's drug control budget for FY 

1998 included proposed funding for the Media Campaign, which received 

bipartisan support in Congress for "a national media campaign to reduce and 

prevent drug use among young Americans." 

Planning for the Media Campaign began in early 1997. ONDCP initiated a 

collaboration with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA), who would 

provide the creative advertising for the Media Campaign through their existing 

pro bono relationship with leading American advertising companies. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-3 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 2 

Increases in Teens Reporting TV Commercials as a Source of Information 

About the Risks of Drugs 

30 

cI._ 

O. 

25. 

2O 

20 

15-- 

10-- 

5-- 

0. 

25 

23 

Target Comparison 

[] Baseline 

• Followup J 

Agreed they learned "a lot" about the risks of drugs from TV 

commercials.* 

*Significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison 

sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

Exhibit 3 

Increases in Teens' Reported Level of Exposure to Anti-Drug Ads 

35 

30 

25 

c- 20 

"- 15 

a. 

10 

24 

31 

--22 20 

Target Comparison 

[] Baseline 

• Followup 

Percentage reporting the "frequency of seeing or hearing commercials 

or ads telling them about drugs every day or almost every day 

significantly increased."* 

*Significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison 

sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

E-4 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
o 

_=4. 

O 

o 

Z 

o 

E~ 

2 (Q 

O 

o 

"o 

9. 

m 

Crl 

Exhibit 4 

Effectiveness of Ads: Percentage of Parents Saying They "Agree a Lot" With the Statement... 

100 

80 

Him Baseline @~ Followup 

.= 

60 

40 

20 

7O 

Target Comparison 

Ads "made you more aware 

that America's drug problem 

is something that all families 

should be concerned about" * 

3O 

~i ii ....... 24 

~. ~ ~ 

Target Comparison 

Ads have "given you new 

information or told you things 

you didn't know about drugs" * 

51 

Target Comparison 

Ads "made you more 

aware of the risks 

of using drugs" * 

Note: Percentages are weighted. 

*Indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

=. 

U~ 

=,- 

3 3 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 5 

Parents' Awareness of the Risk of Drugs: 

Percentage Saying There Is "Great Risk" in... 

100 

Using Drugs Regularly 

~~ ~ "Baseline "Foll°wup I 

60 

Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison 

Marijuana ** Cocaine/Crack ** Inhalants ~ Methamphetamines * Heroin * 

100 

Trying Drugs Once or Twice 

89 88 90 90 90 87 .... 86 ........ 88 

..... ~;~i 85 86 . ~:. 

80 ~i~ 1: ~ ~~i~l~i~~ ~" ~'~': *'~" " ~'~ 81 • ~ !~ ; ....... ~. 

: " " .: i~ ~ ~ ::~- 

:~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~!~' . " I~ L~74~~I~I amBasehne ~FoUowuPl 

~60 ~5 5~ .~ "~i~ ~ ~ ®i1 ~. ~ ~ 

• 5', ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~l'~ii ~i 

t I 

Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison 

Marijuana Cocaine~Crack * Inhalants * Methamphetamines * Heroin * 

Note: Percentages are weighted. Parent Question # 

*Indicates significant difference in chang e from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

**Indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 90% confidence level. 

E-6 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Executive Summary 

The Media Campaign has three goals: 

• Educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs; 

• Prevent youth from initiating use of drugs, especially marijuana and inhalants; 

and 

• Convince occasional users of these and other drugs to stop using drugs. 

Through realistic portrayals, the Media Campaign is designed to show the harmful 

effects of drugs and the benefits of a drug-free lifestyle, "denormalize" drug use 

by reminding people that most youth do not use drugs, and empower parents with 

information and strategies to prevent their children from using drugs. The Media 

Campaign is designed to reach five target groups: youth, ages 9-10 (13% of the 

Medi a Campaign effort); youth, ages 11-13 (25%); youth, ages 14-18 years 

(12%); parents (40%); and other influential adults (10%). 

The Media Campaign is being implemented in three phases: 

Phase I was a 26-week pilot test that ran from January through June 1998 in 

12 metropolitan areas across the country. Because the timeframe for launching 

the first phase did not allow the development of new advertisements, 

television, radio, outdoor and newspaper advertisements that had alreadybeen 

produced by PDFA were used and were placed in paid spots, with a pro bono 

match requirement. Television advertising included both broadcast and local 

cable stations as well as in-school Channel One. Television and radio were 

the primary vehicles for reaching youth and teens, and television, radio, and 

newspapers were used to reach adults. 

• Phase H was the initial nationwide advertising, or "validation" phase. It began 

in July 1998 and ran through December 1998. Expanded to a national 

audience, Phase II included paid television, radio, newspaper, print, Internet, 

and outdoor advertising; television advertising included both broadcast and 

selected cable networks. 

Phase III will mark full implementation of the Media Campaign. It will start 

in 1999 and run for four years. Phase III will disseminate new advertisements 

developed specifically for the Media Campaign and that meet campaign 

strategy objectives. A key feature of the Phase III effort is to build 

partnerships with community-based and national anti-drug groups, local and 

State governments, industry, private businesses, and professional sports teams. 

For the most part, those partners will play various non-advertising roles. 

Strategy for Evaluation of the Media Campaign 

The effectiveness of each phase of the Media Campaign will be measured by an 

impact evaluation. The evaluations are being conducted within the broader 

context of the Performance Measures of Effectiveness: A System for Assessing the 

Performance of the National Drug Control Strategy, published in 1998 by 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-7 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

ONDCP. Under the Performance Measures of Effectiveness system two "Impact 

Targets" have been established for reaching the goal of educating and enabling 

America's youthto reject illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco: 

Use of iUegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco by youth: By 2002, reduce the 

prevalence of past-month use of illegal drugs and alcohol among youth by 20 

percent as measured against the 1996 base year. By 2007, reduce this 

prevalence by 50 percent as compared to the base year. Reduce tobacco use by 

youth by 25 percent by 2002 and 55 percent by 2007. 

Initial age of drug use in youth: By 2002, increase the average age for firsttime drug use by 12 months from the average age of first-time use in 1996. By 

2007, increase the average age of first-time drug use by 36 months from the 

1996 base year. 

In addition, two "Performance Targets" have been established specifically to 

measure the effectiveness of the Media Campaign: 

Youth risk perceptions: By 2002, increase to 80 the percent of youth who 

perceive that regular use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco is harmful, and 

maintain this rate through 2007. 

Youth disapproval: By 2002, increase to 95 the percent of yonth who 

disapprove of illegal drug, alcohol, and tobacco use and maintain this rate 

through 2007. 

Consistent with the Media Campaign focus on drugs, the impact evaluations will 

focus on use of illegal drugs, initial age of drug use, and youth risk perceptions 

and disapproval of drugs. 

At the start of the Media Campaign, ONDCP expected to detect measurable 

changes in ad awareness within a few months of the start of the 6-month Phase I 

Pilot Test. Other measurable changes were expected to take much longer. For 

example, change in perceptions and attitudes about drugs were not expected to 

occur for another 1 to 2 years, and changes in drug use itself, not for another 2 to 

3 years. 

Because of the short time periods (approximately 6 months each) of Phases I 

and II, the evaluations of those phases focus on change in awareness of the Media 

Campaign. Expected changes in perceptions and attitudes about drug use, and 

expected changes in behavior, are to be measured in the Phase III evaluation. 

Implementation of Phase I 

ONDCP began implementation of the Media Campaign in January 1998. The key 

features of Phase I were as follows: 

E-8 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Executive Summary 

The Campaign was conducted in 12 metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Baltimore, 

Boise, Denver, Hartford, Houston, Milwaukee; Portland (Oregon), San Diego, 

Sioux City, Tucson, and Washington, D.C.; 

Sites were selected on the basis of geographic representation within the 

United States, population size, demographic representation, and the types of 

drugs prevalent in each community; 

The Campaign used advertisements that had already been produced by PFDA, 

but instead of presenting them as public service announcements, the 

Campaign purchased time slots for television and radio ads to ensure that the 

ads reached their target audiences; television advertising included both 

broadcast and major cable networks; 

Selected to be appropriate for child, teen, or adult audiences, the paid 

advertisements were scheduled to be broadcast during peak viewing/air time 

for each of the target audiences (i.e. youth, teens, and adults); the objective 

was to reach 90 percent of each target audience with an average of four 

exposures per week; 

Advertisements emphasized prevention of entry-level drug use (marijuana and 

inhalants) in all target sites and focused on local epidemics of heroin, cocaine, 

and methamphetamine use, where appropriate; 

In sites with substantial Hispanic populations (Denver, Hartford, Houston, San 

Diego, Tucson, and Washington, D.C.), some advertisements were broadcast 

in Spanish as well as in English; 

• Stations were required to provide pro bono, one-to-one matching time for 

other approved public service announcements or in-kind programming; 

• Advertisements with a pro bono match requirement were also purchased in 

newspapers; and 

• Two outdoor billboard advertisements were also purchased in each target site. 

The Media Campaign was kicked off in each target site by the Director or another 

senior representative of ONDCP, typically with the area congressional 

representative and local community leaders, and ran from January through June. 

The paid advertisements for each target site during Phase I are presented in a 

matrix format in Appendix A. Of 62 paid advertisements, 30 were shown on 

television (6 for elementary school children, 15 for teens, and 8 for parents), 17 

were broadcast on radio, 13 were printed in newspapers, and 2 were displayed as 

outdoor billboards. As shown in the matrix, the mix of specific paid ads varied by 

site; i.e., not all ads were purchased in all sites. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-9 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Evaluation of Phase I 

To measure the impact of Phase I of the Media Campaign, the 12 target sites were 

matched with 12 comparison sites: Memphis, Richmond, Eugene, Albuquerque, 

Harrisburg, Dallas, Nashville, Spokane, Phoenix, Duluth, Austin, and 

Birmingham. Identical data collection was conducted in all 24 sites to allow 

comparative analysis. (Exceptions are noted in Chapter 2.) 

The evaluation included three components: 

A quantitative component, consisting of in-school surveys of 4th through 6th 

and 7th through 12th graders, and a telephone survey of parents with children 

18 or younger (surveys were provided in Spanish when appropriate); 

A qualitative component, in which site visits were made to conduct focus 

groups with members of the target audiences (elementary, middle, and high 

school youth, parents) and to conduct interviews with key informants in 

communities (e.g., prevention and treatment specialists, community coalition 

members, law enforcement representatives, members of the clergy); and 

• Media monitoring, in which the level of anti-drug advertising on television 

was measured. 

Surveys, focus groups, and interviews were conducted in both center-city and 

non-center-city locales in each of the 24 sites. Surveys were conducted in all 

24 metropolitan areas at baseline (prior to and at the beginning of the Media 

Campaign, from November 1997 through February 1998) and at followup (near 

the end of Phase I in May and June t998). Respondents were asked about their 

awareness of anti-drug ads in the media and about their perceptions, attitudes, and 

behaviors with regard to drug use. Site visits were conducted at three points in 

time: baseline (November 1997-January 1998); intermediate (approximately 

12 weeks after the baseline visit to each respective site); and follow up (MayJune 1998). Media monitoring was conducted continuously from October 1997 

through June 1998 (i.e., prior to and throughout the Phase I Media Campaign). 

ONDCP did not purchase advertising in the comparison sites; any exposure to 

anti-drug advertising in the comparison sites was expected to come only from 

public service announcements. The evaluation of Phase I of the Media Campaign 

was designed to determine if there were changes in awareness of the anti-drug ads 

(and, to the extent possible, changes in attitudes toward drugs) resulting from 

exposure to paid anti-drug messages, compared with changes resulting from 

exposure to free public service messages on local radio and TV stations. 

In both target and comparison sites, however, youth and parents may have been 

exposed to other advertisements and other information campaigns that were 

conducted in their communities. The evaluation makes every effort to distinguish 

between effects resulting from the Media Campaign and those resulting from 

other public information and education campaigns in the communities studied. 

E-IO Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Executive Summary 

For this Phase I Final Report, the focus is on change in awareness as measured by 

student and parent survey data, using site visit and media monitoring data to help 

explain and interpret analysis of the quantitative survey data. 

METHODOLOGICAL SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS 

The following methodological considerations have a direct bearing on the 

findings of this evaluation: 

Selection of comparison sites--Each target site was paired with a comparison 

site that had similar population characteristics, to the extent possible, and was 

located in a relatively similar geographic region. Sometimes a "perfect" match 

between a target site and its comparison was difficult, and a city defined as a 

large MSA (i.e., population over 500,000) was paired with a site that was a 

medium MSA (i.e., population between 200,000 and 500,000). This was done 

only when there were other characteristics (e.g., geographic location, 

proportion of ethnic groups) that made the two MSAs well suited as paired 

sites. 

Some sites not used as comparisons for the two student samples--The original 

site selections were maintained for the parent sample, and parent data were 

collected in all 24 sites. These original sites also were maintained for the 

qualitative data collected through site visits. However, for the student 

samples, in-school survey data were not collected in Albuquerque, Spokane, 

center city Richmond, and Harrisburg (all comparison sites) because school 

districts declined to participate in the study. In-school survey data also were 

not collected in center-city Tucson (a target site) for the same reason. In the 

aggregate data analysis, student survey data for the 12 target sites were 

compared with student survey data for the remaining 8 original comparison 

sites. For site-level data analysis, substitutions were made using student 

survey data and relevant media monitoring data from four other, comparable 

comparison sites (Austin, Eugene, Memphis, and Nashville, respectively). 

Survey implementation--Baseline data collection began in December 1997 

and continued through February 1998. As a phased-in intervention, the 

Phase I Media Campaign was introduced in the target sites over the second, 

third, and fourth weeks of January 1998. All baseline parent surveys were 

completed prior to the beginning of the Phase I Media Campaign. In twothirds of the target sites, the majority of baseline school surveys were 

completed before the Phase I Media Campaign began in those sites. In the 

remaining four target sites, a number of baseline school surveys were still 

being conducted after Phase I had been launched because of obstacles 

encountered in gaining clearance into the schools. 

Student samples--In-school student samples were drawn from the universe of 

all public schools in the designated test and comparison market areas. The 

students interviewed at followup were not the same as the ones interviewed 

for baseline data. Different classrooms were used at followup in order to avoid 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-11 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

inclusion of respondents who had been predisposed to questions during 

baseline and, thus, could have been influenced if asked to provide followup 

responses. The sample consisted of all students in the selected classes who 

were present on the scheduled date of the interview. The final sample size for 

students was 18,300 at baseline, and 17,015 at followup. 

Parent sample--Student and parent samples were independent samples; that 

is, parents were not selected to be related to the youth and teen sample 

subjects. The parent sample was a completely random sample, obtained by 

using a random digit dialing technique (RDD). The resulting sample was 

demographically similar to the metro area being sampled. At least 175 parents 

were interviewed in each of the 24 sites at baseline and again at followup, 

using questions similar to those posed to youth. The pre-test and post-test 

samples were independent (i.e., the same individuals were not re-interviewed). 

Overall, data were collected at baseline on 2,200 parents from target sites and 

2,114 parents from comparison sites and, at followup, on 2,105 parents from 

target sites and 2,106 parents from comparison sites. 

Survey instruments--The student and parent questionnaires were developed 

from existing survey instruments used in studies to assess responses to various 

campaigns of the Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA) and from the 

Monitoring the Future Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug 

Abuse. Because the paid advertisements used in the Phase I ONDCP 

Campaign were developed by PDFA, these surveys were appropriate data 

collection tools but were modified significantly in order to adequately 

measure the goals of the Phase I Campaign. (See Appendix B for copies of the 

in-school and parent survey instruments and the guide that shows the different 

studies from which the survey questions were drawn.) 

Focus groups--Focus groups were not intended to be a nationally 

representative sample of youth, teens, and parents, but were selected as groups 

that reflected their communities. Eight focus groups were conducted at each 

site during the baseline, intermediate, and followup site. Groups comprised 

elementary grade youth (4th, 5th, and 6th graders), youth and teens in middle 

school (grades 7, 8, and 9), 10th-12th grade teens, and parents. Focus groups 

were held in the center city area as well as in a non-center city area. In order 

to avoid having any youth, teens, or parents who were already predisposed to 

questions about drugs and the media, none of the participants in the baseline 

focus groups were recruited for participation in focus groups conducted during 

intermediate or follow-up site visits. However, the researchers maintained 

continuity in terms of the particular area of the site included for the focus 

groups. For example, if a particular suburb was selected for all of the youth, 

teen, and parent nonurban focus groups at baseline, that same suburb was used 

again for the intermediate site visits. Across all site visits, focus group data 

reflect discussions with approximately 576 different focus groups, comprising 

more than 4,600 youth, teen, and parent participants. 

Key hzformant interviews--The purpose of the key informant interviews was 

to provide important information on levels of community awareness of the 

E-12 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Executive Summary 

problems and dangers of drugs; attitudes towards drug use; and information 

on drug-related events and prevention activities in the community; and on 

already existing levels of community"anti-drug commercials in the media,. 

This information was collected at the baseline, intermediate, and followup site 

visits, and was used to account for and gauge campaign-related and nonrelated changes, so that the true effectiveness of the campaign could be 

accurately measured. Over the course of all site visits, approximately 

1,800 interviews were conducted with key community informants. 

Media monitoring--During Phase I of the Media Campaign, paid and unpaid 

anti-drug television advertisements that appeared in target and comparison 

sites were tracked during the 3 months (October-December 1997) preceding 

the Media Campaign (the baseline period) and, for purposes of analysis, 

during 5 months (January-May 1998) of the Phase I intervention period. 

Radio, billboard, and newspaper advertising of Media Campaign ads were not 

monitored. Data were collected across several variables: the number of ads 

that aired, the parts of the day when the ads were shown, the types of drugs 

that the ads targeted, and the sponsors of the ads. Anti-drug ads that aired on 

affiliates of the three major national television networks (ABC, CBS, and 

NBC), national cable WBN (Time-Warner cable), FOX, TBS, UPN, IND, and 

Univision and Telemundo (Spanish-language cable) were tracked in the target 

and comparison sites. The television monitoring service was unable to collect 

data on ads airing on several local cable stations, including MTV and 

Nickelodeon, or on in-school Channel One. 

Not all sites could be monitored--Media monitoring is possible only in the 

75 largest television markets nationally. Of the 24 evaluation sites, 19 are 

included in the top 75 television markets. The following five communities 

were not electronically monitored: Boise, Sioux City, Tucson, Eugene, and 

Duluth. 

Statistically significantfindings--The survey results presented in this report 

highlight statistically significant findings (a complete compilation of all 

survey data appears in the tables contained in the separately bound appendix 

volume that accompanies this report). Although we present all statistically 

significant results, the fact that estimates of change are found to be 

significantly different does not necessarily imply that the difference is large or 

meaningful in a practical sense. However, statistical significance is important 

in itself because it means that one can conclude, with a small risk of error, that 

the new estimates would not be different from the old estimates if the~survey 

were replicated with different samples drawn from the same population, using 

the same sampling procedures. That is, the differences cannot be attributed 

solely to sampling error. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-13 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

EVALUATION RESULTS REGARDING AWARENESS OF SPECIFIC 

ADS 

For each of the three samples included in the evaluation (youth, teens, parents), 

survey respondents were asked about their awareness of only a sampling of all 

paid television advertisements that were part of the Media Campaign. Youth were 

surveyed about four paid television ads: Drowning, Girlfriend, Long Way Home, 

and Noses. Teens were surveyed about six ads: 911, Alex Straight A ' s, Free Ride, 

Frying Pan, Layla, and Rite of Passage. The teen survey in Portland included 

911, Alex Straight A "s, and Frying Pan, but three music-oriented ads that were 

specially purchased in Portland (Everclear, Lauryn Hill, and Sublime) were 

substituted for the others. Parents responded to questions regarding Burbs, Deal, 

Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose. The main findings of this study 

pertain to awareness of these Media Campaign paid ads. The ads in the survey 

questionnaires were not necessarily those that aired with the greatest frequency or 

reach, as measured by media monitoring and indicated by GRP data. 

Youth 

During the Phase I Media Campaign, the percentage of youth who answered 

"yes" when asked if they had seen anti-drug ads on TV increased substantially 

between baseline and followup in target sites, but remained virtually unchanged in 

the comparison sites. For all four paid ads included on the youth survey--Long 

Way Home, Girlfriend, Noses, and Drowning--these increases were statistically 

significant. Differences between target and comparison sites are presented in 

Exhibit 6. 

Long Way Home was shown as a paid ad in all 12 target sites. 

In the aggregate, 68 percent of youth in target sites recalled seeing this ad at 

followup, compared with 43 percent at baseline. Recognition in the aggregate 

comparison sites decreased slightly, from 41 to 40 percent, for a net difference 

of 26 percent. The increase from baseline to followup in the target sites was 

58 percent. 

In the individual target sites, level of awareness at followup ranged from a 

high of 78 percent in Atlanta, where Long Way Home was shown an average 

of 22.4 times per month, to a low of 59 percent in Milwaukee, where the ad 

was shown an average of 12.2 times per month. (Estimates of purchased 

delivery of ads indicate Long Way Home was shown as a paid ad 40 times in 

Atlanta and 31 times in Milwaukee). Percent change in awareness ranged 

from a 7 percent increase in Houston (from 72 to 77%) to a 127 percent 

increase in Tucson (30 to 68%). 

Girlfriend was shown as a paid ad in seven sites. 

E-14 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Exhibit 6 

Ad Awareness: Percentage of Youth Who Saw Specific Ads "Often" 

100 

80 

.= 

60 

40 

20 

68 

51 

l iBaseline ~Followup 

44 43 

Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison 

Noses 1. Long Way Home * Drowning * Girlfriend * 

Note: Percentages are weighted.Youth Question 7. 

*Indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

1This Specific ad had the highest average GRPs across sites. 

m 

x 

o 

< 

== 

i 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

In the aggregate (i.e., all sites), 43 percent of youth in target sites recalled 

seeing this ad at followup, compared with 28 percent at baseline, a 54 percent 

increase. In comparison sites, youth who reported seeing the ad decreased 

from 29 to 27 percent, resulting in a net difference of 18 percent between 

target and comparison sites. 

In the seven sites where Girlfriend was shown as a paid ad, awareness at 

followup ranged from 65 percent in Atlanta to 42 percent in Hartford. In 

Atlanta, Girlfriend was shown an average of 17 times per month, 62 percent 

of the time during prime viewing hours for youth. 

In the five sites where Girlfriend was not shown as a paid ad, recall at 

followup ranged from a high of 34 percent in Denver to 23 percent in Boise. 

The difference at followup between Denver and Hartford is noteworthy 

because recall at baseline in both sites was 22 percent. Media monitoring data 

indicate the ad was not shown in Denver during Phase I, but was broadcast an 

average of 8.2 times per month in Hartford. 

Noses, an anti-inhalant ad, was shown as a paid spot in eight sites, including four 

with both English and Spanish versions. 

In the aggregate, 51 percent of youth in target sites recalled seeing this ad at 

followup, compared with 39 percent at baseline, a 31 percent increase. In all 

comparison sites, the percentage of youth who reported seeing the ad 

increased only slightly, from 36 to 37. The net difference between target and 

comparison sites was 11 percent. 

In the eight sites where Noses was broadcast as a paid ad, awareness at 

followup was substantially greater, ranging from a low of 55 percent in 

Houston to a high of 72 percent in Sioux City, where the percent increase 

from baseline to followup was also highest at 89 percent. Media monitoring 

data are not available for Sioux City; the next highest level of awareness at 

followup was 71 percent in Baltimore, where Noses was broadcast an average 

of 26.8 times per month. (Estimates of purchased delivery indicate Noses 

aired as a paid ad more frequently in Baltimore, with 80 paid spots, than in 

any other target site). The next highest percent increase from baseline to 

followup was 87 percent in Hartford, where media monitoring indicates the ad 

was broadcast an average of 27.2 times per month. 

In the four sites where Noses was not broadcast as a paid ad, recall at followup 

was highest in Denver, at 42 percent; media monitoring data reveal that Noses 

was shown an average of seven times per month in Denver as a PSA. Recall 

was lowest in Tucson, where the percentage decreased 22 percent from 

baseline to followup, from 32 to 25 percent. 

Drowning, also an anti-inhalant ad, was shown as a paid spot in eight sites, 

including three with both English and Spanish versions. 

E-16 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Executive Summary 

In all sites taken together, 44 percent of youth in target sites recalled seeing 

this ad at followup, compared with 30 percent at baseline, a percent increase 

of 47. In comparison sites, 28 percent of youth reported seeing the ad at 

baseline, with a slight increase to 29 percent at followup. The net difference 

between target and comparison sites was 16 percent. 

In the eight sites where Drowning was broadcast as a paid ad, recall at 

followup ranged from 31 percent in Portland to 67 percent in Hartford and 68 

percent in Sioux City. That is an increase of 135 percent in Hartford and 183 

percent in Sioux City. The dramatic increase in Hartford corresponds to an 

average there of 51.4 broadcasts of Drowning per month during Phase I. 

Among youth in the target sites where the ad was not purchased, recall ranged 

from a high of 35 percent in San Diego to a low of 17 percent in Boise and 

Tucson. 

Teens 

On their survey, teens were asked if they had seen six specific anti-drug 

advertisements in the past few months. Possible responses were "often," "a few 

times," and "not at all." In the analysis of teen survey data, tests of statistical 

significance were done on "often" responses, which produces a conservative 

measurement of teens' awareness of the ads. Furthermore, 4 of the 6 ads were not 

purchased in all 12 target sites. As with the Youth Survey, ads included in the 

teen survey instrument were not necessarily those placed to achieve greatest reach 

and frequency, and reach and frequency varied by ad and by site. Nevertheless, 

aggregate change in awareness among teens in the target sites from baseline to 

followup was statistically significant for four of the ads when compared to teen 

responses in the comparison sites: Frying Pan, Alex Straight A 's, 911, and Rite of 

Passage. Exhibit 7 illustrates the differences in the percentage of teens who 

reported seeing the ads "often." 

Frying Pan was shown as a paid ad in all 12 sites during Phase I of the Media 

Campaign, after not having been broadcast during the baseline period. 

In the aggregate, 49 percent of teens in target sites recalled seeing this ad 

"often" at followup, compared with 22 percent at baseline, a percent change of 

123 percent. In comparison sites 16 percent of teens reported this level of 

recall at both baseline and followup, resulting in a significant difference of 

27 percent between target and comparison sites. 

The difference between target and comparison sites was statistically 

significant for 10 of the 12 individual target sites. "Often" responses ranged 

from 68 percent in Baltimore (up from 22 percent, a change of 209 percent) to 

a low of 34 percent in Portland. In Baltimore, Frying Pan was broadcast an 

average of 30.8 times per month, or once per day. The greatest percent 

increase was found in Denver, at 327 percent (from 11 to 47 %), followed 

closely by Hartford at 313 percent (from 16 to 66 %). 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-17 
i'rl | .--L 

(30 

O 

C) 

O -.h 

z 

O 

E3 

(12 

C) 

O 

"13 O ~° 

,< 

Exhibit 7 

Ad Awareness: Percentage of Teens Who Saw Ads "Often" 

100 

80 

60 

I Ira Baseline ~ Followup J 

,id 

C 

G 

40 

49 

26 

~ 23 

20 16 

0 '~" ' 

Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Compad,so~ Target Comparison 

Alex Straight A's * Frying Pan * 911 * Layla Free Ride Rite of Passage * 

Note: Percentages are weighted. Teen Question 9. 

*Indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 
Executive Summary 

On average, Frying Pan achieved the highest number of gross rating points (a 

proxy of reach and frequency) of any of the paid ads included in the survey 

instrument. 

Alex Straight A 's was also shown as a paid ad in all 12 sites, after not having 

been broadcast during the baseline period. 

In the aggregate, 26 percent of teens in target sites recalled seeing this ad 

"often" at followup, compared with 9 percent at baseline, a percent change of 

189 percent. In comparison sites the percentage of teens who recalled the ad at 

this level was unchanged from baseline to followup, at 7 percent, resulting in 

a significant difference of 16 percent between target and comparison sites. 

In the individual sites, "often" responses at followup were as high as 

38 percent in Sioux City (up from 4 percent, or an increase of 850 percent) 

and as low as 13 percent in Milwaukee. Nine of the 12 target sites had percent 

increases from baseline to followup greater than 100 percent. Media 

monitoring data indicate Hartford broadcast the ad most frequently, at 23.8 

times per month, and four sites broadcast the ad during prime viewing hours 

for teens more than 70 percent of the time. 

911, an anti-methamphetamine ad, was shown as a paid ad in six sites. 

The level of recognition of this ad in the six sites where it was shown was 

powerful enough to make it statistically significant at the aggregate level. In 

the aggregate, 23 percent of teens in target recalled seeing this ad "often" at 

followup, compared with 11 percent at baseline, a 109 percent change. In 

comparison sites this level of recognition increased only from 8 to 9 percent, 

resulting in the significant difference (12 percent) between target and 

comparison sites. 

In the six sites where 911 was shown as a paid ad, "often" responses at 

followup ranged from a low of 27 percent in Milwaukee to a high of 

62 percent in Sioux City. The percent increase in Sioux City was lowest of the 

six sites, at 72 percent (up from 36%); increases in the other sites ranged from 

145 percent in Milwaukee to 1,045 percent in Tucson (from 4 to 45%). Media 

monitoring data are available for only three of the six sites, where the average 

number of broadcasts of the ad were 8.2, 10.2, and 10.8. 

The contrast with the six sites where the ad aired only as a PSA is dramatic, 

with "often" responses at followup ranging from 9 percent to a low of 3 

percent. 

Rite of Passage was shown as a paid ad in five sites, in both English and Spanish. 

In the aggregate, 14 percent of teens in target sites recalled seeing this ad 

"often" at followup, compared with 9 percent at baseline, a percent increase of 

56. In comparison sites, this level of recall decreased slightly, from 9 to 

8 percent, resulting in a significant difference between target and comparison 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-19 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

sites. The modest difference of 6 percent may not be significant in a practical 

sense. 

Q 

In the five sites where Rite of Passage was shown as a paid ad, "often" 

responses at followup ranged from 15 percent in Tucson to 29 percent in 

Denver. The percent increase was lowest in Tucson, at 67 percent (up from 

9%), and highest in Denver, at 314 percent (up frorr! 7%). Media monitoring 

data indicate the ad was shown most frequently in Houston, at an average of 

15.6 times per month. It was shown only 6.2 times per month in Denver, but 

almost always (96.8%) during prime viewing hours for. teens. 

In the remaining seven sites, where the ad was not shown, "often" responses 

at followup ranged from 6 to 12 percent. 

Layla was scheduled to air as a paid ad in ten target sites, but GRP data from the 

post-buy data indicate the ad did not air in two of those sites, Portland and 

Milwaukee. Hence, Layla aired as a paid ad in eight sites. 

In the aggregate, 16 percent of teens in target sites recalled seeing this ad 

"often" at followup, compared with 12 percent at baseline, a percent increase 

of 33. In comparison sites, the change in the level of "often" responses was 

from 11 to 12 percent. The difference between target and comparison sites 

was not statistically significant. 

In the eight sites where Layla was broadcast as a paid ad, "often" responses at 

followup ranged from 9 percent in Boise to 24 percent in the District of 

Columbia (where, according to post-buy data, it aired as a paid ad 63 times for 

a total of 330.89 GRPs). Percent increases ranged from 0 in Houston (17% at 

baseline and followup) to 175 percent in Denver (from 8 to 22 %). Only two 

of the target sites--Denver and Sioux City--showe d a significant difference 

from their comparison sites in the change in the !ev¢l of "often" responses. 

Free Ride was shown as a paid ad in four sites. 

In the aggregate, 10 percent of teens in target sites recalled seeing Free Ride 

"often" at followup, compared with 7 percen t a t basel!.ne, a percent change of 

43 percent. In comparison sites, no change occurred between baseline and 

followup, with "often" responses remaining constant at 8 percent. The 

difference between target and comparison sites was not statistically 

significant. 

In three of the four sites where Free Ride was broadcast as a paid ad, "often" 

responses at followup were appreciably higher, at 18, 19, and 20 percent. The 

20 percent response (a 100% increase) came in Atlanta, where the ad was 

shown most frequently, at a rate of 13.6 times per month. Conversely, at the 

fourth site, where "often" responses were lowest (10% at followup), the ad 

was shown an average of only 3.4 times per month. The explanation for the 

increase in •Atlanta is reinforced by media buy data, which indicate that 

E-20 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Executive Summary 

Atlanta had the second highest GRPs (238) among sites where the ad aired 

and that it was broadcast as a paid ad 40 times. 

Parents 

As with teens, parents were offered three responses to whether they had seen five 

paid advertisements targeted at them: "often," "a few times," and "not at all." As 

with teens, the conservative approach of computing statistical significance of 

"often" responses was taken to measure parent awareness of the ads. Although 

two of the five parent advertisements were not shown as paid ads in all sites, four 

ads elicited statistically significant change: Girl Interview, O'Connor, Burbs, and 

Under Your Nose. Media buying plan data indicate that in the target sites overall, 

parents were exposed to anti-drug ads targeting youth and teens more frequently 

than to ads targeting parents, which may help explain the awareness findings. 

Exhibit 8 illustrates the differences between target and comparison sites. 

GirlInterview was shown as a paid ad in all 12 target sites. 

In the aggregate, 16 percent of parents in target sites recalled seeing this ad 

"often" at followup, compared with 5 percent at baseline, an increase of 

11 percentage points and a 220 percent change. In comparison sites only 

4 percent of parents reported seeing the ad at followup, up from 3 percent, 

yielding a statistically significant difference (10 percent) between target and 

comparison sites. 

In the individual sites, "often" responses at followup ranged from 7 percent in 

Houston (up from 3 percent) to 39 percent in Sioux City (up from 22 percent). 

Sioux City was the only target site where "often" responses at baseline were 

higher than 10 percent. Concomitantly, 10 of 12 target sites showed percent 

increases from baseline to followup over 100 percent, with the highest change 

coming in Boise, at 1100 percent. 

O'Connor was also shown as a paid ad in all 12 target sites. 

In the aggregate, 27 percent of parents in target sites recalled seeing this ad 

"often" at followup, compared with 20 percent at baseline, a percent increase 

of 35 percent. In comparison sites, the increase from baseline to followup was 

smaller, from 15 to 18 percent, resulting in a statistically significant difference 

between target and comparison sites. The net difference of 4 percent may not 

be considered significant in a practical sense. 

In the individual target sites, "often" responses at followup ranged from 17 to 

52 percent. The 52 percent response came in Boise, where media monitoring 

was not available. The next highest level of "often" responses came in 

Hartford, which also broadcast the ad most frequently (an average of 

32.6 times per month. The low, 17 percent response came in San Diego, 

where the ad was broadcast least frequently, an average of 7.8 times per 

month. The greatest percent change from baseline to followup came in 

Portland, where "often" responses increased from 10 to 20 percent (a 100% 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-21 
o 

O 

O 

Z 

~. 

o 

=_. 

2 (Q 

O 

O 

3 

6 

"lO 

9. 

m. 

o 

m 

IX) 

Exhibit 8 

Ad Awareness: Percentage of Parents Who Saw Specific Ads "Often" 

100 

80 

I iBaseline ~ Followup] 

60 

40 

27 

20 .................... .~] 

20 -- ~ ............ • 'ii ........... ~ ........... 

0 

Target Comparison Target Comparison 

23 

Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison 

O'Connor * Deal Girl Interview * Burbs UnderYour Nose ~r 

Note: Percentages are weighted. Parent Question 12. .. . 

*Indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 
Executive Summary 

increase). O'Connor was broadcast an average of 14.4 times per month in 

Portland as both a paid ad and a PSA. 

Burbs was scheduled to be shown as a paid ad in 4 sites 

In the aggregate, Burbs was shown more often during prime viewing hours for 

parents, in both target and comparison sites, than any of the other ads included 

in the survey instrument: an average of 61 times per month in target sites and 

33.8 times per month in comparison sites. 

In the aggregate, 23 percent of parents in target sites recalled seeing Burbs 

"often" at followup, compared with 15 percent at baseline, a 53 percent 

change. In comparison sites 17 percent of parents recalled seeing the ad 

"often" at followup, compared with 13 percent at baseline. The difference 

between target and comparison sites was statistically significant, but at 

4 percent may not be considered significant in a practical sense. 

In individual sites, "often" responses at followup ranged from 15 percent in 

the District of Columbia (where it was not scheduled as a paid ad) to 39 

percent in Sioux City. Again, the largest percent change occurred in Portland 

(100 percent, from 13 to 26%) where it was shown an average of 27 times per 

month. The average number of broadcasts per month for Burbs ranged from 

113.8 in Milwaukee to 36.8 in Hartford (where it was not scheduled as a paid 

ad). 

Under Your Nose, an anti-inhalant ad, was shown as a paid spot in eight sites. 

In the aggregate, 10 percent of parents in target sites had seen this ad "often" 

at followup, compared with 4 percent at baseline, an increase of 150 percent. 

In comparison sites 5 percent of parents reported seeing this ad at baseline, but 

that increased to only 6 percent at followup, resulting in a statistically 

significant difference between target and comparison sites. Again, the small 

net difference of 5 percent may not be considered significant in a practical 

sense. 

In the eight sites where Under Your Nose was shown as a paid ad, "often" 

responses at followup ranged from 9 percent in Hartford to 13 percent in San 

Diego, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. The highest percent change occurred in 

Hartford (350 percent, up from 2 %) where estimates of purchased delivery 

indicate the ad aired 22 times as a paid ad, the second highest frequency 

among the target sites. In Atlanta, which showed a 225 percent change from 

baseline to followup (up from 4%), the ad was broadcast an average of 20.4 

times per month as both a paid ad and a PSA. 

Deal was shown as a paid ad in six sites. 

Parental awareness of this ad in the aggregate increased within sites, but the 

change was not significant between target and comparison sites. In target 

sites, 21 percent of parents recalled seeing this ad "often" at followup, up 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-23 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

from 17 percent at baseline. In comparison sites, 17 percent of parents 

reported this level of recal! at followup, compared with 15 percent at baseline. 

In the six sites where Deal was shown as a paid ad, "often" responses at 

foll0wup ranged from 22 percent in Baltimore, Hartford, and Milwaukee to as 

high as 36 percent in Atlanta. The ad was shown an average of 33.4 times per 

month, or more than once per day, in Atlanta. Greatest percent increases 

occurred in the District of Columbia (221%), where the ad was shown an 

average of 28.6 times per month, and in Houston (200%), where it was shown 

an average of 23.8 times per month. Estimates of purchased delivery indicate 

the ad was scheduled to air most frequently in these two sites, and media buy 

data indicate Deal had its highest reach and frequency in the District of 

Columbia (26 times for a total of 104.34 GRPs) and the second highest 

number of paid spots (10) in Houston. 

"Often" responses decreased from baseline to followup in three of the six sites 

where Deal was not shown as a paid ad. 

LESSONS LEARNED 

Based on the analyses of the multiple data sets of the evaluation of Phase I of the 

Media Campaign, certain themes and issues repeatedly emerged. Some of the 

lessons learned support definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of the 

Phase I Campaign. Others support the formulation of recommendations that may 

inform subsequent activities and efforts to be undertaken by the national 

campaign. 

Lessons Relating to the Effectiveness of the Phase I Campaign 

Lesson 1: Phase I Resulted in Increased Awareness of Anti-Drug 

Advertisements 

The major objective of the Phase I Campaign, tested in 12 communities, was to 

increase awareness of anti-drug ads paid for by the Campaign. Comparisons of 

baseline and follow-up surveys, focus group results, and media monitoring results 

clearly indicate that both young people and parents saw or heard more anti-drug 

ads in target communities. Concentrated broadcasting of anti.-drug use 

advertisements in prime time slots produced a greater awareness of those antidrug ads. As exPected, ad awareness measures for youth, teens.and parents 

showed substantial increases from baseline to follow-up and substantial 

differences between target and comparison sites. Given this information, the 

following conclusions can be drawn about the impact of the Phase I Campaign on 

its audiences: 

• Repeated broadcasts of individual advertisements on drug use dangers raised 

viewer awareness of anti-drug ads regardless of the viewer's age; 

E-24 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Executive Summary 

• The use of paid television as a source of anti-drug information for youth and 

teens was effective in reaching these target groups; 

• Media monitoring data indicate that awareness of ads is greater when targeted 

ads are broadcast frequently and in dayparts viewed by each target audience; 

• The content of drug-specific ads was appropriately matched with the 

audiences targeted (e.g., inhalants with youth).; and 

• The campaign advertisements were shown with Sufficient repeated broadcasts 

to significantly increase viewer awareness in the target communities. 

Four recommendations are pertinent here: 

Survey questions should be expanded to include other media used (e.g., print 

ads, radio ads): survey and focus group responses indicate that non-TV ads are 

especially effective in reaching particular groups and ages. For example, teens 

surveyed in several cities said that they learn more about drug risks from radio 

than from other media, and teens in focus groups said they listen to radio more 

than they watch TV. 

Other-than-English language ads should continue to be developed in sites with 

appreciable ethnic populations; focus group transcripts document ethnic 

language groups' preferences for certain media, as well as their distinctive 

critiques of Campaign ads. 

Media monitoring data should be collected for any subsequent Media 

Campaign efforts because these data provide critical information to help 

explain why awareness is higher for certain ads; in addition, daypart 

information is important for understanding awareness of campaign ads when 

they appear in both paid spots and as PSAs. 

Data on the estimated purchased delivery of the paid ads is valuable in 

establishing correlations between increased awareness and the frequency and 

reach of the targeted ads. 

Lesson 2: Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Phase I Ads Varied By 

Age of the Viewer 

Survey results revealed that parents and youth tended to perceive ads as being 

effective, while teens found the ads to be less so. Focus group Sessions with teens 

revealed that they are influenced by their own feelings of invincibility as well as 

the impact of peer pressure. 

These findings support the following recommendations: 

• , The Phase I approach to developing targeted ads for each audience should be 

continued, and reach and frequency to adult audiences should be enhanced; 

:'i' 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-25 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Efforts should be made to further study what aspects of ads targeting teens can 

be fine-tuned or revised tO raise teens' perceptions of effectiveness. Teens' 

own 'recommendations include to develop ads with more realistic 

presentations of drug dangers; involve teens themselves in designing and 

producing ads; have persons well-known to teens (but not celebrities) as 

actors in the ads; and make the ads' settings as local and recognizable as 

possible; and 

O  ̧ Purchasing ability should allow for more targeted buying at the national level, 

allowing more precise selection of appropriate times for reaching the target 

audiences. 

Lesson 3: Youth and Parents Did Learn Some New Facts About the 

Risks of Using Drugs 

Analyses linking survey and media findings strongly suggest that increases in the 

monthly total number of ads and airing during prime viewing slots led to greater 

awareness of drug problems across age groups. Findings also indicate that 

increased frequency of drug-specific ads led to greater recognition of the risks and 

dangers associated with that drug. For example, increases in the frequency of 

inhalant ads paralleled the significantly increased percentage Of target site youth 

who viewed inhalants as life threatening as compared,to comparison site youth. 

Additionally, survey findings revealed a significant increase in the percentage of 

target site youth who reported learning about the negative aspects of drugs from 

TV ads, and the percentage of target site teens who learned this information from 

the radio, contrasted with the comparison site youth and teens. 

Likewise, parents in target sites gained new knowledge about the risks of using 

drugs, compared with parents in the comparison sites. After the Campaign had 

been in place for several months, parents in target sites reported a much higher 

level of awareness of how important it is to talk with their youngsters about the 

dangers of drug use. In addition, the consensus of parents in 9 ofthe 12 target 

sites was that the ads shown had provided a positive contribution to a wider, more 

comprehensive effort to address youth and adult drug use. SurVey results for 

parents confirm that by the end of Phase I, target site parents increased their 

perceptions of the risks posed by the use of cocaine, inhalants, heroin, and 

methamphetamines. 

• Lesson 4: The Media Campaign Changed Some Attitudes Towards 

Drug Use 

Phase I resulted in some change in attitudes that were not expected so early. 

While survey results confirm that most attitudes, across all age groups of youth, 

did not change during the period of the Phase I Media Campaign, there were a 

few findings suggesting that even this short Campaign effort has made some 

inroads to changing youth and parents' attitudes toward drug use. 

E-26 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Executive Summary 

The percentage of target site youth who believed that the use of inhalants was 

risky increased during the Campaign compared with comparison youth. By the 

end of the Campaign the percentage of youth who thought that "things you sniff 

or huff to get high can kill you", was significantly higher than before the 

Campaign, compared with those youth in communities where the Campaign was 

not in place. 

The Campaign has also achieved some modest success in changing parents' 

attitudes about drug use. For example, before the Campaign fewer parents thought 

that "America's drug problem is something that all families should be concerned 

about." After the Campaign, the percentage of parents holding this view increased 

significantly. Likewise, the percentage of parents who were "aware of the risks of 

using drugs" increased significantly by the end of the Phase I Campaign. 

Lesson 5: The Media Campaign Did Have an Impact on Target 

Communities 

While community-level efforts were not a stated goal of Phase I, in fact the Media 

Campaign did encourage local communities to mobilize their own anti-drug 

initiatives and education campaigns. Site visit data collected toward the end of the 

Campaign suggest that many such events have occurred in the 12 target 

communities since the Campaign began last year. 

Eleven of the 12 target communities reported anti-drug activities that built on the 

Campaign's momentum and were directly attributable to it. These activities 

included, for example, an increase in local hotline calls for substance abuse 

information or referral; outreach/education activities carried out by the 

organizations coordinating the Media Campaign; involvement of staff and 

students in local schools; pro-bono support from the media; presentations about 

the Media Campaign at conferences or seminars; and provision of matching funds 

for the Campaign by the business community. 

Based on these findings, we recommend that target communities should continue 

to be encouraged to use the Media Campaign as an opportunity to increase their 

involvement in many types of anti-drug initiatives. 

We also recommend that an in-depth analysis of Phase I site-level survey data be 

undertaken, to identify how youth's, teens', and parents' responses may be 

influenced by local contextual factors in the community in addition to the Media 

Campaign intervention. This analysis will help to identify the types of community 

conditions where anti-drug media messages have a stronger impact. 

Lessons That Will Inform the National Media Campaign 

Lesson 6: Inconsistent Teen Views About Marijuana Affect Their 

Perceptions of Anti-Marijuana Ads 

Survey results indicated that teens' awareness of the risk of marijuana either 

within or between the target and comparison sites remained unchanged 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-27 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

throughout the Media Campaign. Survey results also underscored the degree to 

which teens seem confused about the dangers of marijuana use. Results showed 

that many teens perceived health risks as being less important than 

social/behavioral risks. A relatively small proportion of teens thought that there 

was "great risk" in trying marijuana; however, many more thought there was 

"great risk" in using it regularly. Two-thirds also thought that marijuana users 

were at "great risk" for "getting hooked" or "going on to harder drugs." 

Approximately three quarters thought that marijuana users were at "great risk" for 

upsetting their parents. 

Focus group discussions indicated that the majority of teens view the use of 

marijuana as acceptable and as one of their drugs of choice. Teenagers, especially 

those in high school, said that they like marijuana because it is cheap, 

transportable, easy to cover up, and relaxing. Most teens disagreed with the 

statement, "I don't want to hang around anyone who uses marijuana." 

Based on this information, the following recommendations are offered: 

• Future campaign ads targeting marijuana use should be clear and precise in 

describing the effects of regular marijuana use on teens; and 

Media campaign ads targeting marijuana use by teens should also incorporate 

the following in their content: (1) the transition from casual marijuana use to 

chronic use; (2) the differences between popular misconceptions and facts on 

the physical, personal and psychological effects of marijuana use; and 3) the 

strong impact of peer influence on marijuana use. 

Further analysis of survey data should be undertaken on the relationship 

between teens' use of marijuana and their awareness of its risks. Site-level 

analyses would allow examination of the relationship between drug use and 

awareness of risk in the context of local factors (e.g., a highly publicized drugrelated event). 

Lesson 7: Parents Are One of the Key Information Sources on Drug 

Use Dangers 

Survey results indicated that parents are one of the most important sources of 

information about drugs among youth. Yet, survey data show serious 

discrepancies in parents' claims about their drug-related communication with 

their children. Despite the fact that most parents agreed that my child knows 

exactly how I feel about him/her using drugs, at target sites far fewer at baseline 

and at follow-up said that they had spoken with their children about drugs four or 

more times in the past year. 

Parents in focus group discussions at all target and comparison sites stressed the 

importance of talking to their children about the risks and dangers of drug use and 

communicating values about avoiding drugs. These parents reported that they 

used the Media Campaign ads as starting points or icebreakers for initiating 

conversations about drugs with their children. However, many parents described 

E-28 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Executive Summary 

the reasons they did not talk to their children about drugs or had difficulties doing 

so effectively. These included the parents' own past or present drug use, lack of 

information about drugs, the youth drug culture, how and when to present 

information to their children, denial that the problem could affect their children, 

and acceptance of youth drug use. 

Our observations indicate that parents strongly desire to engage their children in 

discussions of drug use and its consequences, but do not know how to approach 

the subject or how to proceed effectively even when the subject is raised by their 

children. 

In light of these findings, the following recommendations are offered: 

• Parents urgently need to know more about drugs, their risks, what they look 

like, and how young people gain access to them; 

• Ads on parent-child communication should point out the possible 

discrepancies between young people's knowledge and experience with drugs 

and parents' perceptions about how much their children know; and 

Ads on improving parent-child communication should move beyond stressing 

the general importance of parent-child communication and present specific 

methods to parents that can be expected to be effective in communicating 

dangers of drug use to their children. 

Lesson 8: Anti-Drug Media Ads Can Be Improved 

There was considerable agreement among focus group participants across center 

city and non-center city neighborhoods and community representatives from all 

sites about how to improve ads. They agreed that ads need to be realistic, present 

the facts, and use local contact numbers for referrals. Other suggestions include 

the following: 

• Ads should demonstrate the physical effects of drug use, including negative 

changes in physical appearance; 

• Ads should show recognizable local (or at least regional) settings; 

• Celebrities used in the ads should be local personalities; 

• There should be more first-person testimonials, especially by youth peers. 

Lesson 9: Surveying Students in School Settings Is Problematic 

The research design for gathering survey data from youth and teens involved 

sampling public schools and administering the survey to respondents during the 

school day. However, many barriers were encountered in this effort. The inSchool surveys could not take place if the school or school district refused entry. 

Some districts were participating in other national surveys, experienced difficulty 

obtaining signed parent consent forms, or did not gain approval from their 

Office of National Drug Control Policy E-29 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Institutional Review Board in time for the survey. Also, in a number of sites, 

unrelated legal issues resulted in last minute refusals to participate. 

The results of research done on the ONDCP Campaign were not adversely 

affected by the problems reported above because adequate data redundancy was 

available: appropriate substitute sites were selected when school access was 

denied, and survey findings were cross-checked against data from focus groups, 

key informant interviews, and media monitoring to ensure reliability and validity 

of findings. Nevertheless, it is recommended that future on-site research should 

not rely on in-school surveys. 

Summary 

Youth and teen survey responses clearly indicate that television, and especially 

television anti-drug ads, became a Common source of information about the risks 

Of drugs in the 12 target communities during the Phase I Media Campaign. 

Parents, likewise, were very aware of the ads aired during the Campaign. Youth 

and parents in these communities reported that they learned new information 

about the risks of using drugs. Further, many local community efforts were 

undertaken over the course of the campaign to build on the Phase I Campaign 

efforts. 

E-30 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

This report presents findings from the evaluation of Phase I of the National Youth 

Anti-Drug Media Campaign (the Media Campaign) sponsored by the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). The Media Campaign is the largest and 

most comprehensive anti-drug media campaign ever undertaken by the Federal 

Government. It is further distinguished from earlier efforts because it features 

paid advertising. 

The Media Campaign is being implemented in three phases, each of which will be 

evaluated. The purpose of this Phase I report is to measure the effectiveness of the 

paid campaign, which includes 62 different interventions through television, 

radio, newspapers, and outdoor billboards. Radio was used especially to reach 

teens, and six paid newspaper advertisements were used in each site (and included 

local resource telephone numbers) to reach parents. This report focuses on the 

effectiveness of the paid television advertisements, which was the primary vehicle 

to reach all audiences. A complete listing of all paid advertisements used in 

Phase I is provided in Appendix A. 

To establish a context for the findings that follow in subsequent chapters, this 

chapter provides an overview of the design of the Media Campaign's three phases 

and describes the strategy for its evaluation. Following this is a description of the 

implementation and evaluation of Phase I. This chapter then concludes with a 

summary of the report's organization. 

1.1 THE MEDIA CAMPAIGN DESIGN 

After more than a decade of steady decline in the reported use of drugs by 

teenagers, 8th graders responding to the Monitoring the Future Survey in 1992 

reported a slight increase in their use of illicit drugs. Over the next 4 years, as that 

cohort aged to become 12th graders, drug use by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders 

increased steadily. The 1996 Monitoring the Future study found that more than 

half of all high school students used illicit drugs by the time they graduated, and 

more than 20 percent of youth surveyed reported Using marijuana in the past 

month. Over that same 4-year period, 1992-1996, disapproval of drug use and 

perception of the risk of drug use decreased steadily among the youth surveyed. 

Similar trends in use and attitude were found during the same period by the 

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. The 1996 Monitoring the Future 

study also reported that approximately one-quarter of 10th graders and one-third 

of 12th graders had five or more drinks on at least one occasion in the 2 weeks 

before taking the survey, and that more than one-third of high school seniors 

smoked cigarettes. 

In 1997 the number one goal of The National Drug Control Strategy was to 

"Educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and 

tobacco." Ten objectives are listed under that goal, including educating parents 

and other adults who influence youth, promoting zero-tolerance policies for youth 

regarding the use of drugs, providing prevention programs in schools, and 

OffiCe of National Drug Control Policy 1-1 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

assisting the development of community coalitions and programs to prevent drug 

abuse. 

The second objective in support of the goal is "Pursue a vigorous advertising and 

public communications program dealing with the dangers of drug, alcohol, and 

tobacco use by youth." The President's drug control budget for FY 1998 included 

proposed funding for the Media Campaign, which received bipartisan support in 

Congress. Under the Executive Office Appropriations Act, 1998, the House and 

Senate approved funding (Conference Report on H.R.2378) for "a national media 

campaign to reduce and prevent drug use among young Americans." 

Planning for the Media Campaign began in early 1997. ONDCP initiated a 

collaboration with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA), who would 

provide the creative advertising for the Media Campaign through their existing 

pro bono relationship with leading American advertising companies. Working 

together, ONDCP and PDFA solicited input from experts in advertising and 

marketing, national and local media, substance abuse prevention, communications 

research, law enforcement, and community anti-drug coalitions. From September 

1997 through February 1998, a team led by Porter Novelli, a strategic 

communications firm, worked with ONDCP and PDFA to develop the 

Communication Strategy Statement for the Media Campaign. (The 

communication strategy was not finalized prior to the implementation of Phase I 

in January 1998.) The development team engaged in a consultation process that 

involved nearly 200 organizations and individuals. The team also convened three 

panels--one to assist in design of the campaign; one to coordinate partnerships 

with community coalitions, service organizations and others involved in drug 

abuse prevention efforts; and one to generate corporate sponsorship. The 

Communication Strategy describes the problem of substance abuse among youth 

in America, presents the scientific basis for the strategy, and addresses target 

audiences, communication objectives, and message execution. 

The Media Campaign has three goals: 

• Educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs; 

• Prevent youth from initiating use of drugs, especially marijuana and inhalants; 

and 

• Convince occasional users of these and other drugs to stop using drugs. 

Through realistic portrayals, the Media Campaign is designed to show the harmful 

effects of drugs and the benefits of a drug-free lifestyle, "denormalize" drug use 

by reminding people that most youth do not use drugs, and empower parents with 

information and strategies to prevent their children from using drugs. The Media 

Campaign is designed to reach five target groups: youth ages 9-10 (13 % of the 

Media Campaign effort), ages 11-13 (25%), ages 14-18 (12%); and parents 

(40%) and other influential adults(10%). 

1-2 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Background and Introduction 

The Media Campaign is being implemented in three Phases. Please I was a 

26-week pilot test that ran from January through June 1998 in 12 metropolitan 

areas across the country. Phase I was the conceptual development, or "learning 

lab" phase. Because the timeframe for launching the first phase did not allow the 

development of new advertisements, television and radio advertisements that had 

already been produced by PDFA were used and were placed in paid spots, with a 

100 percent pro bono match requirement. 

Phase II is the initial nationwide advertising, or "validation" phase. It began in 

July 1998 and will continue into early 1999. Expanded to a national audience, 

Phase II includes paid television, radio, newspaper, print, Internet, and outdoor 

advertising; television advertising includes both broadcast and selected cable 

networks. 

Phase III will be the full implementation of the Media Campaign. It will begin 

early in 1999 and run for 4 years. Phase III will disseminate.new advertisements 

developed specifically for the Media Campaign, based on the Communication 

Strategy. A key feature of the Phase III effort is to build partnerships with 

community-based and national anti-drug groups, local and State governments, 

industry, private businesses, and professional sports teams. For the most part, 

those partners will play various non-advertising roles. 

1.2 STRATEGY FOR EVALUATION OF THE MEDIA CAMPAIGN 

The authorizing legislation for the Media Campaign states that "the Director shall 

report to Congress within two years on the effectiveness of the national media 

campaign .... "The effectiveness of each phase of the Media Campaign will be 

measured by an impact evaluation. These evaluations are being conducted within 

the broader context of the Performance Measures of Effectiveness: A System for 

• Assessing the Performance of the National Drug Control Strategy, published in 

1998 by ONDCP. 

The Performance Measures of Effectiveness (PME) system is built on two 

fundamental assumptions. The first is that achieving the goals and objectives of 

the National Drug Control Strategy will truly be a national effort, in that not only 

the Federal Government, but also State and local governments, the private sector, 

and individuals will be involved. The second is that the national pursuit of 

Strategy goals and objectives will yield measurable effects. For the five goals of 

the Strategy, 12 "Impact Targets" that define desired outcomes or end states have 

been established. For the 32 objectives of the 1998 Strategy, 82 "Performance 

Targets," which are generally expressed as "outputs" or "outcomes," were 

established to measure progress. 

The Media Campaign is, of course, being implemented to support the first goal of 

the National Drug Control Strategy, to "educate and enable America's youth to 

reject illegal drugs as well as the use of alcohol and tobacco." Two Impact 

Targets have been set for this goal: 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 1-3 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco by youth: By 2002, reduce the 

prevalence of past-month use of illegal drugs and alcohol among youth by 20 

percent as measured against the 1996 base year. By 2007, reduce this 

prevalence by 50 percent as compared to the base year. Reduce tobacco use by 

youth by 25 percent by 2002 and 55 percent by 2007. 

Initial age of drug use in youth: By 2002, increase the average age for firsttime drug use by 12 months from the average age of first-time use in 1996. By 

2007, increase the average age of first-time drug use by 36 months from the 

1996 base year. 

The years 2002 and 2007 are 5-year and 10-year milestones, respectively. 

Under the PME system, two Performance Targets have been established 

specifically to measure the effectiveness of the Media Campaign: 

Youth risk perceptions: By 2002, increase to 80 percent the number of youth 

who perceive that regular use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco is harmful, 

and maintain this rate through 2007. 

Youth disapproval: By 2002, increase to 95 percent the number of youth who 

disapprove of illegal drug, alcohol, and tobacco use and maintain this rate 

through 2007. 

The impact evaluations will focus on use of illegal drugs, the initial age of drug 

use, and youth risk perceptions and disapproval of drugs. The impact evaluations 

are only one of manycomponents that will be used to measure progress toward 

attaining the PME Impact and Performance Targets. For example, the Monitoring 

the Future study and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse will continue 

to be used to measure drug use and attitudes. The National Institute on Alcohol 

Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

(CSAP), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) are conducting 

studies on various dimensions of underage drinking. The Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 

and CSAP are all involved in efforts to prevent tobacco use among youth. 

With the impact evaluations, ONDCP expects to be able to detect changes in 

awareness of anti-drug messages presented through the media within a few 

months of the start of the Media Campaign, changes in perceptions and attitudes 

about drug use within 1 to 2 years, and changes in behavior within 2 to 3 years. 

Because of the short time periods (approximately 6 months each) of Phases I and 

II, the evaluations of those phases focus on change in awareness of paid anti-drug 

ads that are part of the Media Campaign. Expected changes in perceptions and 

attitudes about drug use, and expected changes in behavior, are to be measured in 

the Phase 211 evaluation. Phase III of the Media Campaign is planned to run for 4 

years, frorn 1999 through 2002. The impact evaluation of Phase III will be 

1-4 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Background and Introduction 

conducted under the auspices of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), 

acting as ONDCP's agent. 

1.3 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF PHASE I 

ONDCP began implementation of the Media Campaign in January 1998. The key 

features of Phase I were as follows: 

The Campaign was conducted in 12 metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Baltimore, 

Boise, Denver, Hartford, Houston, Milwaukee, Portland (Oregon), San Diego, 

Sioux City, Tucson, and Washington, D.C.; 

Sites were selected on the basis of geographic representation within the 

United States, population size, demographic representation, and the types of 

drugs prevalent in each community; 

The Media Campaign used advertisements that had already been produced by 

PFDA, but purchased television and radio time slots to ensure the ads would 

reach their target audiences, rather than presenting them as PSAs (public 

service announcements); the television advertising included both broadcast 

and major cable networks; 

Selected to be appropriate for child, teen, or adult audiences, the paid 

advertisements were scheduled to be broadcast during peak viewing/air time 

for each of the target audiences; the objective was to reach 90 percent of each 

target audience with an average of four exposures per week; 

Advertisements emphasized prevention of entry-level drug use (marijuana and 

inhalants) in all target sites and focused on local epidemics of heroin, cocaine, 

and methamphetamine use, where appropriate; 

In sites with substantial Hispanic populations(Denver, Hartford, Houston, San 

Diego, Tucson, and Washington, D.C.), advertisements were broadcast in 

Spanish as well as in English; 

• Stations were required to provide pro bono, one-to-one matching time for 

other approved public service announcements or in-kind programming; 

• Advertisements with a pro bono match requirement also were purchased in 

newspapers; and 

• Two outdoor billboard advertisements also were purchased in each target site. 

The Media Campaign was kicked off in each target site by the Director or another 

senior representative of ONDCP, typically with each area' s congressional 

representative and local community leaders, and ran from January through June. 

The paid advertisements for each target site during Phase I are presented in a 

matrix format in Appendix A. Of 62 paid advertisements, 30 were shown on 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 1-5 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

television (6 for elementary school children, 15 for teens, and 8 for parents), 17 

were broadcast on radio, 13 were printed in newspapers, and 2 were displayed on 

outdoor billboards. 

To measure the impact of Phase I of the Media Campaign, the 12 target sites were 

matched with 12 comparison sites: Memphis, Richmond, Eugene, Albuquerque, 

Harrisburg, Dallas, Nashville, Spokane, Phoenix, Duluth, Austin, and 

Birmingham. Identical data collection was conducted in all 24 sites to allow 

comparative analysis. (Exceptions are noted in Chapter 2.) 

The evaluation included three components: 

A quantitative component, consisting of in-school surveys of 4th through 6th 

graders and 7th through 12th graders, and a telephone survey of parents with 

children 18 or younger; 

A qualitative component, in which site visits were made to conduct focus 

groups with members of the target audiences (elementary, middle, and high 

school youth; and parents) and to conduct interviews with key informants in 

communities (e.g., prevention and treatment specialists, community coalition 

members, law enforcement representatives, members of the clergy); and 

• Media monitoring, in which the level of television anti-drug advertising was 

measured. 

Surveys, focus groups, and interviews were conducted in both center-city and 

non-center-city locales in each of the 24 sites. 

ONDCP did not purchase advertising in the comparison sites; any exposure to 

anti-drug advertising in the comparison sites was expected to come only from 

public service announcements. The evaluation of Phase I of the Media Campaign 

was designed to determine if there were changes in awareness of the anti-drug ads 

(and, to the extent possible, changes in attitudes toward drugs) resulting from 

exposure to paid anti-drug messages, compared with changes in awareness 

resulting from exposure to free public service messages on local television 

stations. 

In both target and comparison sites, however, youth and parents may have been 

exposed to other advertisements and other information campaigns that were 

conducted in their communities. Site visits were made to target and comparison 

sites to determine what other exposure there may have been, and what other 

factors in the community may have influenced awareness and attitudes regarding 

drugs. The site visits revealed, for example, that San Diego, a target site, and 

Memphis, a comparison site, each had anti-drug media campaigns in place prior 

to implementation of the Media Campaign, and those efforts continued during the 

Phase I time period. Furthermore, during Phase I the Media Campaign provided 

the impetus for other, community-based activities in some target sites. The 

evaluation makes every effort to distinguish between effects resulting from the 

1-6 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Background and Introduction 

Exhibit 1-1 

An Overview of Timing of Data Collection 

Months 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Monitoring of television ads 

In-school surveys and parent interviews (baseline) 

Baseline site visits 

Intermediate site visits 

In-school surveys and parent interviews (followup) 

Followup site visit 

I- 11 

Elm 

Elm 

I---ll 

Jun Jul Type of data collected 

lIB BB 

I---II 

Quantitative 

Quantitative 

Qualita~ve 

Qualitative 

Quantitative 

Qualitative 

Ongoing Activity 

• Activity Completed 

Media Campaign and those resulting from other public information and education 

campaigns in the communities studied. 

Exhibit 1-1 provides an overview of the timing of data collection for the Phase I 

evaluation. Surveys were conducted in all 24 metropolitan areas at baseline (prior 

to and at the beginning of the Media Campaign from November 1997 through 

February 1998) and at followup (near the end of Phase I in May and June 1998). 

Respondents were asked about their awareness of anti-drug ads in the media and 

about their perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors with regard to drug use. Site 

visits were conducted at three points in time: baseline (November 1997-January 

1998); intermediate (approximately 12 weeks after the baseline visit to each 

respective site); and followup (May-June 1998). Media monitoring was 

conducted continuously from October 1997 through June 1998 (i.e., prior to and 

throughout the Phase I Media Campaign). 

In Phase I, television advertisements comprised the majority of the intervention 

because this medium provides greatest access to the target audiences. For this 

reason, and because ads scheduled for dissemination through other media were 

finalized after the Media Campaign had begun, the measures of ad awareness 

concentrated on television ads only, and specifically on a subset of television ads 

included in the survey instruments. 

For the Phase I Final Report, the focus is on changes in awareness as measured by 

student and parent survey data, using site visit and media monitoring data to help 

explain and interpret analysis of the quantitative survey data. For a thorough 

presentation of qualitative data that describe the context for measurement in the 

target and comparison communities, readers of this report are referred to Testing 

the Anti-Drug Message in 12 American Cities: National Youth Anti-Drug Media 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 1-7 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Campaign, Phase I (Report No. 1) (September 1998). That report, based on 

baseline and intermediate data collection, assesses the early impact of the Media 

Campaign. 

Although the evaluation of Phase I focuses on changes in awareness, the data 

collected on attitudes and behavior provide context for the awareness data and 

will provide insight on these factors in subsequent phases of the Media Campaign. 

The Phase I Media Campaign evaluation is the first step in an ongoing evaluation 

research effort that will be conducted during all three planned phases of the Media 

Campaign. 

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT 

Evaluation findings for Phase I of the Media Campaign are presented in the five 

chapters that follow. 

Chapter 2 explains the methodologies used for the selection of sites, 

administration of in-school and telephone surveys, conducting of site visits, and 

media monitoring. Also discussed is the analytic approach used for integrating 

findings from the different data sources. 

Chapter 3 presents aggregate survey results for youth (4th to 6th graders), teens 

(7th and 8th graders, 9th and 10th graders, and 1 lth and 12th graders), and 

parents. Charts and figures are included in Chapter 3 to illustrate results across the 

major topic areas of the study; tables in Appendix E provide a more complete 

breakout of variables. 

Chapter 4 provides an interpretation and discussion of aggregate survey results, in 

which media monitoring and site visit data are used, where possible, to explain 

patterns of findings that were observed in the survey data. 

Chapter 5 presents within-market results in the form of case studies of each of the 

12 target sites. Statistically significant differences in the market-level survey 

findings, focused on intended outcomesl are discussed in the context of findings 

from site visits and media monitoring in those markets. 

The report concludes with Chapter 6, which presents lessons learned from Phase I 

and recommendations that may be applied to the full implementation of the Media 

Campaign in Phase III. 

Supporting data are provided in five appendixes, as follows: 

Appendix A, Television Media Monitoring Data, presents data gleaned from 

the monitoring of television advertisements that were broadcast in the cities 

included in the study and includes a listing of all paid advertisements for each 

target site; 

• Appendix B, Youth, Teen, and Parent Surveys, includes the surveys that were 

administered at the beginning and end of Phase I of the Media Campaign; 

1-8 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Background and Introduction 

• Appendix C, Weighting Procedures, explains how survey data were weighted 

for purposes of statistical analysis; 

• Appendix D, Analytic Approach and Statistical Testing, explains how survey 

data were analyzed and tested for statistically significant differences; and 

• Appendix E, Aggregate-Level Data, presents survey data for all of the target 

sites grouped together and all of the comparison sites grouped together. 

• Appendix F, Site Level Data, presents survey data for each target site and its 

respective comparison site in the same table. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 1-9 

2. METHODOLOGY 

Phase I of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign (hereafter referred 

to as the Media Campaign) evaluation was designed as a 6-month "learning 

lab" or "pilot," to test the hypothesis that the planned intervention---exposure 

to paid, well-placed anti-drug messages on television, radio, and in 

newspapers, as compared to mostly unpaid, public service media messages-- 

could meet the overall goals of the Media Campaign. Therefore, the specific 

intent of Phase I was to measure target group awareness of different types of 

paid anti-drug media messages (ad awareness), and any changes in awareness 

attributable to the Media Campaign. 

The Phase I evaluation focused on awareness of television ads, even though 

the Media Campaign evolved to include radio, newspaper, and billboard 

advertisements. The primary vehicle for disseminating anti-drug messages 

was television as this medium provided the capability to reach the largest 

percentage of the target audiences. Radio, newspaper, and billboard ads had 

not yet been developed when the survey instruments were being completed. 

Furthermore, a system for direct monitoring of television ads was already in 

place before the Media Campaign was launched. For these reasons, the 

surveys included awareness questions only about ads seen on television. The 

survey instruments included questions on a few specific ads targeting each of 

the primary audiences (e.g., adults, teens, and youth) that were selected based 

on the initial plan that these ads would receive heavy emphasis in the buying 

plan. 

At the start of the Media Campaign, ONDCP expected to detect measurable 

changes in ad awareness within a few months of the start of the 6-month 

Phase I Pilot Test. However, measurable changes in other domains were 

expected to take much longer. For example, change in perceptions and 

attitudes about drugs, if any, were not expected to occur for another 1 to 

2 years, and changes in drug use itself, if any, not for another 2 to 3 years. In 

Phase I, therefore, the goal was to evaluate ad awareness. 

Data were collected on a number of domains in addition to awareness of the 

paid ads in order to assess completely and thoroughly the context within 

which the Media Campaign was implemented. These domains include the 

following: 

• Awareness of paid ads (the focus of the Phase I evaluation); 

• Perceptions of effectiveness of the ads; 

• Awareness of risk of drugs; 

• Attitudes toward drugs; 

• Sources of information about drugs; and 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-1 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

• Use of drugs among youth and teens. 

The reasons for collecting this additional data were: 

To be able to measure short-term changes in domains otherthan ad 

awareness, in the unlikely event that they should occur. (In fact many such 

short-term changes did occur, and they are reported in Chapter 3). 

• To establish a baseline against which to measure any future change in 

perceptions, attitudes, or drug use attributable to the Media Campaign'; 

• To provide information for improving the focus, type, and presentation of 

future Campaign messages. 

The Phase I evaluation relies on a case-control, pretest and posttest study 

design (Cook and Campbell, 1979). Its overall purpose is to identify and 

measure awareness of anti-drug advertisements among target groups and to 

assess the impact of these ads on awareness of the dangers of drugs, and on 

attitudes toward drugs, while taking into account local contextual events and 

the potential effects of any independent, simultaneous, community educational 

or informational activities that could influence change in the target group. 

Three types of data were collected for the Phase I evaluation: quantitative 

survey data, qualitative site visit data, and media monitoring data. 

This chapter describes the specific procedures used to collect these types of 

data, including the data collection forms and content of information gathered, 

and provides a description of how the information was used to address the 

research questions posed by the evaluation of the Phase I Media Campaign. 

2.1 SELECTION OF PHASE I EVALUATION SITES 

Twenty-four metropolitan areas throughout the United States served as the 

Phase I evaluation sites. Twelve of these were the designated target sites, 

where the Phase I paid anti-drug messages would be disseminated. Another 

12 market areas were designated as comparison sites, where the Media 

Campaign ads would not be aired as paid advertisements. (Pre-existing antidrug and social issue public service announcements (PSAs) Would continue to 

appear without manipulation.) The 12 target sites selected for the Phase I 

Media Campaign were chosen on the basis of the following criteria: (1) 

geographic dispersion to ensure that market area sites were representative of 

different regions of the country; (2) variation in the size of the population (i.e., 

to ensure that small, medium, and large media markets were included), race 

' Originally, the evaluation designers had hoped to continue monitoring the subsample of Phase I sites throughout 

the 5-year Campaign. In this case, the Phase I data would have served as baseline data. However,.in part due to 

lessons learned in Phase I, the Phase III evaluation designers awarded, under full and open competition by NIDA, a 

contract to collect data through a household survey methodology rather than through a school-based survey in Phase 

III. Results obtained from these two different methods would not be scientifically comparable. 

2-2 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

and ethnicity of the population, percentage of the population between the ages 

of 5 and 17, crimes per 100,000 population, percentage of children under 18 

living below the poverty level, and unemployment rate; (3) inclusion of some 

metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) that reported a serious emerging drug 

problem (e.g., methamphetamines); (4) inclusion of MSAs that had data 

available on drug use and attitudes and were part of a High Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Area (HIDTA), an Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring program 

(ADAM), or a Community Epidemiologic Work Group (CEWG) site, because 

these sites were presumed to have secondary data sources that would provide 

additional information on the drug problem in the community; and 

(5) inclusion of sites that experienced relatively low prior Partnership for a 

Drug-Free America (PDFA) PSA activity, because PDFA PSAs already were 

running in most sites but were aired more frequently in certain areas. 

The same criteria were used to select the 12 comparison sites for the Phase I 

evaluation as were usedto select the target sites. Each target site was paired 

with a comparison site that had similar population characteristics, to the extent 

possible, and was located in a relatively similar geographic region. Sometimes 

a "perfect" match between a target site and its comparison was difficult, and a 

city defined as a large MSA (i.e., a population over 500,000) was paired with 

a site that was a medium MSA (i.e., a population between 200,000 and 

500,000). This was done only when there were other characteristics (e.g., 

geographic location, proportion of ethnic groups) that made the two MSAs 

well suited as paired sites. 

It was not always possible to achieve an optimal match with the comparison 

sites. Richmond was one of the few candidates available that matched 

Baltimore on most of the criteria listed above. In this case, finding a 

comparison site with similar characteristics, and still having it located in the 

proximate geographic region, was the deciding factor in selecting Richmond 

as the comparison site for Baltimore. Unfortunately, an insufficient number of 

center-city student surveys were obtained in Richmond, so Richmond was 

later dropped altogether as a comparison site for Baltimore for the student 

survey analysis. (Richmond was retained for the parent component of the 

study.) 

Only one site in Texas, Houston, was selected as a target site. Dallas was 

selected as the comparison site for Houston because the two MSAs have 

similar demographic and socioeconomic indicators. For the same reason, 

Austin was selected as the comparison for Tucson, another target site. It was 

very difficult to find an MSA with characteristics similar to those of Atlanta, a 

target site, and have it be located in the Southeast. Memphis was judged to be 

sufficiently close to Atlanta on the criteria listed above and, therefore, was 

selected as a comparison to Atlanta. 

Large MSAs such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and 

Miami were not selected as target sites, primarily for programmatic reasons. 

Since Phase I was a pilot or test phase for the Media Campaign, ONDCP, like 

any advertising client, wanted to avoid testing its message in the largest 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-3 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

markets, which would draw national attention to the test phase. Additionally, 

the cost of buying advertising time is significantly higher in the largest 

markets, especially New York and Los Angeles, the top two media markets 

and centers of the national media industry. 

From the evaluation perspective, there were also good reasons to avoid these 

"mega-MSAs." Among these were (1) the difficulty of obtaining appropriate 

comparison sites (a particular problem for Miami, a unique city that has the 

largest concentration of Cuban Americans in the country); (2) some of the 

largest cities had already been saturated with PDFA's prior PSA campaigns 

and had been heavily exposed to some of the ads used in Phase I. For 

example, Miami has the most active community coalition in the country and 

the highest exposure to PDFA's advertisements over the past 3 years. 

Inclusion of such cities would confound any attempt to measure changes in 

target group awareness of the ads from the baseline to followup; (3) the sheer 

size of these communities would have significantly increased costs because 

the selection of larger samples within each of the MSAs would have been 

necessary in order to provide an adequate assessment of the impact of the 

Media Campaign on the MSA; and (4) these mega-MSAs would not have 

been representative of the vast majority of the MSAs in the country. 

Exhibit 2-1 presents a map depicting the Media Campaign target sites with 

their corresponding comparison sites. Exhibit 2-2 lists all of the target sites 

with their paired comparison sites and presents the MSA size and 

demographic characteristics. More specific demographic information 

pertaining to each target site is presented in the site-specific results (case 

studies) in Chapter 5. 

There were three independent samples: the parent sample, the in-school 

sample of youth, and the in-school sample of teens. The youth and teen 

samples were school-based and therefore required the cooperation of schools 

and school districts. However, cooperation of all school districts was not 

always obtained. This led to some sites not being used as comparisons for the 

two student samples. The original site selections were maintained for the 

parent sample, and parent data were collected in all 24 sites. These original 

sites also were maintained for the qualitative data collected through site visits. 

However, for the student samples, in-school survey data were not collected in 

Albuquerque, Spokane, center city Richmond, and Harrisburg because school 

districts declined to participate in the study. In-school survey data also were 

not collected in center city Tucson for the same reason. 

The in-school surveys could not take plac e if the school or school district 

refused entry. Some school districts already were participating in one of a 

number of other Federal, State, local, or private-sector school-based surveys. 

Some school districts required affirmative consent from parents, which 

created a further obstacle. At one site, the school district did not gain approval 

from their Institutional Review Board in time for the survey so that the site 

had to be dropped. In a number of sites, unrelated legal issues at certain 

schools resulted in last minute refusals to participate. 

2-4 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Eugene 

:l%= ..p • •• " 

Exhibit 2-1 

Media Campaign Phase I Target and Comparison Sites 

okane 

Harrisburg 

~tarffOrd 

[] :Den ~gton, D C 

~ ./. 

• Albuqu ! 

0 : 

.~ 0uston 

• @ Nesh~ 

Media C a-rnp a gn Site s 

O Comparison 

~: Target 

TARGET SITES 

Atlanla 

Ba Itim Ore 

Boise 

Denver 

Hafff:ord 

Houston 

Mil~a ul~ e e: 

Pc,l,,,~ OR 

s,n i>i*oo 

Siou×:Ci~ 

•TucsOn 

W ashin gton. D C 

COMPAR SON sITES 

MemPh~ 

Richmond 

Eugene 

Albu queique 

H arfisb urg 

Dallas 

N as h~ i lie 

Spok:ane 

Phoen~< 

DUluth 

Austin 

Biimlngham 

0 ¢X 

0 

0 

". . :. 
Testing.the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 2-2 

Demographic Characteristics of Phase I Target and Comparison Sites 

Demographic Characteristics ~Target Sites Comparison Sites 

ii i!/f ii]iiiiii i[ [[iiiiii iiii] iii iiii :illi]i!::i iiiil ii ::iiii iii ::::::::: ::::::::::::::: :::::::: i !!iiiiii/iiiiiiiiiiiiii i iii[ iiii]::!ii i iiiii:I iiiiiiiiiii~i]iii::iii :'~i~':li::ii'i~:.?.iiiii~ii~ii,:::.~i!;':i::i~i~::~is~l:.,~ ::~i:.~ii I ::i::~]:::~i /i~ 

Population 2,833,511 981,747 

White (%) 

African American (%) 

Hispanic (%) 

Crime rate per 100,000 per year 

Children under 18 below poverty level (%) 

Unemployment rate (%) 

71 58 

25 40.6 

1.0 0.7 

807 1,253 

13.9 26.6 

5.1 7.2 

Population ages 5 17 (% 

............ , ) 18 19.7 

i/: !ili'i'i ':i:i iii:,iiiiiii!:i~:i !::i:',:~:i:i;::iiiii':! i ii!! iB:~iiJ~S~iiiiil i iii i i ....... i; ....... !i:Jii~:,!]ii::::::~i~a{=, ~,i;!!i]~,i'{~,: !i]i~ 

Population 

White (%) 

African American (%) 

Hispanic (%) 

Crime rate per 100,000 per year 

Children under 18 below poverty level (%) 

Unemployment rate (%) 

Population ages 5-17 (%) 

2,383,172 865,640 

71 69 

25 29 

1.0 1.0 

1,335 603 

34 14 

4.8 4.1 

16 17.1 

!iil i i~!ii!:;ii i~iiiiii i~:iiiii!i:i!!~! i ii!iii;iiii~iiii ii i ii ~ i ii J~i! i~i~!iiiiiiii ~!!i i ............................. !ii i~i~i!ili,Lii, i!iiij!Lji!ii, 

Population 205,775 282, 912 

White (%) 

African American (%) 

Hispanic (%) 

Crime rate per 100,000 per year 

Children under ;!8 below poverty level (%) 

Unemployment rate (%) 

Population ages 5-17 (%) 

96 95 

0.5 0.7 

2 2.4 

366 404 

10.9 16.1 

4 7.1 

20 13.7 

Population 

White (%) 

African American (%) 

Hispanic (%) 

Crime rate per 100,000 per year 

Children under 18 below poverty level (%) 

Unemployment rate (%) 

Population ages 5-17 (%) 

1,622,980 589,131 

86 63 

6 2 

13 30 

513 879 

13.4 19.9 

4.8 6.5 

18 30 

Population 

White (%) 

African American (%) 

Hispanic (%) 

Crime rate per 100,000 per year ' 

Children under 18 below poverty level (%) 

Unemployment rate (%) 

1,123,678 587,986 

86.3 91 

8.4 6.6 

6.6 1.5 

482 299 

11.4 10.9 

4.8 3.8 

Population ages 5-17 (%) 15.7 15.5 

2-6 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

Demographic Characteristics Target Sites Comparison Sites 

~!~ ~!~ !i£.!~!ii~ii~ ~! ~ii~ !~i,~i~ ~k ~Siiiig!i!~i/i~iiiii!i~i~!i!ii!iiii~.!,!&!i!iil!i~i£ii~ ii~iiiiii !~!i!!i!iiiRi!iiDii~k J~iJJ!iiii!~!iil i~ii~i,,i,~Ki£~i: ~i~i iii~i~i~iiii ~i iii .. iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i~i!~!!i ~! iiii ~iiii! i~iiiiilliii! ii 

Population 

White (%) 

African American (%) 

Hispanic (%) 

Crime rate per 100,000 per year 

Children under 18 below poverty level (%) 

Unemployment rate (%) 

Population ages 5-17 (%) 

3,322,025 2,676,248 

66 73 

18.4 16 

21 14 

856 819 

20.2 16.5 

6.7 5.8 

20.9 18.8 

Population 

White (%) 

African American (%) 

Hispanic (%) 

Crime rate per 100,000 per year 

Children under 18 below poverty level (%) 

Unemployment rate (%) 

Population ages 5-17 (%) 

1,432,149 865,640 

83 83 

14 15 

3 0.7 

533 1,088 

19.4 15 

5.4 4.8 

18.6 17.9 

Population 

White (%) 

African American (%) 

Hispanic (%) 

Crime rate per 100,000 per year 

Children under 18 below poverty level (%) 

Unemployment rate (%) 

Population ages 5-17 (%) 

1,477,895 361,364 

91 95 

2 1.4 

3 1.6 

726 510 

12.4 16.8 

5.1 7.2 

18.3 19 

Population 

White (%) 

African American (%) 

Hispanic (%) 

Crime rate per 100,000 per year 

Children under 18 below poverty level (%) 

Unemployment rate (%) 

Population ages 5-17 (%) 

2,498,016 2,122,101 

75 85 

6 3.5 

19 16 

794 756 

16.2 17.3 

6.1 6 

16 18.1 

Population 

, " White (%) 

African American (%) 

Hispanic (%) 

Crime rate per 100,000 per year 

Children under 18 below poverty level (%) 

Unemployment rate (%) 

Population ages 5-17 (%) 

115,018 239,971 

93 97 

1 0.5 

3 0.4 

1,271 252 

17.8 17.3 

4.9 8.5 

19 18.4 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-7 
Testing .the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Demographic Characteristics Target Sites Comparison Sites 

iiiiiiiiii!iiiii iiiiiil i i iiiiiiiiii!iiiiiii iiiiiii !iiiii i ii!i!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiii!ii!iiii!iiii!iiii!il iillii!iii!iiiiiiiiiii i!iiiiiiiiiii !iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii !ii !iiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiii ii iiii iiiii iii!!iiiii!!i iiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiii iiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiii! iiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiii!iiiiiiii iiiiii i iiiii ,! iiii !iiiiliiii!i i !iiiii!iiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiili iiiii 

Population 

White (%) 

African American (%) 

Hispanic (%) 

Crime rate per 100,000 per year 

Children under 18 below poverty level (%) 

Unemployment rate (%) 

Population ages 5-17 (%) 

666,880 781,572 

78 77 

3 9 

24 20 

877 580 

23.4 17.4 

7.5 5.8 

16 17.5 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: iii:~:::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :~::::'::::~:::P::~::~::ii!::~i::~i!::~::ii/::/iii':i~ ~ii~ ii~ ii~4~ 

Population 3,923,574 907,810 

White (%) 

African American (%) 

Hispanic (%) 

Crime rate per 100,000 per year 

Children under 18 below poverty level (%) 

Unemployment rate (%) 

Population ages 5-17 (%) 

65 72 

26 27 

5 4 

716 1,071 

7.9 20.4 

3.7 6.1 

16 18.4 

NOTE: Data for each site refer to the metropolitan statistical area (MSA). 

Exhibit 2-3 presents those sites where replacements were necessary for the 

student samples and the reasons for selecting the comparison site to serve as a 

replacement. The decision was made to use four of the existing comparison sites 

as substitutions for dropped comparison sites because the data collection process 

was already underway and it would have been too late to obtain clearance for 

conducting surveys in those sites. In the aggregate data analysis, student survey 

data for the 12 target sites were compared with student survey data for the 

8 original comparison sites. The comparison site substitutions were made only 

when comparing target site student survey data with comparison site student 

survey data at the site level. 

2.2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY 

This section includes a summary of the study population selection process, a 

description of the survey instruments, and methodologies for measuring pretest 

and posttest change. 

Quantitative data were collected through in-school surveys of youth (grades 4-6) 

and teens (grades 7-12), and telephone interviews with parents. Parent interview 

surveys were conducted in all 12 target sites and 12 comparison sites. Student 

surveys were collected in all 12 target sites and in 8 of the 12 comparison sites. 

The reasons for this are discussed below. The survey was conducted at two points 

in time--at baseline (prior to the introduction of the Media Campaign 

intervention) and at followup (approximately 5 months after introduction of the 

Media Campaign intervention)--to measure awareness, attitudes, perceptions, and 

behaviors among youth, teens, and parents before and after Phase I. 

2-8 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

Target site 

Baltimore, MD 

Denver, CO 

Portland, OR 

Hartford, CT 

Exhibit 2-3 

Replacement Comparison Sites 

Original Comparison 

Site 

Richmond, VA 

Albuquerque, NM 

Spokane, WA 

Harrisburg, PA 

Replacement 

Comparison Site 

Memphis, TN 

Austin, TX 

Eugene, OR 

Nashville, TN 

Reason for Selection 

Memphis is a large 

MSA and its population 

is 54% African 

American, similar to 

Baltimore's population, 

which is 60% African 

American. 

Austin is a medium size 

MSA, is geographically 

located in the 

southwest, and has the 

same proportion of 

Hispanics (23%) as 

Denver. 

Eugene was selected 

due to geographic 

congruency with 

Portland, and because 

its size and 

demographic 

breakdown closely 

matched Spokane, the 

original comparison site. 

Nashville was the best 

replacement because it 

was located in the 

southeast, and its size 

was a reasonable 

match to Hartford. 

2.2.1 Selection of the In-School Survey Population 

In-school student samples were drawn from the universe of all public schools in 

the designated test and comparison market areas. Private schools were not 

sampled because of the relatively high cost of accessing private vs. public 

schools. Furthermore, because private schools make up a relatively small 

proportion of all schools, it would be cost prohibitive to sample enough schools to 

yield a large enough sample size of private school students to compare to the 

publiC school students. Limiting the sample to public schools means that the 

results are generalizable only to public school students. School lists were obtained 

from the Market Data Retrieval's CIC School Directory. The sample was drawn 

in two segments: the first segment was the center city of each market (by center 

city, we mean the city whose name designates the market area), and the second 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-9 
Testing .the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

being all other territory covered by the market area. A total of 16 schools were 

drawn from each of the 24 sites (8 schools for the elementary school sample and 8 

schools for the secondary school sample). Within schools, three classes were 

selected, one from each of three different grades, wherever possible. Students 

completed a self-administered questionnaire in which they responded to a range 

of questions addressing their awareness, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors with 

regard to drugs, as well as their awareness of anti-drug advertisements. Questions 

were organized under the domains presented in the bulleted list at the front of this 

chapter. Survey instruments were available in Spanish for those students requiring 

them. The original targeted number of student surveys at baseline was 24,000 

across all target and comparison sites (approximately 1,000 in each of 24 sites) 

with a range of plus or minus 1,000. This was based on an expectation of 60 

completed surveys from each school and a total of 16 schools per market. 

However, because some sites refused to participate, the number of completed 

surveys was fewer than this early goal. The students interviewed at followup were 

not the same as the ones interviewed for baseline data. Different classrooms were 

used at followup in order to avoid inclusion of respondents who had been exposed 

to questions during baseline and, thus, could have been influenced if asked to 

provide followup responses. The final sample size for students was 18,300 at 

baseline, and 17,015 at followup. 

Baseline survey data collection began in November 1997 and continued through 

February 1998. As a phased-in intervention, the Phase I Media Campaign was 

introduced in the target sites during the second, third, and fourth weeks of January 

1998. In two-thirds of the target sites, the majority of baseline school surveys 

were completed before the Phase I Media Campaign began in those sites. In the 

remaining four target sites, a number of baseline school surveys were still being 

conducted after Phase I had been launched because obstacles were encountered in 

gaining admittance into the school to conduct surveys in the classrooms. (The 

implications of conducting late baseline surveys are discussed in Chapters 4 

and 5.) All baseline parent surveys were completed prior to the beginning of the 

Phase I Media Campaign. 

Followup data were collected in May and June 1998. Schools and classrooms 

within schools were randomly selected, and school administrators were not 

involved in any way in the selection of the samples or administration of the 

surveys. The sample design is similar to those utilized by the Monitoring the 

Future study and other nationally representative school-based surveys in that they 

are school-based and use a multi-stage random sampling procedure with three 

stages of selection. Stage I is the selection of particular geographic areas. Stage 2 

is the selection of one or more schools in each area, and Stage 3 is the selection of 

classrooms. The resulting samples are representative of the market areas from 

which they were drawn. 

Exhibit 2-4 presents school response rates for each of the target and comparison 

sites, and Exhibit 2-5 presents overall school response rates. School response 

rates in center city areas were somewhat higher (60% at baseline and 57% at 

followup) than school response rates in non-center city locations (43% at baseline 

2-10 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

Exhibit 2-4 

School Response Rates for Target and Comparison Sites 1 

Target Site Response Rate (%) 

Baseline Followup 

Atlanta 56 50 

Baltimore 56 56 

Boise 63 56 

Denver 56 56 

Hartford 69 63 

Houston 38 31 

Milwaukee 44 44 

Portland, OR 56 56 

San Diego 44 44 

Sioux City 94 88 

Tucson 4~ 44 

Washington, DC 69 69 

Comparison Site Response (%) 

Baseline Followup 

Memphis 63 63 

Richmond* 25 31 

Eugene 69 56 

Albuquerque* 6 0 

Harrisburg* 6 6 

Dallas 50 50 

Nashville 50 44 

Spokane* 19 13 

Phoenix 25 25 

Duluth 81 75 

Austin 94 94 

Birmingham 56 50 

School response rate was calculated by taking the total number of schools from the original sample that participated in 

the study, divided by the total number of schools originally drawn. Sixteen schools were drawn for each market/site. 

* Indicates market was cancelled. School response rates are lower in these markets because recruitment efforts were 

stopped once cooperation from the center city school district was denied. 

Overall 

Number of schools originally 

drawn for survey 

Number of schools originally 

drawn that participated in survey 

Number of schools participating 

in survey that were replacements 

Response rate 

Exhibit 2-5 

School Response Rates 

Target Sites 

1921 

110 

55 

Comparison Sites 

192 

78 

42 

57% 2 41%3 

' The number was derived by multiplying the number of target sites (12) by 16 schools per market. 

Response rate was calculated by dividing the number of original schools that participated by the number of schools 

originally drawn. 

3 Response rate for comparison sites would be higher (61%) if the number of schools originally drawn is treated as 128 

(derived from removing the 4 comparison markets that were dropped and multiplying (8) comparison sites by 16 schools 

per market.) 

and 40% at followup). Overall school response rates were 57% at baseline and 

55% at followup for target sites at the aggregate level, and 41% at baseline and 

42% at followup for comparison sites. For an examPle O f high and low-level 

response rates, Sioux City had a school response rate of 94% at baseline and 88% 

at followup. Houston's school response rate was 38% at baseline and 31% at 

followup. Houston ended up with just as many schools and classrooms 

participating in the study as Sioux City; the difference was that more replacement 

schools needed to be contacted in Houston whereas researchers in Sioux City 

were able to work with more of the original schools drawn there. Marketing and 

opinion research considers any response rate higher than 50% to be a very good 

response (CMOR, 1996). 

Exhibit 2-6 presents the student response rates, which were calculated by dividing 

the number of students participating in the study by the total number of students 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-11 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

enrolled in classrooms randomly selected to be in the study. We were not able to 

distinguish between those enrolled students who participated and those who did 

not because student, classroom, teacher and school anonymity is guaranteed as 

part of the design of the study. The total number of students present in a given 

classroom at the time that questionnaires were administered was not recorded, but 

on-site interviewers indicated that typically 100% of the students present in any 

given classroom did participate in the study. The student response rates displayed 

in Exhibit 2-6 include response rates at each site as well as student response rates 

aggregated across all sites (aggregated response rates represent a sum of the 

number of completed interviews across all sites, divided by the number of eligible 

students in the sample--those enrolled in selected classes--also summed across 

all sites. An adjusted overall student response rate is possible by multiplying the 

school response rate (presented in Exhibit 2-5) by the student response rate (in 

Exhibit 2-6 

Student Response Rates 

Baseline (%) Followup (%) 

................. !i! .... ...................... !!ii ', 

TOTAL 83 82 

Youths (Grades 4-6) 

Teens (Grades 7-12) 

82 82 

83 82 

Target Sites 82 82 

Comparison Sites 84 83 

Central City 83 82 

Non-Central City 82 82 

Sl~L~el Stude!B¢iiRespanseiiiB~i iii iiiii~iiiiiiii;ii!i;iiii! ii i ~i~i~i iii~iiiiiiiiii iiiiiiii~iiiiiiiii~iii ~ ~i~i !ii~!!ii~!iiiiii!iii!!~ !~ ii!iiiiiiiiiii;iiii 

Atlanta 84 85 

Baltimore 86 83 

Boise 82 78 

DC 77 77 

Denver 77 82 

Hartford 81 86 

Houston 85 80 

Milwaukee 85 79 

Portland 80 81 

San Diego 82 83 

Sioux City 86 88 

Tucson 77 80 

Austin 83 80 

Birmingham 80 77 

Dallas 82 82 

Duluth 86 89 

Eugene 83 82 

Memphis 82 88 

Nashville 92 83 

Phoenix 82 82 

*FORMULA: Number of students participating in the study divided by the total number of students enrolled in the 

classrooms randomly selected to be in the study 

2-12 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

Atlanta 

Central City 79 85 

Non-Central City 89 85 

Baltimore 

Central City 86 88 

Non-Central City 86 77 

Boise 

Central City 85 77 

Non-Central City 78 78 

Washington, ~C 

Central City 80 72 

Non-Central City 74 83 

Denver 

Central City 74 77 

Non-Central City 81 87 

Hartford 

Central City 81 86 

Non-Central City 81 85 

Houston 

Central City 87 84 

Non-Central City 84 75 

Milwaukee 

Central City 82 77 

Non-Central City 91 81 

Portland 

Central City 83 76 

Non-Central City 78 85 

San Diego 

Central City 82 83 

Non-Central City 84 83 

Sioux City 

Central City 84 80 

Non-Central City ` 88 93' 

Tucson 

Central City NA NA 

Non-Central City 77 80 

Exhibit 2-6). The overall adjusted student response, based on the original sample, 

was 47% at baseline, and 34% at followup. 

Exhibit 2-7, the number of student respondents who completed the in-school 

surveys in target and comparison sites is presented. This is followed by 

Exhibit 2-8, which displays the number of schools in which data were collected. 

There was no minimum threshold established for counting a classroom or school 

as complete. At the outset of the study, however, it was anticipated that 

approximately 60 student interviews per school would be completed, on average. 

The resulting outcome showed an average slightly better than 60 interviews (that 

is, more schools contributed more than 60 completed interviews than contributed 

less than 60). Minimum thresholds for the class-level or the school-level were not 

established as school sizes and class sizes vary depending on state or local 

community norms. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-13 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 2-7 

Number of Student Respondents in Target and Comparison Sites 

Target Site 

No. of Respondents 

(% of Goal) 

Baseline Followup 

Atlanta 

Youth 392 (81.6) 519 (108.1) 

Teens 416 (86.6) 386 (80.4) 

Baltimore 

Youth 425 (88.5) 295 (61.6)' 

Teens 472 (98.3) 405 (84.4) 

Boise 

Denver 

Youth 555 (115.6) 509 (106.0) 

Teens 508 (105.8) 495 (103.1) 

Youth 426 (88.7) 414 (86.2) 

Teens 573 (119.4) 564 (117.5) 

Hartford 

Youth 420 (87.5) 442 (92.1) 

Teens 301 (62.7) 311 (64.8) 

Houston 

Youth 405 (84.4) 419 (87.3) 

Teens 442 (92.1) 382 (79.6) 

Milwaukee 

Youth 393 (81.8) 350 (72.9) 

Teens 432 (90.0) 331 (69.0) 

Portland, OR 

Youth 537 (111.9) 495 (103.1) 

Teens 607 (126.5) 473 (98.5) 

San Diego 

Youth 404 (84.2) 419 (87.3) 

Teens 549 (114.4) 515 (107.3) 

Sioux City 

Tucson 6 

Youth 448 (93.3) 446 (93.0) 

Teens 522 (108.8) 444 (92.5) 

Youth 191 (40.0) 191 (40.0) 

Teens 335 (70.0) 301 (62.7) 

Washington, DC 

Youth 

Teens 

Total 

462 (96.3) 490 (102.1) 

439 (91.5) 389 (79.2) 

10,654 9,985 

Comparison Site 

No. of Respondents 

(% of Goal) 

Baseline Followup 

Memphis 

Youth 482 (100.0) 564 (117.5) 

Teens 555 (115.6) 437 (91.0) 

Memphis 2 

See number of respondents listed above. 

Eugene 

Youth 426 (88.7) 380 (79.2) 

Teens 541 (112.7) 479 (99.8) 

Austin 3 

Youth 393 (81.8) 369 (76.8) 

Teens 531 (110.6) 474 (98.7) 

Nashville' 

See number of respondents listed below. 

Dallas 

Youth 425 (88.5) 471 (98.1) 

Teens 447 (93.1) 381 (97.4) 

Nashville 

Youth 546 (113.8) 452 (94.2) 

Teens 487 (101 3) 452 (94.2) 

Eugene s 

See number of respondents listed above. 

Phoenix 

Youth 331 (69.0) 395 (82.3) 

Teens 457 (95.2) 389 (81.0) 

Duluth 

Youth 564 (117.5) 522 (108.8) 

Teens 561 (116.9) 480 (100.0) 

Austin 

See number of respondents listed above. 

Birmingham 

Youth 426 (88.7) 411 (85.6) 

Teens 474 (98.7) 374 (77.9) 

Total 7,646 7,030 

Note: The goal for each sample was 480 respondents per site, per wave. 

' This relatively low rate was due to on-site problems in a number of schools on the day of the survey. 

2Replaces comparison site of Richmond. 

3Replaces comparison site of Albuquerque. 

'Replaces comparison site of Harrisburg. 

5Replaces comparison site of Spokane. 

6Non-center city data only. No center city data were collected due to on-site problems. 

2-14 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

Exhibit 2-8 

Number of Schools Surveyed 

No, of Schools 

Target Site (% of Goal) 

Baseline Followup 

in Target and Comparison Sites 

Comparison Site 

No. of Schools 

(% of Goal) 

Baseline Followup 

Atlanta 14 (87.5) 15 (94.0) Memphis 16 (100.0) 16 (100.0) 

See number of schools 

Baltimore 13 (81.2) 13 (81.2) Memphis listed above 

Boise 16 (100.0) 16 (100.0) Eugene 13 (81.2) 13 (81.2) 

Denver 16 (100.0) 16 (100.0) Austin 16 (100.0) 16 (100.0) 

Hartford 13 (81.2) 13 (81.2) Nashville 15 (94.0) 15 (94.0) 

Houston 13 (81.2) 14 (87.5) Dallas 15 (94.0) 15 (94.0) 

See number of schools 

Milwaukee 12 (75.0) 12 (75.0) Nashville listed above 

See number of schools 

Portland, OR 16 (100.0) 16 (100.0) Eugene listed above 

San Diego 13 (81.2) 13 (81.2) Phoenix 13 (81.2) 13 (81.2) 

Sioux City 16 (100.0) 15 (94.0) Duluth 16 (100.0) 15 (94.0) 

See number of schools 

Tucson 1 8 (50.0) 8 (50.0) Austin listed above 

Washington, DC 15 (94.0) 15 (94.0) Birmingham 16 (100.0) 16 (100.0) 

Total 165 166 Total 120 119 

Note: Targeted goal was 16 schools per site except for Tucson, whose target was 8 schools. 

' Center city data were not collected in Tucson but data from non-center city schools were collected. 

The implications of not getting into schools in some comparison sites meant that 

there was not a unique comparison site for every target site. As discussed earlier, 

for the analysis of student survey data, some comparison sites were used more 

than once to serve as replacements. Further, the implications of not obtaining data 

from all schools within each market was not an issue for the aggregate analyses 

but prevented some comparisons at the market level. Sample sizes were not large 

enough to look at center city and non-center city differences at the market level. 

(For example, in Tucson, we were unable to obtain access to the Tucson city 

schools; therefore, the analysis could not examine results for center city students 

but was able to compare non-center city students in Tucson with the non-center 

city students in Austin). 

Power analyses were conducted to determine an appropriate sample size. These 

analyses were performed tO ensure that the study would be able to address the 

research questions adequately. They provided a means of determining the 

minimum sample size necessary to detect statistically significant differences 

between groups. The power analyses indicated that the expected student sample 

sizes would be large enough to detect small to moderate expected changes 

(changes ranging from 2 to 10 percentage points) over time in awareness and/or 

attitudes. The differences in drug use between target and comparison sites could 

not be detected using this power analysis and the resulting sample sizes. However, 

change in drug use was not an area of focus for the Phase I study. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-15 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Collecting data from the elementary and secondary school student samples 

consisted of self-administered questionnaires completed in the schools with 

oversight by a research staff member. School staff were not involved in 

administering the survey. Questionnaires preserved individuals' anonymity and 

did not contain students' names or any form of individual identification. The 

surveys were identified by the school and class in which they were conducted 

solely for purposes of weighting and identifying analytical groups (e.g., center 

city vs. non-center city schools). Within each of the 12 target sites, 8 schools were 

randomly selected for the elementary school student sample and 8 schools for the 

secondary school student sample, at both pretest and posttest, resulting in an 

estimated sample of 12,000 target group students at baseline and 12,000 target 

group students at followup. Likewise, within each of the 12 comparison market 

areas, 8 schools were randomly selected for the elementary school student sample 

and 8 schools for the secondary school student sample, at both pretest and 

posttest, resulting in an estimated sample goal of 12,000 comparison group 

students at baseline and another 12,000 comparison group students at followup. 

For the secondary school student sample, the sampling methodology was as 

follows: 

Within each market area, a random sample of public schools was drawn. The 

sample was drawn in two segments, the first segment being the center city of 

each market and the second being all other territory covered by the market 

area. An approximately equal number of schools were drawn from each of 

these segments. 

The schools were drawn from lists obtained from Market Data Retrieval's 

CIC School Directory, using the most recent directories available. Probability 

of selection for each individual school was proportional to the number of 

students enrolled in the school multiplied by the estimated proportion of 

students enrolled in the designated grades (i.e., grades 7 through 12). 

Each school so selected was recruited for participation in the study. Once a 

school was recruited, three classes were selected for participation at pretest 

and three classes at posttest, for a total of six classes. The classes were 

selected with the intention of minimizing the likelihood that the same students 

would be participating in both the baseline and followup surveys to avoid 

conditioning bias. The three classes at pretest and three classes at posttest 

consisted of one from each of three different grades in the school whenever 

feasible (i.e., when the school had three or more of the designated grades). 

When a selected school had fewer than three of the designated grades (e.g., a 

middle school with grades 7 and 8 only), the classes were randomly selected 

from the available grades to ensure that at least one class from each grade was 

represented (e.g., the designated classes included either two 7th grade classes 

and one 8th grade class or two 8th grade classes and one 7th grade class.) 

The grades from which classes were selected were chosen systematically from 

the sample of schools to generate roughly equal numbers of classes from each 

of the designated grades for the entire sample. 

2-16 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

The classes selected for the posttest at each school consisted of three classes 

representing the same grades that were included in the baseline surveys, but 

the classes had different students to avoid conditioning bias. 

• In general, classes were selected from those that are common to all students 

(e.g., home rooms) or from those for required subjects. 

Because this is a pretest and posttest study, one further stipulation was made 

in the selection of schools: that there be a sufficient number of students in 

each school to permit a selection of classes such as that described above for 

both the pretest and the posttest without surveying the same students twice. 

• The sample consisted of all students in the selected classes who were present 

on the scheduled date of the survey. 

For the elementary school sampl e , the procedures were the same as those 

described above, but the designated grades were 4 through 6 instead of 

7 through 12. 

2.2.2 Selection of Parents for Parent Telephone Interviews 

The parents selected for interviews were not related to the youth and teen sample 

subjects; if they were, there was no way of knowing so because a school-based 

design (having no mechanism for obtaining an individual's identifying 

information) was used for collecting the youth and teen data. In order to guarantee 

each student's anonymity, no identifying information was collected from those 

participating in the school surveys. Therefore, even if some of the students' 

parents were interviewed by chance, it would not be possible to link the student 

and parent data. This means that the student and parent samples were independent 

samples. 

The parent sample was a completely random sample (i.e., there was no clustering, 

as with the school sample, and therefore the sampling error was lower) since a 

random digit dialing technique (RDD) was used. A sample size of 175 was the 

design objective; RDD calls were made until the desired sample size was 

achieved. The resulting sample was demographically similar to that of the 

metropolitan area being sampled. 

A power analysis was conducted to determine an adequate sample size for the 

parent survey for both the aggregated analyses and the within-market area 

analyses. The power of tests involving within-market area analyses of the parents' 

data is somewhat lower than that for the aggregated analyses, but the power of 

tests is still statistically adequate in terms of the probability of revealing expected 

changes over time in parents' awareness and attitudes. Parent sample sizes in the 

aggregated analyses were sufficient to detect small to moderate changes over 

time. The within-market parent sample of 175 was judged to provide sufficient 

statistical power to detect medium to large effects (changes of 10 percentage 

points or higher). 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-17 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

With regard to the sample design for the parent telephone survey, the universe for 

the study was all parents of children 18 years of age or younger in the market 

areas included in Phase 1 of the Media Campaign. A probability sample was 

drawn using the principles of RDD, which was enhanced to increase the incidence 

of reaching residential households (not businesses) with a working telephone. By 

using this methodology, it is possible to project the sample results to the relevant 

test universe. The latest government data show that 94 percent of households in 

the United States have telephone service; therefore, the sample of parents was 

generally representative of approximately 94 percent of the parents of children 18 

years old or younger in the United States (FCC, 1998). For the parent sample, 

interviews were conducted by telephone from a central telephone interviewing 

location. Such random digit dialing gives households with unlisted telephone 

numbers the same chance of being sampled as households with listed phone 

numbers, which is critical because the demographics of households with unlisted 

numbers often are different from those of households with listed numbers. 

The parent sample for each market area was drawn as follows: 

• An RDD sample of telephone numbers was drawn from all exchanges within 

the market area. . 

Each household contacted was screened to determine whether there were any 

qualified individuals in the household (a qualified individual was defined as 

any person who has a child aged 18 or younger). If there was only one 

qualified individual in the household, that person was selected for the 

interview. If there was more than one qualified individual in the household, 

one of them was randomly selected for the interview. 

• Up to four callbacks were made to each telephone number sampled in order to 

find and interview a qualified respondent. 

The pretest and posttest interviews were conducted following the same 

procedures. The pretest and posttest samples were independent (i.e., 

individuals were not re-interviewed). Given the number of interviews per 

market, the odds of contacting the same parent were so small as to be 

negligible. 

At least 175 parents were interviewed in each of the 24 sites at baseline and again 

at followup, using questions similar to those posed to youth. This met the goal of 

175 parents interviewed per site. 

The following procedures were used to meet the goal of 175 interviews with 

qualified individuals per site: 

For all households contacted, approximately 35 percent had members who 

were parents of children aged 18 or under. Of these, 38 percent at baseline, 

and 37 percent at followup completed an interview. A further 20 percent of 

households at each time period could not be reached after four attempts. 

2-18 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

The parent response rate was calculated by dividing the number of completed 

parent interviews by the estimated number of qualified parents who were 

contacted. The reason why the number of qualified parents contacted is 

estimated is because the vast majority of refusals are initial refusals, whereby 

one does not know whether or not anyone in the household is qualified (i.e., 

the household has refused to participate before any information could be 

obtained). For this reason, the number of those initial refusals that are 

qualified is estimated by taking the number of initial refusals times the 

incidence of qualification (as found for all households where 

qualification/non-qualification is determined). Thus, the calculation was as 

follows in Exhibit 2-9: 

Exhibit 2-9 

Calculation of Parent Response Rates 

Baseline Follow-up 

Completed interviews 

Qualified refusals 

Initial refusals 

Incidence of qualification 

4,314 4,211 

225 325 

14,812 15,249 

31.0% 30.5% 

Overall parent response rate 47% 46% 

NOTE: Qualified initial refusals are estimated (at baseline) as 14,812 multiplied by 31.0%, or approximately 4,592. The 

response rate is then calculated as: number of completed interviews (4,314) divided by the sum of completed interviews, 

qualified refusals, and qualified initial refusals (4,314 + 225 + 4,592) = 47% response rate at baseline. Similarly, qualified 

initial refusals for followup was obtained by multiplying 15,249 by 30.5%, resulting in 4,650. The parent response rate at 

followup was calculated by dividing 4,211 by (4,211 + 325 + 4,650), resulting in a 46% response rate. 

This response rate is actually higher than the industry standard (for 

cooperation rates in marketing and opinion research). A response of 42 

percent for a 10-minute survey with no incentive is what is typically obtained 

(CMOR, 1996). 

Efforts were made to boost response rates through multiple call-backs to 

qualified households. Call-backs were made more efficient and more 

effective through the practice of recording the best time to call back in 

instances when a specific call back time could be obtained. The Computer 

Assisted Telephone Interviewing system automatically dialed the phone 

number at the time scheduled for the interviewer. Thus, the interviewer did 

not have to remember call back times or keep paper records of call back 

schedules. In instances where no one in the household was reached on the 

first attempt, subsequent attempts were scheduled for different times and 

different days of the week. To maximize cooperation, a standard speech was 

developed for interviewers to use when respondents initially refused to 

cooperate. 

Once household members were identified as qualified and willing to 

participate, they were interviewed; this process was continued in each site 

until the goal of 175 interviews was met. In some sites, slightly more than 175 

parents were interviewed--a result of the combined efforts of interviewers at 

those sites. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-19 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Parents were not asked about their own drug use nor were they asked about their 

child's usage. They were asked about discussion of drugs with their child. 

Overall, data were collected at baseline on 2,200 parents from target sites and 

2,114 parents from comparison sites and, at followup, on 2,105 parents from 

target sites and 2,106 parents from comparison sites. The respondents interviewed 

at followup were not the same as those interviewed at baseline. The goal of 2,100 

interviews (175 in 12 test and 12 comparison sites, at baseline and at followup) 

also was met. Interviewers continued to contact households until the goal was 

achieved (175 parent interviews per market). The breakdown of the number of 

completed parent interviews by site follows in Exhibit 2-10. 

2.2.3 Survey Instruments 

The student and parent questionnaires were developed from existing survey 

instruments used to assess responses to various PDFA campaigns and from the 

Monitoring the Future Survey and the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. 

Because the paid advertisements used in the Phase I Media Campaign were 

developed by PDFA, these surveys were appropriate data collection tools, but 

they were modified significantly in order to adequately measure the goals of the 

Phase I Campaign. (See Appendix B for copies of the in-school and parent survey 

instruments and a guide that shows the different studies from which the survey 

questions were drawn.) 

Target Site 

Exhibit 2-10 

Number of Completed Parent Interviews 

No. of Respondents No. 64 Ri~spondents 

(% of Goal) Comparison Site (% of Goal) 

Baseline Followup 

Memphis 175 (100.0) 175 (100.0) 

Richmond 175 (160.0) 177 (101.1) 

Eugene 175 (100.0i 175 (100,0) 

Albuquerque 175 (100.0) 175 (100,0) 

Harrisburg 176 (100.1) 175 (100.0) 

Dallas 185 (10,5.7) 177 (101.1) 

Nashville 176 (100.1) 177 (101.1) 

Spokane 175 (100.0) 175 (100.0) 

Phoenix 176 (100.1) 175 (100.0) 

Duluth 175 (100.0) 175 (100.0) 

Austin 175 (100.0) 175 (100.0) 

Birmingham 176 (100.1) 175 (100.0) 

Baseline Followup 

Atlanta 194 (110.9) 176 (100.1) 

Baltimore 183 (104.6) 176 (100.1) 

Boise 176 (100.1) 175 (100.0) 

Denver 186 (106.3) 175 (100.0) 

Hartford 195 (111.4) 175 (100.0) 

Houston 177 (101.1) 175 (100.0) 

Milwaukee 190 (108.6) 177 (101.1) 

Portland, OR 192 (109.7) 175 (.100.0) 

San Diego 175 (100.0) 175 (100.0) 

Sioux City 175 (100.0) 176 (100.1) 

Tucson 180 (102.9) 175 (100.0) 

Washington, DC 177 (101.1) 175 (100.0) 

Total 2,220 2,105 2,114 2,106 

Note: The goal for each sample was 175 respondents. 

2-20 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

2.2.4 

The Student Instrument m Separate questionnaires were used for students in 

grades 4 through 6 (the Youth Survey) and for students in grades ? through 12 

(the Teen Survey). These student questionnaires were presented as 8-page 

booklets, each requiring about 15 minutes to complete. Student questionnaires 

were designed to be self-administered; instructions for filling out the 

questionnaire were printed on the instrument. The questionnaire consisted of 

close-ended questions generally using three- or four-point scales to measure 

awareness of anti-drug advertising, frequency of exposure to ads, perceived 

effectiveness of ads, awareness of drugs, attitudes and perceptions about drug 

usage, and sources of information about drugs. Also included were demographic 

items intended to classify respondents according to age, grade, sex, race, and 

household composition. Respondents were assured of their anonymity both in 

writing on the questionnaire and verbally by the professional moderator who 

distributed the questionnaire. No identification numbers were written on the 

surveys to assure students that their completed surveys could not be linked back 

to them. 

The Parent Instrument m Parent questionnaires were administered by telephone 

by professional interviewers. The average interview length was 10 minutes. The 

parent survey covered awareness of anti-drug advertisements, perceptions of ad 

effecti~'eness, attitudes and perceptions about drugs, and frequency of talking to 

children about drugs. Demographic questions regarding children were asked, such 

as number of children in the household, their ages, and oldest child' s age, grade, 

and sex. Demographic information was collected from parents, including their 

age, sex, race, marital status, education, and income. All respondents were 

assured that their anonymity would be maintained and that their answers would be 

kept confidential. 

Measuring Change Using Survey Data 

To ensure that the school-based survey sample was representative of the general 

population, survey numbers are weighted to population totals using design and 

balancing elements. The design element accounts for the fact that the probability 

of a school's being selected was proportional to its enrollment (i.e., variation in 

the actual number of interviews obtained in each school). The data were further 

weighted for each of the two areas (i.e., center city and non-center city) for each 

of the 20 markets in which the data were gathered. 2 For each of the resulting 40 

segments (i.e., 20 center city sites and 20 non-center city sites), the estimate of 

4th-6th or 7th-12th grade enrollments is equal to the proportion of grades in the 

school that those grades (meaning, the 4th-6th or 7th-12th grades) represent in 

that school, multiplied by the total enrollment in the school. The total of these 

estimates for all schools in the segment will be the estimated universe size. The 

universe estimate for each grade was calculated using the ratio of U.S. enrollment 

in grades 4, 5, and 6, and grades 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 from the latest U.S. 

Census School Enrollment data. 

2Note that for the 4 comparison sites where student surveys were not completed, other comparison sites identified among 

the 8 remaining comparison sites served as replacements in the within-market analyses (i.e., some comparison sites were 

matched with more than one target site, but only in pair-wise comparisons, not in aggregate analyses). 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-21 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

For the parent data, the design weight is the Respondent Selection Frequency 

weight, which accounts for the fact that since only one person can be interviewed 

per household (by design), parents in households with more than one parent have 

a lower probability of being selected (i.e., one of the two parents will never be 

selected). A weight of 1 was given to respondents living in households containing 

only one parent and a weight of 2 was given to respondents living in households 

containing more than one parent (to bring them into balance with households with 

only one parent). For balancing elements, the 1990 Census was used to estimate 

sex and race counts for heads of families including children under age 18. These 

data were adjusted upward to allow for the fact that the age range for children 

could include 18-year-olds. The data also were adjusted with regard to race 

proportions for whatever shift occurred between 1990 and 1997. A detailed 

account of the weighting procedures can be found in Appendix C. 

For parent responses to telephone interviews, the Significant Net Difference Test 

was used todistinguish change due to chance from statistically significant change. 

This test addresses each variable independently and compares the change in 

observed values for that variable (i.e., the change from baseline to followup for 

the target sites is compared to the change from baseline to followup for the 

comparison sites) in order to test whether the change in value for this variable in 

the target sites is significantly different from the change that was observed in the 

comparison sites. 

For youth and teen responses to the in-school survey, the Significant Net 

Difference Test was used as well but it was customized to take into account the 

design effects of the sampling plan, specifically the clustering effects of 

recruitment by school and by classroom. A detailed account of this test of 

significance is presented in Appendix D. 

2.2.5 Interpretation of Survey Findings 

The media buying/advertising industries' standards of achievements regarding 

brand awareness and the recognition of individual commercials differ somewhat 

from survey research standards of statistical and practical significance. Bates 

USA, one of the media buying firms, used for Phases I and II, indicates the 

industry standard for the achievement of total brand awareness to be between 17 

and 28 percent over a 12-month period from a zero baseline. Phase I, which had a 

substantially shorter time frame, resulted in statistically significant changes in 

awareness that in some cases were less than 10 percent but which were considered 

to be of great practical significance by the advertising industry. The media buyers 

noted that it is difficult to provide a comparable private-sector benchmark to the 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign as few individual brand advertising 

efforts have the number and diversity of individual ads as the ONDCP campaign 

(in the case of the media campaign, 61 different ads were used in various media in 

Phase I). In the advertising industry, advertisements usually are developed for 

individual products or for"corporate image" campaigns. As a result, a particular 

strategic message tends to be focused and then concentrated in a limited number 

of individual commercial executions rather than awide range of executions as 

• 2-22 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

employed.in the Media Campaign (which is targeting a broader range of 

audiences and conveying numerous messages on a variety of drug issues rather 

than a single product). Generally, this much smaller number of ads achieve larger 

increases in recognition and awareness of executions accompanied by cumulative 

increases in GRP weight in support of them than the ads in the Media Campaign. 

A number of additional considerations may have served as mitigating factors that 

may have resulted in lower overall increases in awareness than generally 

considered to be of practical significance in social science research. These 

considerations include the following: 

The majority of the ads used in Phase I for all media were preexisting PDFA 

ads, including TV PSAs that have aired for several years, resulting in high 

levels of baseline awareness. Also contributing to higher levels of baseline 

awareness was the difficulty in obtaining entrance into some of the schools. 

As a result, some baseline survey data was conducted after the intervention 

was implemented. 

Phase I was conducted over a much shorter time frame than the standard 12 

months that serves as the benchmark in the private sector for achieving large 

increases in awareness. 

Each of the many anti-drug ad executions in the Media Campaign was 

Supported by far fewer GRPs than required by private-sector advertising 

standards (approximately 1,000 GRPs versus an average of 200 GRPs for each 

campaign ad). A multitude of ads were used with much smaller 

advertising weights (GRPs) behind them resulting in lower awareness of 

specific ads but the cumulative effort behind the many diverse messages 

is in many cases greater than that behind many branded products. 

• The actual versus planned media delivery overall was lower than anticipated, 

particularly among adults, according to the media buying firms. 

Since we used existing ads, the ONDCP Phase I campaign did not have a clear 

brand identity. The advertising industry often uses consistent branding as a 

strategy to enhance recognition and awareness for ad campaigns. For Phase 

III, we are currently considering options for developing a brand for the Media 

Campaign. 

2.2.6 Presentation of Survey Findings 

In Chapter 3 of this report, survey results are presented through cross-site 

analyses (i.e., all target site data are aggregated and compared with all aggregated 

data from comparison sites). Youth, teen, and parent findings are reported 

separately, and results are organized under the domains presented earlier (i.e., 

awareness of the ads; perception of the ads; effectiveness of the ads; awareness of 

the risk of drugs; attitudes toward drugs; and sources of information about drugs). 

Graphic displays are provided to illustrate the significant findings within each 

domain. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-23 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

In Chapter 4, media monitoring data and site visit data are used to interpret and 

understand the significant findings from the aggregate analysis. Chapter 5 

contains the market level analyses or "case studies." Specifically, the site-level 

analysis examines awareness of ads by using baseline and followup survey data 

for comparing each target site with its matched comparison site. Site visit data and 

media monitoring data are used to interpret these survey findings at the MSA 

level. Within-market analyses also examine whether the pattern of significant 

differences in the aggregate held at the market level. 

2.3 SITE VISIT STUDY METHODOLOGY" 

This section includes a summary of the timing and purpose of site visits; the focus 

group participant and key informant selection processes; a description of the site 

visit protocol; and methodologies for measuring change between the baseline, 

intermediate, and followup visits. 

Site Visit Datam Qualitative data on youth, teens, parents, and the local 

communities were gathered during site visits to all 12 target and 12 comparison 

sites. Data were collected through focus group discussions, key informant 

interviews with community members, and observations and review of materials 

by site visitors. Site visit data were collected at three points in time--before the 

Media Campaign pilot test began (baseline), 8 to 10 weeks into the Media 

Campaign (intermediate), and after the pilot test (followup). Site visit data are 

used in this report to interpret the youth, teen, and parent survey results and to 

obtain group opinion in target sites on ways to improve the focus and presentation 

of anti-drug messages used in the Media Campaign. 

The qualitative data for each of the 24 sites were collected during site visits 

carried out over three points in time. These are referred to as the baseline site 

visits (conducted prior to the Media Campaign, from November 1997 through 

early January 1998), the intermediate site visits (carried out in March and April 

1998) and thefollowup site visits (conducted after the completion of the Phase I 

Campaign, in June 1998). Site visits were conducted for approximately one week, 

with two researchers onsite forthe entire period. 

2.3.1 Conducting Focus Groups 

Every effort was made to recruit focus groups from a variety of settings in both 

center city and non-center city communities. These included groups recruited 

from schools, Boys and Girls Clubs, other community organizations serving 

youth, and athletic clubs. Likewise, parents were selected for participation in 

focus groups from a wide range of settings such as Parent-Teacher Associations, 

parent support groups, and community centers. Because an effort was made to 

recruit focus group participants from a variety of settings, from center city and 

3 More detailed information regarding the Phase I site visit methodology is contained in the report "Testing the AntiDrug Message in 12 American Cities," National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, Phase I (Report No. 1), September 

1998. 

2-24 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

non-center city locales, and from all ages targeted by the Media Campaign, we 

believe the focus groups are sufficiently representative of students' and parents' 

views of the drug problem and their perceptions of anti-drug messages. Whenever 

possible, the actual selection of participants was done by researchers who were 

conducting the site visits. The focus group members were not purposely selected 

by any group that held a predisposition to the outcome of the study. Rather, 

researchers asked local community contacts during telephone conversations to 

provide some leads to begin the process of identifying groups. This was 

supplemented by the researchers' own identification of local contact persons to 

work as part of the research team to recruit students and parents for focus groups. 

Occasionally, a focus group was cancelled and a replacement group needed to be 

organized while the researchers were onsite. Focus groups were not intended to be 

nationally representative samples of youth, teens, and parents but were meant to 

reflect different age groups and center city/non-center city differences, since the 

focus group literature emphasizes the importance of these factors in organizing 

focus groups. 

Eight focus groups were conducted at each site during the baseline, intermediate, 

and followup site visits (six with youth and teens and two with parents). Focus 

groups comprised students in elementary school (4th, 5th, and 6th graders), teens 

in middle school (7th, 8th, and 9th graders), and teens in high school (10th, 1 lth, 

and 12th graders). Focus groups were held in both center city and non-center city 

areas, and they included people in ethnic and minority groups, although 

researchers documented ethnic group status only through their observations and 

did not query participants about their ethnicity. Care was taken to follow 

established lessons from the focus group literature by not including youth of 

disparate ages in the same groups (e.g., middle school focus groups might have 

7th and 8th graders together or 8th and 9th graders were together, but not 7th and 

9th graders). 

A deliberate effort was made to not recruit youth or teens from treatment 

programs or rehabilitative facilities because the focus of the Media Campaign is 

to prevent youth from beginning to use drugs. Therefore, the questions explored 

in the focus groups centered on prevention rather than on issues related to persons 

who were "known users" and who could bias the findings. Local Community 

Anti-Drug Coalitions of America representatives and State prevention 

coordinators helped identify local organizations to contact for assistance in 

organizing focus groups and recruiting participants (local Boys and Girls Clubs, 

scouting groups, local YMCAs and YWCAs, and afterschool programs were 

particularly helpful). Two researchers were present for each focus group; one staff 

member moderated the group discussion while the other served as notetaker. All 

focus groups were tape-recorded. Stipends of $25 were paid to parents. High 

school students were paid a stipend of $10 in the form of cash or a gift certificate, 

depending on the preference of the host agency. Refreshments were provided for 

all focus groups. 

In a few cases, groups were organized through schools, but care was taken to 

ensure that youth and teens were not drawn from the same schools participating in 

the survey component of the evaluation. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-25 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

To avoid having youth, teens, or parents who had already been exposed to 

questions about drugs and media, those who participated in baseline focus groups 

were not recruited to participate in intermediate site visit focus groups. However, 

the researchers maintained consistency in choice of location for the focus groups. 

For example, if a particular suburb was selected for all of the youth, teen, and 

parent focus groups at baseline, that same suburb was used again during the 

intermediate site visits. 

The purpose of the baseline site visits was to assess youths', parents', and 

community leaders' awareness of and attitudes toward the drug problem and their 

views on the local drug context before the Media Campaign intervention (i.e., 

before the paid anti-drug messages appeared). Although youth and parents were 

asked in a general way if they thought anti-drug media messages could change 

attitudes toward drug use, no mention of the ONDCP Media Campaign itself was 

made at baseline. Instead, to ensure that participants' responses would be 

objective, they were told that ONDCP was conducting an opinion-based 

community study on the problem of drugs and youth in 24 cities. 

Information also was collected on local drug-related events such as drug "busts," 

arrests, drug-related deaths, and on any local educational and prevention program 

activities that might have heightened local community awareness of the drug 

problem independently of the Media Campaign. 

Focus group participants were selected to represent the target groups of the 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: students in grades 4-6 (ages 8-10 

years), grades 7-9 (ages 11-13 years); and grades 10-12 (ages 14-18 years); and 

their parents, from both center city and non-center city areas. Site visits also 

included discussions with key community members and leaders who were 

informed about the local drug problem; they were asked to describe their 

perceptions of youth and teen attitudes toward and awareness of drug use and 

share their knowledge of local programs or community events that had heightened 

awareness of drugs. 

Confidentiality was maintained by using first names only. Focus group 

participants also were informed that since the sessions would be taped to ensure 

accurate recall, they should not mention names or give identifying information 

during discussions. 

Focus group data from baseline, intermediate, and followup visits reflect 

discussions with approximately 576 different focus groups consisting of more 

than 4,600 youth, teen, and parent participants. 

2.3.2 Conducting Key Informant Interviews 

Local contacts such as the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America 

(CADCA) representatives and State prevention coordinators played an 

instrumental role in helping researchers identify key community informants in 

each of the target and comparison sites. Other persons were identified through 

2-26 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

background research conducted on each of the sites (e.g., the names and telephone 

numbers of local law enforcement officials were identified). 

The purpose of the key informant interviews was to collect information on aspects 

of the community such as the level of anti-drug advertisements in the local media, 

level of community awareness of the problems and dangers of drugs, attitudes 

toward drug use, recent local events related to drugs, and local prevention 

activities. This information was collected at the baseline, intermediate, and 

followup site visits and was used to account for and gauge Media Campaignrelated and non-related changes, so that the true effectiveness of the Media 

Campaign could be accurately measured. 

The rationale for conducting indepth discussions with key informants was the 

following: (1) they are leaders who are grounded in the community and have 

insights that can be highly useful in understanding the nature of the drug problem; 

(2) they can help develop hypotheses for testing in Phases II and III; and (3) they 

can provide an initial sense of how participants might perceive and react to the 

National Media Campaign. 

The following categories of key informants were interviewed during the site visits 

to gain an overall view of the drug situation in each community from members 

knowledgeable in this area: 

• Leaders in community-based prevention programs; 

• Local government officials; 

• Coalition leaders; 

• Civic and voluntary group leaders, including members of the Civic Alliance; 

• Law enforcement representatives; 

• Counselors and/or administrators from drug treatment programs; 

• Health department/health care representatives; 

• Social service agency representatives; 

• Local chamber of commerce members and business leaders; 

• Educators, school administrators, and safe and drug-free school coordinators; 

• Other youth program representatives and youth group leaders (e.g., Boys and 

Girls' Club directors and YMCA program coordinators); 

• Clergy and other faith community representatives; 

• Advocacy group leaders (e.g., the president of the Urban League); 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-27 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

• Media representatives (e.g., local TV and radio station managers, media traffic 

managers, and newspaper editors); 

• Epidemiologists; 

• Treatment specialists; and 

• Before/afterschool care providers. 

Two site visitors conducted the key informant interviews, usually working 

independently, to complete all the interviews within 1 week. Each interview was 

between 45 minutes and 1 hour long. Over the course of conducting baseline, 

intermediate, and followup site visits, approximately 1,800 interviews were 

conducted with key community informants. 

2.3.3 Site Visit Protocol 

Focus Group Discussion Guides and Key Informant Interview Guides were 

developed for each round of site visits. Copies of these can be found in the 

ONDCP report, Testing the Anti-Drug Message in 12 American Cities, Phase I 

(Report No. 1). Interview and Discussion Group Guides were tailored for each 

type of key informant and for each age range of focus group participants. 

The Key Informant Interview Guides utilized discussion topics and probes rather 

than structured questionnaires because of the need to maintain flexibility and to 

encourage the key informants to volunteer information on personal insights and 

emerging issues. 

Focus group discussion topics and probes also were utilized for the youth, teen 

and parent focus groups. A modified format was u.sed .for e!.ementary school 

youth, who were asked less direct questions about d.ru.gs. High school teens and 

their parents were asked an additional question about how teens cope with stress. 

Focus group discussion guides centered on information pertinent to prevention 

rather than on issues relating to current use by "known..u. ser.s" who could 

potentially bias group findings (e.g., participants recruited through a substance 

abuse treatment program or facility). The parent focus group guidelines followed 

a line of questioning similar to that used for youth ~d ieens. 

To determine awareness of anti-drug media messages, informants and focus group 

participants were asked open-ended questions as a form of "unaided recall" to test 

ad awareness. Participants described any anti-drug media message they could 

recall. To avoid biasing their answers, they were not provided with a list of 

specific Media Campaign ads, nor were they asked to confirm whether or not they 

had seen specific ads. This allowed the evaluation to test different methodologies 

in measuring ad awareness, since "aided recall" was used in the survey 

instruments. 

2-28 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

2.4 

2.4.1 

MEDIA MONITORING METHODOLOGY 

Paid and unpaid anti-drug television advertisements that appeared in target and 

comparison sites were tracked during the 3 months (October-December 1997) 

preceding the Media Campaign (the baseline period) and during the 5 months 

(January-May 1998) of the Phase I intervention period. Media Campaign ads 

aired on the radio and those that appeared on billboards and in newspapers were 

not monitored. 

Data were collected on televised anti-drug ads (those sponsored by the Media 

Campaign and by others) as well as on ads related to other social issues such as 

cigarette smoking, gun safety, and drinking and driving prevention, beginning 

prior to the Media Campaign (baseline period) and continuing through the Phase I 

effort. Data were collected across several variables: the number of ads that aired, 

the parts of the day when the ads were shown, the types of drugs that the ads 

targeted, and the sponsors of the ads. In addition, the data were collected 

consistently across sites and over time to facilitate comparison of differences in 

exposure to and awareness of the anti-drug message between target and 

comparison sites. In this report the data are presented on a site-by-site basis and in 

the aggregate. 

Television Monitoring 

Anti-drug ads that aired on affiliates of the three major national television 

networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC), national cable WBN (Time-Warner cable), 

FOX, Univision, TBS, UPN, IND, and Telemundo (Spanish-language cable) were 

tracked in the target and comparison sites. Televised anti-drug ads in three target 

communities (Boise, Sioux City, and Tucson) and two comparison communities 

(Duluth and Eugene) were not electronically monitored. The television 

Monitoring service also was unable to collect data on ads airing on several local 

cable stations (e.g., MTV and Nickelodeon), which were to be used to deliver an 

incremental 1,253 gross rating points per market in cable for the youth/teen 

afldiences. Monitoring data was also unavailable for in-school Channel One, 

which was used to target youth/teens. Media monitoring is possible only in the 75 

largest television markets nationally; of the 24 evaluation sites, only 19 are in that 

group. For the five sites where media monitoring is not possible, attempts to 

collect advertising information from the stations manually through monthly 

telephone interviews did not yield reliable or complete data and, therefore, are not 

included in this report. Television stations were monitored from 6:00 a.m. to 1:59 

a.m., for a total of 20 hours per day. 

Data were collected on variables such as sponsor, frequency, daypart, market 

share (proportion of ads addressing other social issues), and type of drug. The 

variables are defined in detail in Appendix A, which also includes a description of 

how these variables were measured. 

Media tracking data on the variables cited above were collected on a monthly 

basis and were organized in both hard copy and electronic form. The hard copy 

included storyboards, which capture frames (in 4-second intervals) of 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-29 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

advertisements that aired. These storyboards were used to verify sponsor and 

content data. Data were reviewed for completeness and consistency. Quality 

control checks were performed to ensure that the data accurately reflect the 

subject and title of ONDCP advertisements and advertisement sponsors. 

2.5 GROSS RATING POINTS AND OTHER MEDIA BUYING INFORMATION 

In contrast to the media monitoring data which include both the paid and pro bono 

components and cover the period from baseline through 5 months of the 

intervention, the media buying information focuses only on the paid component-- 

which Phase I sought to evaluate and covered January through June 1998. Thus, 

the planned media buy and post-buy information are critical for assessing 

audience exposure to ads and their correlation to changes in awareness. The initial 

goal for the media buying plan' was to reach 90 percent of each of the target 

audiences (i.e., youth, teens, parents, and other adult influencers) with four 

exposures a week through the paid component Of the campaign. For Phase 1, the 

Nielsen measured target definition of teens aged 12 to 17 and adults aged 25 to 54 

were used for all local market broadcast media planning and buying purposes. As 

a result, the reach and frequency objectives were adjusted to reach 93 percent O f 

youth and teens combined an average of 7.6 times per week and 92 percent of 

adults (aged 25-54) 5.9 times per week inclusive of all media types (i.e., 

television, radio, newspaper, and outdoor). It is important to ngte that GRP data 

for youth ads rely on teen GRPs as a proxy. Although youth are defined as 4th 

through 6th graders (ages 9--11), GRPs calculated for youth ads are based on 

Nielson's definition of the teen audience (ages !2-17). 

As final post-audited data on the reach and frequency for Phase I was unavailable 

by medium as this report was being prepared, GRP data are used as proxy 

measures and are based on post-buy and planned media schedules. (Estimated 

variance between the buy information provided and the audited post-buy 

information is plus or minus 10 percent.) 

A gross rating point is a unit of measurement of advertising audience size equal to 

one percent of the total potential audience universe. It is used to measure the 

exposure of one or more programs or commercials without regard to multiple 

exposure of the same advertising to individuals. A GRP is the product of media 

reach times exposure frequency. 

As an example, if an ad were aired on a program that 40 percent of the population 

was exposed to, the rating for the program would be 40. The ad might also be 

aired on other programs yielding a total of 200 gross rating points. For the total 

number of programs, 80 percent of the population may ultimately be exposed to 

the ad at least one time. This would translate into a reach of 80 percent. The 

average frequency is derived by dividing the gross rating points (200) by the 

reach (80), resulting in an average frequency of 2.5 times. Reach, frequency, and 

GRPs are interrelated. 

2-30 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Methodology 

2.6 

The media buying plan information was used to identify the specific ads 

comprising the intervention in each site and the total advertising weight delivered 

in each site and for the individual ads. The media buying contractor provided 

available data on analyses of "as purchased" or planned television activities for 

the youth/teen and adult television buys. This information includes the frequency, 

or number of times, each spot or ad aired in a site and the estimated gross rating 

points (GRPs) for each ad as well as average GRPs for each ad. 

INTEGRATIVE ANALYTICAL APPROACH 

An integrative analytical approach was used to bring together the different types 

of data collected in the evaluation--survey data, site visit information, media 

monitoring data, and media buy information. Chapter 4 presents the results of an 

analysis of media monitoring data and site visit data in order to interpret the 

survey patterns and results reported separately in Chapter 3. An assumption was 

made that any significant change in respondents' awareness or attitudes, as 

measured by the baseline and followup surveys, was due to exposure to the Media 

Campaign; the integrative data analysis uses other data sources to help explain the 

significance of the survey findings. Chapter 4 also makes use of multiple data 

sources in order to explore any "rival" hypotheses that could account for 

significant change on survey measures. 

Aggregate Level Analysis-- For the aggregate analysis presented in Chapter 4, 

each survey domain is examined separately for youth, teens, and parents, and the 

findings are compared with media activity in both target and comparison sites, as 

documented in the media monitoring data. In addition, the aggregate findings are 

reviewed in light of the qualitative data obtained from site visit focus groups and 

:interviews to help explain the presence or absence of change in target and : 

comparison sites. 

Site-Specific Analyses or "Case Studies"---The site-specific analyses, 

presented as case studies in Chapter 5, also use media monitoring, media buying, 

and site visit data, but they use it to interpret survey findings at individual sites. 

The site-specific analyses focus on local survey results that differ from aggregate 

level results and which therefore require further interpretation or explanation in 

view of the local and community context. They do not cover all study domains-- 

only those with results that differ substantially from aggregate level results. 

In Chapter 4 (Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results) and Chapter 5 (WithinMarket Results), the media monitoring data are used to examine whether the 

relative increases in awareness for specific Media Campaign ads are due to the 

relative frequency of exposure to specific ads and the time slots during which the 

ads were aired. The expectation is that significant movement or change in 

awareness from baseline to followup of a particular Media Campaign ad can be 

explained by media monitoring data which show that the respective ad was aired 

frequently and was shown during the best time slots. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 2-31 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

The qualitative data on target group response and opinion and general community 

contextual events are crucial for interpreting unexpected results. These data are 

also used to examine effects that seem to be directly attributable to the Media 

Campaign intervention. The qualitative data, which have increased our 

understanding of respondents' changes from baseline to followup, also provide 

information that will be useful for the development, re-focusing, and presentation 

of ads in subsequent phases of the National Campaign. 

The survey results in this report are presented in text and graphical form to 

highlight statistically significant findings. (A complete compilation of all survey 

data appears in the tables contained in Appendix E, a separately bound volume 

that accompanies this report.) Although we present all statistically significant 

results, when estimates of change are found to be significantly different, it does 

not necessarily imply that the difference is large or meaningful in a practical 

sense. However, statistical significance in itself is important because it means that 

one can conclude, with a small risk of error, that the new estimates would not be 

different from the old estimates if the survey were replicated with different 

samples drawn from the same population, using the same sampling procedures. 

That is, the differences cannot be attributed solely to sampling error. Keeping in 

mind that the goal of Phase I of the Media Campaign was to increase awareness 

of the Media Campaign and its paid anti-drug advertisements, the study results 

that address awareness of ads will be most salient to the reader. 

2.7 REFERENCES 

CMOR. 1996. "Respondent Cooperation and Industry Image Survey." Report of 

the Council for Marketing and Opinion Research. Respondent Cooperation 

Committee's Studyon cooperation levels. 

Cook, T.D., and Campbell, D.T. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and 

Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing 

Company. 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1998. "Telephone Subscribership 

in the United States." Washington, DC: Industry Analysis Division, Common 

Carrier Bureau, FCC. 

Israel, B.A., Cummings, K.M., Dignan, M.B., Heaney, C.A., Perales, D.P., 

Simons-Morton, B.G., and Zimmerman, M.A. 1995. "Evaluation of Health 

Education Programs: Current Assessment and Future Direction." Health 

Education Quarterly 22(3):364-89. 

2-32 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
3. AGGREGATE SURVEY RESULTS 

This chapter presents the aggregate (cross-site) survey results of the evaluation of 

Phase I of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) National Youth 

Anti-Drug Media Campaign in 24 sites (12 target sites and 12 comparison sites). 

The evaluation encompasses six domains: (1) target group awareness of the paid 

ads (the main goal of Phase I); (2) effectiveness of the ads (to inform Phase II); 

(3) attitudes toward drugs; (4) drug awareness and use; (5) awareness of the risks 

of drugs (as measures of ongoing target group risk); and (6) parents' discussion of 

drugs with their children. The expected outcomes for Phase I were limited to 

changes in awareness of ads among students and parents. However, other 

changes, such as attitudinal shifts, also occurred that were unexpected given the 

short timeframe of the Phase I intervention. 

Survey respondents from each of the three samples included in the evaluation 

(youth, teens, parents) were asked about their awareness of only a selection of all 

paid advertisements that were part of the Media Campaign. Youth were surveyed 

about four ads called Noses, Long Way Home, Drowning, and Girlfriend; teens 

were surveyed about six ads entitled Alex Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, 911, Layla, 

Free Ride, and Rite of Passage; and parents responded to questions regarding 

Burbs, O'Connor, Girl Interview, Under Your Nose, and Deal. Teens in Portland 

were surveyed about three different ads that featured rock and roll groups as part 

of a pre-planned PDFA effort. (Section 2.2.5, Interpretation of Survey Findings, 

discusses implications of awareness findings in the context of advertising industry 

standards.) 

The scheduling of these ads varied by city, resulting in some ads appearing as 

paid ads in certain sites but not in other sites. Hence, when a significant change in 

awareness of an ad is reported at the aggregate level, this change or increase in 

awareness is usually not as dramatic as would be seen at the level of the site 

where the paid ad was run. Overall, the aggregate results provide the most 

conservative estimate of increases in awareness from baseline to followup. 

The main findings of this study pertain to awareness of these Media Campaign 

ads, as well as other key results for change in attitude and perceived effectiveness 

of ads. The main findings are the following: 

For all four of the paid ads viewed by youth in the target sites, there were 

statistically significant increases in awareness of these ads from baseline to 

followup, ranging from 31 to 59 percent change. Four of the six ads viewed by 

teens showed statistically significant increases that ranged from 50 to 188 

percent change. Four of the five ads viewed by parents showed statistically 

significant increases ranging from 35 tO 220 percent change. However, the 

change in awareness of only one of the parent ads was significant in a practical 

sense, indicating the statistically significant increases were meaningful. 

The increased awareness of these Media Campaign ads is closely tied to the 

frequency with which the ads were shown (i.e., those ads with the greatest 

increases in recall were the ads aired most often). This is discussed in 

Chapter 4. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-1 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

From baseline to followup, parents in target sites showed increases in 

perceptions of the risk of their children using marijuana, cocaine/crack, heroin, 

inhalants, and methamphetamine as well as trying inhalants, 

methamphetamines, heroin, and crack-cocaine. In comparison sites, the 

percentages of parents who perceived these drugs to be of risk to their children 

decreased. Although the differences were not great, the net difference between 

target and comparison sites was statistically significant, and the trend was in 

the expected direction; that is, comparison sites either experienced no change 

or a decline in the percentage of parents perceiving risk for their children while 

the percentage of parents in target sites perceiving risks increased from 

baseline to followup. 

All three questions on parents' perceived effectiveness of ads showed 

statistically significant increases, with percent change ranging from 8 to 30 

percent. From baseline to followup, target site parents showed an increase in 

perceptions of the ads making them more aware of drug risks, educating them 

with new information, and heightening their concerns about the drugproblem 

in ourNation, whereas perceptions of comparison site parents stayed the same 

or decreased. 

The following sections describe the survey evaluation results in the aggregate for 

youth, teens, and parents. Each section is then followed by a description of the 

results by selected demographic characteristics (i.e., grade, locale, ethnicity, and 

gender). For further discussion and interpretation of the findings, pleasesee 

Chapter 4. 

3.1 

3.1.1 

YOUTH FINDINGS 

The following section presents results related to youth awareness of the ads, their 

perceived effectiveness of the ads, attitudes towards drugs, awareness of drugs, 

and of the risk of drugs. Exhibit 3-1 presents a key youth awareness finding. The 

sample was surveyed prior to the introduction of the intervention and 12 to 

13 weeks into the intervention. 

A sample of elementary school youth in grades 4-6 in the target and comparison 

sites were surveyed. 

Sample Profile: Comparability of the Target and Comparison Youth 

Samples, and Consistency Between Baseline and Followup 

Youth in target sites were similar to youth in comparison sites with regard to their 

demographic status as measured by grade, ethnicity, gender, and locale. The 

percentage of youth who had heard of marijuana, cocaine, crack, inhalants, 

methamphetamine, and heroin also was similar in target and comparison sites. 

Youth in all sites also spent similar amounts of time watching television. None of 

these characteristics changed significantly between the baseline and followup 

periods in target or comparison sites, with one exception: among Hispanic youth 

the percentage who watched TV every day increased significantly between 

3-2 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

Exhibit 3-1 

Increases, Due to Watching TV, in Youth Awareness of the Dangers of Drugs 

p. 

O 

a. 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0  ̧ 

80 

75 ~ 74 

Target Comparison 

I O Baseline 

• Followup 

Agreed that "TV ads or commercials make you more aware of how 

dangerous drugs are."* 

*Significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison 

sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

3.1.1.1 

baseline and followup in the target sites. The percentage of youth who had heard 

of drugs was similar in target and comparison sites at both baseline and followu~. 

Race and Ethnicity 

There were slight differences in race and ethnicity between target and comparison 

sites. Although across all sites similar percentages of the respondents were white 

(67% approximately), a smaller percentage of target site youth than comparison 

site youth were African American (14% compared with 19%). This difference 

was accounted for by a slightly higher percent of Hispanic and Asian youth in 

target sites (14% Hispanic and 3% Asian in target sites, compared with 10% and 

1% respectively in comparison sites). Youth in target and comparison sites were 

similar in the amount Of television they watched, with 88.6 percent watching 

every day or almost every day. There was one exception: the percentage of noncenter city youth who watched TV every day decreased significantly in 

cgmparison sites. 

3.1,1.2 Age 

The sample data were not weightedby age because no good census-based 

universe estimates of age within classroom grades existby Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA). However, there were no significant differences in grade 

Office 3-3 of National Drug Control Policy 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

distribution in either the target sites or the comparison sites between baseline and 

followup (see Exhibit 3-2). 

3.1.1.3 Grade 

3.1.1.4 

Grade level was distributed evenly, with 33.0 percent of youth in fourth, fifth, and 

sixth grades respectively, in both target and comparison sites. 

Family/Household Status 

There were slight differences in family/household structure. At baseline and 

followup, approximately 66 percent of youth in target sites lived with both 

parents, compared with approximately 60 percent of youth in the comparison 

sites; and 15 percent of youth in target sites lived with their mother only, 

compared with approximately 19 percent in the comparison sites. Characteristics 

of the youth sample are presented in Exhibit 3-2. Youth responses to the survey 

questions are summarized in Exhibit 3-3. 

3.1.2 Risk Status of Target and Comparison Site Populations: Drugs Youth 

"Have Heard Of" 

To measure their degree of risk, youth were asked if they had "ever heard of 

marijuana, cocaine, crack, inhalants, methamphetamine, or heroin." Baseline rates 

were similar in both target and comparison sites. The percentage of youth who 

had heard of each drug increased similarly between baseline and followup, in both 

the target and comparison sites, reflecting a secular trend of increasing awareness 

of drugs among all youth as the school year progresses. 

Increase in awareness of the following four drugs was not statistically significant 

from baseline to followup when comparing the net difference between target and 

comparison sites. 

Marijuanas90 percent of target site youth had heard of marijuana at baseline, 

compared with 94 percent at followup. Among comparison site youth, 

90 percent at baseline and 93 percent at followup had heard of marijuana. 

Cocainem86 percent of target site youth had heard of cocaine at baseline, 

compared with 92 percent at followup. Among comparison site youth, 

87 percent at baseline and 91 percent at followup had heard of cocaine. 

Crackm74 percent of target site youth had heard of crack at baseline, 

compared with 84 percent at followup. Among comparison site youth, 

79 percent at baseline and 85 percent at followup had heard of crack. 

Inhalants--69 percent of target site youth had heard of inhalants at baseline, 

compared with 78 percent at followup. Among comparison site youth, 

73 percent at baseline and 80 percent at followup had heard of inhalants. 

3-4 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

Exhibit 3-2 

Youth Sample Demographic Characteristics 

Characteristics Target Sites 

Baseline % Followup % 

Comparison Sites 

Baseline % Followup % 

Grade 

4 34 34 34 34 

5 33 35 33 33 

6 33 32 33 33 

Race/Ethnicity 

White 66 67 67 68 

African American 14 14 19 19 

Hispanic 14 14 10 10 

Asian 3 3 1 1 

Other 1 1 1 1 

Family Composition 

Both parents 66 

Mother and stepfather 10 

Father and stepmother 3 

Mother only 15 

Father only 4 

Grandparents 5 

All other 7 

65 61 60 

11 11 12 

3 3 4 

16 20 19 

3 3 4 

5 5 5 

8 6 8 

55 60 57 

33 30 32 

8 6 7 

1 1 1 

1 1 1 

TV Watching 

Every day 54 

Almost every day 35 

At least once per week 7 

Once or twice per month 1 

Other 1 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

Between baseline and followup, the percentage of target site youth who had heard 

of methamphetamine and heroin increased more substantially, as the following 

survey results indicate: 

Methamphetamine--There was a statistically significant increase in the number 

of youth within target sites who had heard of methamphetamine. At baseline, 

35 percent of target site youth had heard of methamphetamine and 49 percent 

had heard of it by followup, compared with 38 percent at baseline and 

44 percent at followup in the comparison sites. 

Heroin--At baseline, 58 percent of target youth had heard of heroin and 

72 percent had heard of it by followup, compared with 59 percent at baseline 

and 64 percent at followup in the comparison sites. The increase within target 

sites was statistically significant, and the net difference between target and 

comparison sites was significant as well. 

Increased awareness at followup of these two drugs among target site youth over 

the Media Campaign period is discussed further in Chapter 4. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-5 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 3-3 

ResPonses to Youth Questionnaire in Percentages: 

Aggregate Target and Comparison Sites 

Question 

Youth who responded "yes" they have 

heard of... 

Marijuana 

Cocaine 

Crack 

Inhalants 

Methamphetamines 

Heroin 

Youth who responded "the drug is very 

dangerous, never should be used." 

Marijuana ' 

Cocaine 

Crack 

Inhalants 

Methamphetamines 

Heroin 

Beer 

Cigarettes 

Youth who agreed "a lot" with the 

statement... 

I am scared of taking drugs. 

I don't want to hang around people who 

use drugs. 

It is hard to say "no" when friends want 

you to try drugs. 

Using drugs is dangerous. 

Things you sniff or huff to get high (like 

glue) can kill you. 

Youth who reported they have tried... 

Marijuana 

Cocaine 

Crack 

Inhalants 

Methamphetamine 

Heroin 

Alcohol 

Cigarettes 

Youth who responded they learn "a lot" 

that drugs are bad from... 

School class 

Parents or grandparents 

Brother or sister 

Friends 

TV commercials 

TV shows, news, or movies 

On the street 

Youth who responded "yes" they hear 

messages that say drugs are bad 

from... 

TV 

Large outdoor billboards 

Posters on buses, bus stops, or 

subways 

School posters 

Youth who responded "yes, I have seen 

the ad,.. 

Noses 

Long Way Home 

Drowning 

Girlfriend 

1 

3 

4 

8 

9* 

Target 

Baseline Followup % 

% % Difference 

90 94 4* 

86 92 6* 

74 84 10" 

69 78 9* 

35 49 14" 

58 72 14" 

80 81 1 

79 85 6* 

70 78 8* 

55 62 7* 

33 46 13" 

57 69 12" 

25 24 -1 

60 58 -2 

74 70 -4* 

79 73 -6* 

35 36 1 

88 88 0 

61 67 6* 

3 5 2* 

1 2 1 

1 2 0 

7 8 2* 

2 2 0 

1 1 0 

17 22 5* 

8 13 5* 

72 69 -3 

71 69 -1 

37 35 -2 

42 35 -6* 

44 49 5* 

46 46 0 

40 35 -5 

85 89 

48 54 

53 51 

85 84 

4* 

6* 

-1 

-1 

39 51 

43 68 

30 44 

27 43 

12" 

25* 

14" 

16" 

Comparison 

Baseline Followup % 

% % Difference 

90 93 3* 

87 91 3* 

79 85 6* 

73 80 7* 

38 44 7* 

59 64 5 

80 80 0 

82 83 2 

74 79 5* 

59 61 2 

35 40 5 

57 61 4 

30 26 -4 

59 55 '-4 

73 72 -1 

75 75 -1 

33 " 34 1 

86 88 2 

64 65 0 

4 5 1 

1 2 1" 

2 2 1 

8 9 1 

2 3 0 

2 2 0 

18 21 3 

14 16 2 

69 69 0 

71 68 -4* 

36 33 -3 

39 37 -2 

45 40 -5* 

49 49 -1 

39 38 -1 

86 87 1 

49 52 3 

53 54 0 

82 84 3 

36 37 1 

41 40 -2 

29 28 -1 

29 27 -2 

Overall % 

Change' 

5 

8 

8* 

3 

1 

-4 

--5" 

0 

-1 

6* 

1 

-1 

0 

1 

-1 

0 

2 

3 

-3 

-3 

-4 

10" 

0 

-4 

3* 

3 

-1 

-4 

11" 

26* 

15" 

1R* 

3-6 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

Question 

Youth who responded that they agree 

with the following statement... 

TV ads or commercials tell you 

something you didn't know about 

drugs. 

"IV ads or commercials make you stay 

away from drugs. 

TV ads or commercials make you more 

aware of how dangerous drugs are. 

TV ads or commercials tell lies about 

how dangerous drugs are. 

Youth frequency of TV watching 

Every day 

Almost every day 

At least once a week 

Once or twice a month 

A few times a year 

Never 

No answer 

Target 

Baseline Followup % 

% % Difference 

58 61 4 

66 67 2 

74 80 6* 

30 26 -4* 

Comparison 

Baseline Followup % 

% % Difference 

55 56 1 

54 56 1 

35 33 -2 

7 8 1 

1 1 0 

0 1 0 

1 1 0 

1 1 -1 

61 58 -3 

75 74 -1 

30 30 - 

60 57 -3 

31 32 2 

6 8 1 

1 1 0 

1 1 0 

1 1 0 

1 1 0 

Overall % 

Change' 

5 

7* 

-4 

5 

-4 

-1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Note: Because of rounding, numbers may not add. 

*Indicates significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

' Percentage change represents net difference in change between target and comparison sites (i.e., the target site difference in 

percentage points between baseline and followup, minus the comparison site difference). 

3.1.3 Risk Status of Target and Comparison Site Youth: Trial Drug Use 

Among Youth 

Risk status was not markedly different between target and comparison site youth. 

At baseline and followup, at all sites youth were asked if they had "ever tried 

beer, cigarettes, inhalants, marijuana, crack, cocaine, methamphetamine, or 

heroin." Baseline drug use was similar across target and comparison sites. 

Although trial use of drugs among youth increased somewhat in both target and 

comparison sites, there was no significant difference in measures between the two 

types of sites. This suggests that trial use is part of a general secular trend of drug 

experimentation that increased with age in all sites. Findings include the 

following: 

• Inhalants--At baseline, approximately 7 percent of all youth in all sites had 

tried inhalants; by followup, approximately 9 percent had tried them; 

• Marijuana--At baseline, approximately 3 percent of all youth in all sites had 

tried marijuana; by followup, approximately 4 percent had tried it; 

• Crack--Approximately 2 percent of all youth in all sites had tried crack at both 

baseline and followup; 

• Cocaine--At baseline, approximately 1 percent of all youth in all sites had 

tried cocaine; by followup, approximately 2 percent had tried it; 

• Heroin--Approximately 1 percent of all youth in all sites had tried heroin at 

baseline and followup; 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-7 
Testing the Anti,Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

3.1.4 

• Alcohol--At baseline, approximately 17 percent of all youth in all sites had 

tried alcohol; by followup, approximately 21 percent had tried it; 

• Cigarettes--At baseline, approximately 11 percent of all youth in all sites had 

tried cigarettes; by followup, approximately 14 percent had tried them; and 

• Methamphetamine--Approximately 2 percent of all youth in all sites had tried 

methamphetamine at both baseline and followup. 

Thus, as expected, the Media Campaign did not have an influence on drug use 

among youth. These data on usage are important, however, in that they show the 

comparability of youth in target and comparison sites at the outset of the Media 

Campaign. 

• (See Tables 23 to 26 in Appendix E, bound in a separate volume, for additional 

information on demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the sample.) 

Youth Awareness of the Ads 

The survey queried youth about four indicator ads in order to measure awareness 

of the paid ads. However, youth also saw other ads, including ads targeting teens, 

during Phase I, some of which aired at a greater frequency than those included in 

the survey. The implications of this are discussed in Chapter 4, where overall 

exposure to ads and intensity of the Media Campaign are discussed. 

During the Phase I Media Campaign, the percentage of youth who answered 

"yes" when asked if they had seen specific anti-drug ads on TV increased 

substantially between baseline and followup in target sites, but remained 

unchanged in the comparison sites. For Noses, Long Way Home, Drowning, and 

Girlfriend, these increases were statistically significant. These results are 

presented in Exhibit 3-4. 

Long Way Home-- 68 percent of youth in target sites recalled seeing this ad at 

followup, compared with 43 percent at baseline, a difference of 25 percentage 

points. There was a 58 percent change in target sites with regard to awareness of 

this ad. In comparison sites, approximately 40 percent of youth reported seeing 

the ad at followup or baseline, resulting in a statistically significant difference 

between target and comparison sites. 

• Girlfriend--43 percent of youth in target sites recalled seeing this ad at 

followup, compared with only 28 percent at baseline, a 54-percent increase. In 

comparison sites, approximately 27 percent of youth reported seeing the ad at 

followup and baseline, resulting in a statistically significant difference between 

target and comparison sites. 

Drownings44 percent of youth in target sites recalled seeing this ad at 

followup, compared with only 30 percent at baseline, an increase of 14 percentage 

points. In comparison sites, approximately 29 percent of youth reported seeing the 

ad at followup and 28 percent at baseline. This results in a significant difference 

3-8 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Exhibit 3-4 

Ad Awareness: Percentage of Youth Who Saw Specific Ads "Often" 

100 

80 

60 

51 

40-- 

20-- 

m 

68 [ lib Baseline ~ Followup 

44 43 

Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison 

Noses 1. Long Way Home ~ Drowning * Girlfriend 

Note: Percentages are weighted. Youth Question 7. 

*Indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

1 This Specific ad had the highest average GRPs across sites, 

¢- 

0 W e- l 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

between target and comparison sites. The percent increase in target sites 

was 47 percent. 

Noses m 51 percent of youth in target sites recalled seeing this ad at 

followup, compared with 39 percent at baseline. In comparison sites, 

approximately 37 percent of youth reported seeing the ad at followup or 

baseline, resulting in a statistically significant difference between target 

and comparison sites. There was a 31-percent increase in awareness of 

Noses at target sites. 

It is important to note that for these four ads, aggregate data demonstrate 

that a level of awareness was already present at baseline--likely due to the 

fact that baseline surveys in some of the sites were completed after the 

Media Campaign was launched as well as the fact that some of these 

existing ads could have been airing as PSAs. Percent change in awareness 

would have been even higher if baseline data collection had been 

completed earlier (i.e., baseline awareness levels would be presumed to 

have been lower, allowing a greater opportunity for change). 

(See Tables 1 to 6 in Appendix E, for additional information on youth 

awareness of the ads.) 

3.1.5 Youth Awareness of the Ads: Differences by Four Demographic 

Characteristics--Grade, Sex, Ethnicity, and Locale 

The increase in awareness between baseline and followup of Noses, Long 

Way Home, Drowning, and Girlfriend was analyzed by four demographic 

characteristics: grade, sex, ethnicity, and, locale. The increase in awareness 

of Long Way Home, Drowning, and Girlfriend was statistically significant 

among all demographic groups. The increases were not only statistically 

significant but of practical significance as well, with net differences 

ranging from 12 to 28 percent. Among those who saw Noses, increases 

were statistically significant for fifth and sixth graders, whites, females and 

males, and non-center city youth. For these groups, net differences ranged 

from 10 to 15 percent and had practical significance. A summary of these 

findings can be found in Exhibit 3-5. These increases in target sites were 

' greater than the increases in comparison sites and were statistically 

significant. 

3.1.6 Perceived Effectiveness of the Ads Among Youth 

Youth responses also showed evidence of the ads' perceived effectiveness. 

At followup significantly more youth in target sites than in comparison 

sites agreed that the anti-drug messages they had seen or heard had been 

• effective. Comparison group responses showed no change between 

baseline and followup. 

3-10 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Exhibit 3-5 

Youth: SignificantDifferences in ReSponses From Baseline to Followup 

Between Target and Comparison ,Sites, by Demographics 

Question 

Grade Sex Race/Ethnicity Locale 

Noses 

Long Way Home 

Drowning 

Girlfriend 

~/~ ~i~i~ !:i:!ii~i i i ill i!;!i]i~!ii~i~.~::: iiiiiii!iiiiiii:: :i iiii~!iiiii!!i i iii i iill i i iii !iiiii i i iii ill i lii iiili i i 

'q'V ads or commercials make you more aware of how 

dangerous drugs are." ~ .. 

Methamphetamine 

Heroin 

Methamphetamine 

Heroin 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes .... I 

iiiiiiii i ili ii iiiiii !!i!!iiiiiii!iiiil!iil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii(iii 

a) 

Response ~ m :~ E 

_ - .. ~,, =~==o 

°, o0 

• • • • • • • • • • • 

• • • • • • • 0 • • • 

• • • • • • • • • • • 

Agree - 0 • - • • - - - 0 • 

Yes • • - • - • .... O 

Yes • • - • .... • - • 

#~f:~@;~%~i~!~i~i~::i~?~i~::~i~i~i;~::~iii~: i~iii::i::li~@ii!i~i::i~i?::~:::~:~i~:ii~:::;~:::~::::!:i::ii~i ~ w.:~.,~::~:::::::::::~;~ .1~@~*:~ ............... +,....=~ ....................... ~.,(.~:.:.:.~ ................ ~.,,~,~,~: 

Very dangerous, never 

• - - 0 0 • .... 0 should be used 

Very dangerous, never 

• 0 - • 0 • - 0 O - • should be used 

"1 don't want to hang around people who use drugs." Agree a lot O l - - i ...... 

"Things you sniff or huff to get high (like glue) can kill Agree a lot - - • - • • .... • 

~OU." ............................................................................................................. ~,~:' ~s-:~::~::::~ .................. ~ ..................... :~:~ .:.~,:.:....:~: :: ~::: ~::~:::: ~ ................ ~ ................. ~ ....... ~:~:R~..~.:: ~::~,.,~; ~::~:~...,;:;:;:;:~::::~:.::~ <,~:~,~i~....-~:~,~ 

On TV Yes 

On.school posters Yes • - - 

NOTE: Questions are in the Youth Questionnaire in Appendix A. Other includes all races/ethnicities other than white, black, and Hispallic. 

Key: • indicates that significance is at the 95 percent confidence level. O indicates that significance is at the 90 percent confidence level. 

- indicates that there was no significant difference at the 90 percent or 95 percent levels. 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No, 2) 

3.1.7 

Survey results for target site youth who agreed with the following statements 

about TV ads are as follows: 

Made them more aware of how dangerous drugs are--Agreement with this 

statement increased from 74 percent of youth at baseline to 80 percent at 

followup. In comparison sites approximately 74 percent of youth responded in 

this way at both baseline and followup with no chbxige, resulting in a 

statistically significant difference between target ghd comiaarison sites. There 

was an 8-percent increase in agreement with this statement at target sites. 

Tell you something you didn't know about drugs--Agreement with this 

statement increased from 57 percent of youth at baseline to 61 percent at 

followup, an increase of 4 percentage points, but not significant in a practical 

sense. In comparison sites on average, approximately 55 percent of youth 

responded in this way at both baseline and folloWup. The percent change in 

target sites for this response was 8 percent. There was no significant 

difference between target and comparison sites. 

Tell lies about how dangerous drugs are--Agreement with this statement 

decreased from 30 percent of youth at baseline to 26 percent at followup, a 

decrease of 4 percentage points. In comparison sites 30 percent of youth 

responded in this way at both baseline and followup. There was no 

statistically significant difference between target and comparison sites. 

TV ads make you stay away from drugs--Agreement with this statement 

Showed no significant increase, with 66 percent of youth agreeing at baseline 

and 67 percent agreeing at followup. In comparison sites, youth who responded 

in this way declined from 61 percent at baseline to 58 percent at followup. 

There was no significant difference between ta2get and comparison sites. For 

the Phase I evaluation, we did not expect to find ~i ~change ~'et on this item. 

(See Exhibit 3-5 and Tables 7 to 10 in Appendix E, for niore information on 

effectiveness of the ads among youth.) 

Perceived Effectiveness of the Ads Amofig YOUth: Differences by 

Four Demographic Characteristics--Grade, ~dx~ Ethnicity, and 

Locale 

When the data were analyzed by the demographic charac'terisfics of the 

respondents, other patterns were revealed. There Were significant increases 

between baseline and followup in target sites amoiag all grades, males and 

females, all ethnic and racial groups, and in all locales, in the percentage of youth 

who agreed that "the ads made them more aware of how dangerous drugs are." 

These increases were statistically significantly different between target and 

comparison sites. These findings are summarized in Exhibit 3-5. 

(See Tables 7 to 10 in Appendix E for more information on effectiveness of the 

ads among youth, by demographic characteristics.) 

3-12 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

3.1.8 Youth Awareness of the Risks of Drugs 

Between baseline and followup, in target sites, youth awareness of the risks of 

cocaine, crack, inhalants, methamphetamine, and heroin use increased 

significantly. There were similar increases in comparison sites, but these were not 

statiStically significant, and there was no significant difference between target and 

COmparison sites, except for methamphetamine. 

These findings are summarized in Exhibit 3-6. The following are survey results 

for Specific drugs: 

Methamphetamine--In target sites at followup, 46 percent of youth thought 

that methamphetamine was "very dangerous," up from 33 percent at baseline. 

In comparison sites, 40 percent at followup thought this, up from 35 percent at 

baseline. This resulted in a significant difference between target and 

comparison sites. There was a 39-percent increase among target site youth who 

perceived methamphetamine to be very dangerous. 

Heroin--In target sites at followup, 69 percent of youth thought that heroin 

was "very dangerous," up from 57 percent at baseline, an increase of 

12 percentage points. In comparison sites, 61 percent at followup thought this, 

up from 57 percent at baseline. There was a statistically significant difference 

between target andcomparison sites. The percent increase in target sites was 

2i percent. 

Cocaine--In target sites at followup, 85 percent of youth thought that cocaine 

was "very dangerous," up from 79 percent at baseline, an increase of 

6 percentage points. In comparison sites 83 percent of youth at followup 

~hought this, up from 82 percent at baseline. A statistically significant 

difference between target and comparison sites was found, with a 7.5 percent 

Change in target sites in response to this question. 

r 

Crack--In target sites at followup, 78 percent of youth thought that crack was 

"~¢ery dangerous," up from 70 percent at baseline. In comparison sites 

,']9 percent at followup thought this, up from 74 percent at baseline. No 

Statistically significant difference between target and comparison sites was 

f6tind. 

inhalants--In target sites at followup, 62 percent of youth thought that 

inhalants were "very dangerous," up from 55 percent at baseline, a change of 

percentage points. In comparison sites 61 percent at followup thought this, 

up from 59 percent at baseline, an increase of 2 percentage points, with no 

statistically significant difference between target and comparison sites. 

There was no increase in awareness of the risks associated with marijuana 

between baseline and followup in either target or comparison sites, where 

approximately 80 percent of all youth at baseline and followup in both target and 

comparison sites thought marijuana was "very dangerous." 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-13 
Exhibit 3-6 

Youth's Awareness of the Risks of Drugs: 

Percentage Saying Drugs Are "Very Dangerous" 

100 

85 i Baseline ~# Followup 

_Jill 78 77 

70 ~'i~'~: 69 

. ~. ~ ................ 58 ou 

~ • • mm~~- ~i • 

• ~ i~ m~~~ 

~ ~ i~ " - 30 

, 

Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Compa~s~ Target ~ T~'get Corr'@a~,on 

Marijuana Cocaine Crack.- Inhalants - Metham- Heroin .k Cigarettes Beer 

phetamines ** 

Note: Percentages are weighted. Youth Question 2. 

• Indicates significant difference in change from, baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

• *Indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup betweentarget and comparison sites; significance is at the 90% confidence level. 
Aggregate Survey Results 

3.1.9 

Awareness of risk for cigarettes and beer actually decreased significantly at 

followup among both target and comparison site youth. This may be an indication 

that youth, in the absence of an intensive educational effort, begin to adjust to and 

accept societal levels of smoking and drinking as they move through the school 

year. Findings include the following: 

Cigarettes--Whereas 60 percent of target site youth at baseline said cigarettes 

were "very dangerous" only 57 percent believed this to be true at followup. In 

comparison sites 58 percent of youth at baseline said that cigarettes were "very 

dangerous"; by followup, only 55 percent thought this was the case. 

Beer--Although 25 percent of target site youth at baseline said that drinking 

beer was "very dangerous," at followup, only 24 percent thought this was so. 

In comparison sites, 30 percent of youth at baseline said drinking beer was 

"very dangerous." By followup, this was true for only 26 percent of youth. 

(See also Tables 11 to 14 in Appendix E for more information on youth awareness 

of the risk of drugs.) 

Youth Awareness of the Risks of Drugs: Differences by Four 

Demographic Characteristics--Grade, Sex, Ethnicity, and Locale 

When the data were analyzed by the demographic characteristics of respondents, 

other patterns emerged. Increases in awareness of the risks associated with heroin 

between baseline and followup within target sites were statistically significant 

among the following groups: whites, males, non-center city youth, and fourth 

graders. These increases were statistically significantly greater in target sites than 

in comparison sites. 

Risk awareness for methamphetamine increased significantly among fourth 

graders, whites, non-center city youth, and males and females. Increases in risk 

awareness for inhalants were significant among males only. 

(See also Tables 11 to 14 in Appendix E for more information on youth awareness 

of the risk of drugs, by demographic characteristics.) 

3.1.10 Youth Attitudes Toward Drugs 

Youth were asked about their attitudes towards drugs. Specifically, they were 

asked whether or not they agreed with the following statements: (1) "using drugs 

is dangerous";(2) "it is hard to say 'no' when friends want you to try drugs"; 

(3) "things you sniff or huff to get high can kill you"; (4) "I don't want to hang 

around people who do drugs"; and (5) "I am scared of doing drugs." (See 

Exhibit 3-3.) 

• Using drugs is dangerous 

Approximately 88 percent of all youth in both target and comparison sites "agreed 

a lot" with this statement, at both baseline and followup, with no significant 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-15 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

differences within target and comparison sites, nor between target and comparison 

sites. 

• It is hard to say "no" when friends ask you to do drugs 

Approximately 34 percent of all youth in both target and comparison sites "agreed 

a lot" with this statement, at both baseline and followup with no significant 

difference within target and comparison sites, nor between target and comparison 

sites. 

• Things you sniffor huff can kill you 

Attitudes towards inhalants, however, did change significantly between baseline 

and followup within target sites, and there was a significant difference between 

target and comparison sites. 

At followup, 67 percent of youth "agreed a lot" with this statement, up from 61 

percent at baseline, an increase of 6 percentage points. The change in comparison 

sites was from 64 to 65 percent, respectively, of all youth at both baseline and 

followup who "agreed a lot" with this statement. 

• I don't want to hang aroundpeople who do drugs 

There was an actual decrease among target site youth who "agreed a lot" with this 

statement between baseline and followup. 79 percent of target site youth "agreed a 

lot" with the statement at baseline, but only 73percent did so at followup (a 

decrease of 6 percentage points). 

Comparison site youth showed no change in this measure, withabout 75 percent at 

both baseline and followup "agreeing a lot" with this statement. The difference 

between the target and comparison sites was actually negatively statistically 

significant. 

• I am scared of taking drugs 

Fewer children in the target group agreed at followup with the statement "I am 

scared of taking drugs." However, the change was small (from 74 percent to 70 

percent), and was accompanied by a small decrease in the comparison group 

(from 73 percent to 72 percent). Thus, the difference between target and 

comparison sites was statistically insignificant. It is possible that this change may 

be accounted for by the aging of the population alone. 

(See also Tables 15 to 18 in Appendix E for more information on youth attitudes 

toward drugs.) 

3-16 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

3.1.11 

3.1.12 

Youth Attitudes Towards Drugs: Differences by Four Demographic 

Characteristics m Grade, Sex, Ethnicity, and Locale 

When analyzed by demographic characteristics, these patterns emerged more 

clearly. In target sites, attitudes towards inhalants changed significantly between 

baseline and followup among whites, females, non-center city, and sixth-grade 

youth. These increases were statistically significantly greater in target sites than in 

comparison sites. 

The percentage of youth agreeing a lot with the statement "I don't want to hang 

around people who do drugs" declined between baseline and followup among 

fifth graders and females. This decline was statistically significantly greater in 

target than in comparison sites. 

(See also Tables 15 to 18 in Appendix E, for more information on youth attitudes 

toward drugs by demographic characteristics.) 

General Sources of Information on Drugs Among Youth 

There was a substantial increase among youth in target sites who reported 

learning "a lot" about the negative aspects of drugs from TV ads (as opposed to 

TV shows, news, etc.). 

At followup, 49 percent of youth said they learned "a lot" from TV ads, up from 

44 percent at baseline, an increase of 5 percentage points over the same period. In 

comparison sites there was a decrease in the percentage of youth who said they 

had learned "a lot" from TV ads, at 45 percent at baseline, and 40 percent at 

followup. This resulted in a significant difference between target and comparison 

site responses. 

All other sources of information--school class, parents or grandparents, siblings, 

friends, TV shows, news, and movies, and the street--showed either no increase 

or a decline in percentage of youth who said they had learned "a lot" from them. 

Overall, parents, grandparents, school, and friends remained the most important 

sources of information on drugs among youth. Specific survey results are as 

follows: 

46 percent of youth at both baseline and at followup in target sites said they 

learned "a lot" from TV shows/news/movies, (as opposed to TV ads), with no 

change, compared with 49 percent at both baseline and followup, in 

comparison sites, with no significant difference between target and comparison 

sites. 

72 percent of youth at baseline and 69 percent at followup in target sitesma 

decrease of 3 percentage points--said they learned "a lot" about drugs from 

school classes, compared with approximately 69 percent at both time periods in 

comparison sites, with no significant difference between target and comparison 

sites. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-17 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

42 percent of youth at baseline and 35 percent at followup in target sites--a 

decrease of 7 percentage points--said they learned "a lot" from friends, 

compared with 39 percent and 37 percent of youth, respectively, in comparison 

sites, with no significant difference between target and comparison sites. 

40 percent of youth at baseline and 35 percent at followup in target sites said 

they learned "a lot" about drugs on the street compared with 39 percent and 

38 percent of youth, respectively, in comparison sites, with no significant 

difference between target and comparison sites. 

37 percent of youth at baseline and 35 percent at followup in target sites said 

they learned that drugs are bad from a brother or a sister, compared with 

36 percent and 33 percent of youth, respectively, at comparison sites, with no 

significant difference between target and comparison sites. 

71 percent of youth at baseline and 69 percent at followup said that they 

learned that drugs are bad from parents or grandparents. In comparison sites, 

there was a decrease from 71 percent of youth at baseline to 68 percent at 

followup. There was no significant difference between targetand comparison 

sites. 

Youth were asked about their awareness of media sources of anti-drug ads. The 

number of target site youth who said they had seen anti-drug ads on TV increased 

significantly between baseline and followup, from 85 percent to 89 percent 

compared with a slight increase among comparison site youth from 86 percent to 

87 percent. There was a 5-percent change among target site youth. Other sources 

of anti-drug ads--billboards; posters on buses, bus stops, or subways; and school 

posters--showed no significant increases between baseline and followup, with no 

significant difference between target and comparison sites when~target sites were 

compared with comparison sites. 

Approximately 84 percent of all youth surveyed at baseline and followup had seen 

anti-drug ads on school posters, and 52 percent had seen them on posters in other 

places. Approximately 48 percent of all youth at baseline saw anti-drug ads on 

large outdoor billboards; at followup 53 percent reported this. There was no 

difference between target and comparison sites on these measures. 

(See also Tables 19 to 22 in Appendix E for more on "sources of information" on 

drugs among youth.) 

3.1.13 Sources of Information on Drugs Among Youth by Four 

Demographic Characteristics--Grade, Sex, Ethnicity, and Locale 

For every demographic group, there was either no increase, or an actual decline in 

percentages of target site youth compared to comparison site youth who said they 

"learned a lot" about the dangers of drugs from school classes, parents or 

grandparents, siblings, friends, TV shows, news, and movies, or on the street. 

There was, however, a substantial increase amongtarget site youth compared with 

comparison site youth who reported learning "a lot" from TV ads. These increases 

3-18 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

were statistically significant among all racial groups, at all locales, among both 

males and females. Responses among target site fourth and sixth graders (but not 

fifth grade) ~ also increased significantly. These increases were statistically 

Significantly greater in target sites than in comparison sites. 

(See also Tables 14 to 22 in Appendix E for more on sources of information on 

drugs among youth, by demographic characteristics.) 

3.2 TEEN FINDINGS 

A sample of high school teens in grades 7-12 were surveyed. The following 

section presents results related to their awareness of the ads, perceived 

effectiveness of the ads, attitudes towards drugs, awareness of drugs, and 

awareness of the risk of drugs. Exhibits 3-7 and 3-8 present key teen findings. The 

survey asked questions about the following paid Media Campaign ads targeted to 

teens: Alex Straight A 's, Frying Pan, 911, Layla, Free Ride, Rite of Passage. 

3.2.1 

3.2.2 

Teen Sample Profile: Comparability of the Target and Comparison 

Teen Samples Between Baseline and Followup 

Teens in target and comparison sites were similar with regard to age, percentage 

male or female, distribution by grade, and type of household. These 

characteristics did not change from baseline to followup. There were slight 

differences in race and ethnicity; although similar percentages of teen respondents 

across all sites were white (69% on average), a smaller percentage of target site 

teens (13.6%), compared with comparison site teens (18.2%), were African 

American. This difference was accounted for by a slightly higher percentage of 

Hispanic and Asian teens in target sites (12.0% and 2.7%, respectively), 

compared with Hispanic and Asian teens in comparison sites (9.0% and 0.8%, 

respectively) Teens in target and comparison sites reported similar patterns of 

television viewing, with 84 percent watching television every day or almost every 

day. The sample profile is summarized inExhibits 3-9 and 3-10. 

Risk Status of Target and Comparison Sites: Baseline Teen Drug Use 

Risk status, as measured by drug use, did not differ at baseline in either target or 

comparison sites. Teen drug use in the past year and in the past 30 days increased 

marginally in both target and comparison sites over the course of the Media 

Campaign period, with no significant differences between the two. These 

increases probably are due to a maturation effect: as the school year progresses, 

• teen~ are more likely to hear about and:be exposed to drugs. This phenomenon is 

discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4] As expected, there was no significant 

:' Change in teen behavior through exposure to the Media Campaign. 

The following levels of drug use in the past 30 days were reported at baseline by 

teens at all sites: 

• Marijuana (approximately 20%); 

Office of National Drug Control Policy ~ 3-19 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 3-7 

Increases in Teens Reporting TV Commercials as a Source of Information 

About the Risks of Drugs 

30 

25 

(- 

G) u 

Q. 

25 

2C 

20 I 

15. --I 

I 

I 10. 

I 

5 

I 

0 I 

23 

Target Comparison 

D Baseline I 

• Followup I 

Agreed they learned "a lot" about the risks of drugs from TV 

commercials.* 

*Significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison 

sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

Exhibit 3-8 

Increases in Teens' Reported Level of Exposure to Anti-Drug Ads 

35 

31 

rG) 

0 

L_ q} 

a. 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

24 

22 

20 

Target Comparison 

~ Baseline I 

M Followup I 

Percentage reporting the "frequency of seeing or hearing commercials 

or ads telling them about drugs every day or almost every day 

significantly increased."* 

*Significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison 

sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

3-20 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

Exhibit 3-9 

Teen Sample Demographic Characteristics 

Characteristics 

Target Sites 

Baseline % Followup % 

Comparison Sites 

Baseline % Followup % 

Grade 

7 16 16 16 17 

8 18 17 17 17 

9 15 15 15 16 

10 20 20 20 18 

11 16 16 15 16 

12 15 16 16 15 

Race/Ethnicity 

White 69 68 70 69 

African American 13 14 18 19 

Hispanic 12 12 9 9 

Asian 3 3 1 1 

Other 3 3 3 3 

Family Composition 

Both parents 57 59 55 55 

Mother and stepfather 13 12 14 13 

Father and stepmother 4 4 5 5 

Mother only 19 19 19 19 

Father only 5 5 5 4 

Grandparents 3 5 5 5 

All other 11 12 11 12 

TV Watching 

Every day 54 54 58 55 

Almost every day 31 30 28 29 

At least once per week 10 11 11 10 

Once or twice per month 2 2 1 1 

Other 3 3 2 3 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

• Inhalants (approximately 5%); 

• Cocaine (approximately 3%); and 

• Crack (approximately 2%) 

,o Alcohol (approximately 39%); 

• Cigarettes (approximately 29%); 

The following levels of drug use in the past 12 months were reported by teens at 

baseline: 

• Marijuana (approximately 35%); 

• Inhalants (approximately 11%); 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-21 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 3-10 

Responses to Teen Questionnaire in Percentages: 

Aggregate Target and Comparison Sites 

I Questions 

Teens who strongly agreed with the 

following statements... 

Taking drugs scares me.' 

I don't want to hang around anyone who 

uses marijuana. 

I would try to talk a friend'out of using 

drugs. 

The music that my friends and I listen to 

makes drugs seem cool. 

Heroin is a dangerously addictive drug. 

I Heroin will ruin your life. 

Teens who responded there is a great 

risk in trying once or twice... 

Marijuana 

Cocaine/crack 

Methamphetamines 

! Heroin 

Teens who responded there is a great 

risk in using regularly... 

Marijuana 

Cocaine/crack 

Methamphetamines 

Heroin 

Teens who responded there is great 

risk the following will happen to 

someone who uses marijuana... 

Going on to harder drugs 

Doing worse at school, work, or sports 

Getting hooked on marijuana 

Becoming a loser 

Messing up your life 

Acting stupidly and foolishly 

Missing out on the good things in life 

Upsetting their parents 

Teens who responded there is great 

risk the following will happen to someone who uses methamphetamines.., 

Getting hooked on methamphetamines 

Becoming violent 

Acting crazy 

Teen frequency of seeing or hearing 

commercials or ads telling them about 

the risks of drugs.,, 

Not at all 

Less than once a month 

1-3 times a month 

1-3 times a week 

Every day or almost every day 

More than once a day 

No answer 

Teens who "agree a lot" that these 

commercials or ads have.;. 

I Made you more aware of the risks of 

using drugs 

Made you less likely to try or use drugs 

Given you new information or told you 

things you didn't know about drugs 

Exaggerated the risks or dangers of 

marijuana 

Baseline 

% 

32 

29 

51 

9 

85 

85 

22 

52 

52 

56 

60 

86 

82 

86 

61 

55 

62 

42 

59 

52 

53 

72 

78 

68 

69 

7 

11 

23 

23 

24 

13 

1 

31 

29 

27 

30 

Target 

Followup 

% 

33 

26 

g2 

10 

85 

84 

19 

53 

52 

56 

60 

85 

84 

86 

60 

56 

60 

42 

56 

54 

52 

73 

80 

69 

71 

4 

7 

.15 

23 

31 

19 

34 

30 

30 

29 

% Baseline 

Difference % 

1 36 

-3 29 

1 56 

1 11 

0 86 

-1 84 

-3 24 

1 54 

1 54 

0 58 

-1 59 

0 84 

2 82 

-1 84 

-1 61 

0 56 

-2 62 

0 42 

-2 59 

1 53 

- 53 

1 74 

1 80 

1 68 

2 69 

-2* 7 

-4* 12 

-8* 23 

0 23 

7* 22 

7* 11 

- 2 

3 32 

1 29 

3 28 

-1 31 

Comparison 

Followup I % : 

% I Difference 

34 -2 

29 0 

55 -1 

12 1 

86 0 

85 0 

22 -2 

55 0 

54 0 

59 1 

56 -3 

84 0 

82 0 

84 0 

60 -1 

52 --4 

61 0 

41 0 

57 -1 

53 -1 

54 1 

72 -2 

80 0 

70 2 

71 1 

10 3* 

13 1 

24 1 

21 -2 

20 -2 

11 -1 

2 0 

31 -1 

27 -2 

27 -1 

30 -2 

Overall % 

change' 

4 

-3 

1 

0 

0 

-1 

-1 

1 

1 

-1 

2 

0 

2 

-1 

0 

4 

-2 

0 

-1 

2 

-1 

3 

1 

-1 

, 1 

--5" 

-9* 

2 

• g. 

7 

0 

4 

3 

4 

1 

3-22 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

Target Comparison 

Questions 

Teens who agree they learned "a lot" 

from... 

School lessons or programs 

Parents or grandparents 

Brother or sister 

Friends 

TV commercials 

TV shows, news, or movies 

Radio 

Print ads in newspapers or magazines 

Billboards outside 

Posters on buses, bus stops, or 

subways 

School posters 

On the street 

Teens who reported they have seen the 

commercials "often" in the past few 

months... 

Alex Straight A's 

Frying Pan 

911 

Layla 

Free Ride 

Rite of Passa_qe 

Baseline Followup % 

% % Difference 

46 45 0 

35 35 - 

20 21 1 

31 33 2 

20 25 5* 

30 32 1 

10 15 5* 

16 15 -1 

11 12 1 

9 10 2 

20 16 -4* 

23 24 0 

9 26 17* 

22 49 27* 

11 23 12* 

12 16 4* 

7 10 3* 

9 14 5* 

Baseline Followup % 

% % Difference 

42 42 -1 

40 40 0 

21 21 -1 

35 33 -1 

23 20 -3 

35 30 -5 

10 10 -1 

16 16 0 

13 11 -2 

11 10 -1 

21 18 --3 

25 25 0 

7 7 -1 

16 16 1 

8 9 1 

11 12 1 

8 8 0 

9 8 0 

Overall % 

change ~ 

1 

0 

1 

4 

7* 

6* 

5* 

-2 

3 

2 

-1 

0 

18" 

27* 

11" 

3 

3 

5* 

Note: Because of rounding, numbers may not add. 

*Indicates significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

' Percentage change represents net difference in change between target and comparison sites (i.e., the target site difference in 

percentage points between baseline and followup, minus the comparison site difference). 

• Cocaine (approximately 6%); 

• Crack (approximately 4%); 

. Alcohol (approximately 57%); and 

• Cigarettes (approximately 44%). 

Teens were not asked about their heroin use. 

Additional information on teen drug use can be found in Appendix E, Tables 49- 

52 (bound in separate volume). 

3.2.3 Awareness of the Ads 

Teens were asked a general awareness question regarding whether they had seen 

or heard any ads telling them about the risks of drugs. In general, teen awareness 

of the ads increased substantially during the Phase I Media Campaign. In target 

sites, the percent of teens who saw such ads every day or almost every day 

increased from 24 percent at baseline to 31 percent at followup, an increase of 

7 percentage points and a 29 percent change. The change in comparison sites was 

22 percent at baseline and 20 percent at followup, resulting in a significant 

difference between target and comparison sites. Teens also were asked about six 

specific Media Campaign ads. ~ The following findings are summarized in 

Exhibit 3-1 I. 

Teens may have seen more ads over the Media Campaign period; but six were selected as indicators of awareness of 

paid ads. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-23 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Alex Straight A "sn 26 percent of teens in target sites recalled seeing this ad 

"often" at followup, compared with 9 percent in the baseline period, a significant 

increase of 17 percentage points and a percent change of 188 percent in target 

sites. In comparison sites approximately 7 percent of teens reported this level of 

recall at baseline and followup, resulting in a significant difference between target 

and comparison sites. The percentage of teens who ever saw this ad (including 

those who saw Alex Straight A's either "often" or "a few times") was 64 percent 

at followup in target sites, with 35 percent of comparison site teens reporting 

having ever seen the ad at followup. 

Frying Panm49 percent of teens in target sites recalled seeing this ad "often" at 

followup, compared with 22 percent in the baseline period, a significant increase 

of 27 percentage points and a percent change of 122 percent. In comparison sites 

approximately 16 percent of teens reported this level of recall at either baseline or 

followup, resulting in a significant difference between target and comparison 

sites. 

911 m 23 percent of teens in target sites recalled seeing this ad "often" at 

followup, compared with 11 percent in the baseline period, a significant increase 

of 12 percentage points and a 109-percent change. In comparison sites 8 percent 

and 9 percent of teens reported this level of recall at baseline and followup, 

respectively, with no significant difference between target and comparison sites. 

Forty-six percent of target site teens reported having ever seen the ad 911 at 

followup, whereas 29 percent of comparison site teens had ever seen the ad. 

Rite of Passage-- 14 percent of teens in target sites recalled seeing this ad 

"often" at followup, compared with 9 percent in the baseline period, a significant 

increase of 5 percentage points. There was a 56-percent change in the target sites. 

In comparison sites, approximately 9 percent of teens reported this level of recall 

at either baseline or followup, resulting in a significant difference between target 

and comparison sites. 

There was no significant difference in results between target and comparison sites 

for the following two ads. 

Free Ride---Target site teen recall was 7 percent at baseline, and 10 percent at 

followup, compared to 8 percent in both target and comparison sites, with no 

change over time and with no significant difference between target and 

comparison sites. 

LaylanTarget site teen recall was 12 percent at baseline, and 16 percent at 

followup, a significant increase of 4 percentage points compared with 11 percent 

at baseline and 12 percent at followup in comparison sites, with no significant 

differences between target and comparisons sites. 

3-24 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Exhibit 3-11 

Ad Awareness: Percentage of Teens Who Saw Ads "Often" 

100 

80 

60 

I lIBaseline ~Followup 

28 ~ 

.......... .... 

~~ 16 16 

~.,, ~ ?~: 11 " ~ 

Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison 

Alex Straight A's * Frying Pan * 911 * 

16 

Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison 

Layla Free Ride Rite of Passage * 

Note: Percentages are weighted. Teen Question 9. 

*indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

fP 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

3.2.4 

Although there was no significant difference between target and comparison sites 

at the aggregate level on awareness of the ads Layla and Free Ride, this may be 

attributed to site-level variation in the airings of these ads. In the eight sites where 

Layla was scheduled to run as a paid ad, significant differences in awareness 

between the target and comparison sites were found in Denver and Sioux City. 

And although Layla was part of the media plan in Milwaukee and Portland, it did 

not air in these two sites as a paid ad. Free Ride was scheduled as a paid ad in 

four sites, and in two of these (Atlanta and Baltimore), the ad did show 

statistically significant increases in awareness between the target and comparison 

sites. The implications of these results are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5. 

Additional information on teen awareness of the ads can be found in Appendix E, 

Tables 27-32. 

Awareness of the Ads Among Teens: Differences by Four 

Demographic Characteristics: Grade, Locale, Ethnicity, Gender 

Among all demographic groups, the percent of target site teens increased at 

followup for those reporting they had seen or heard ads that told them about the 

risks of drugs. When teen responses were analyzed by demographic 

characteristics, additional patterns emerged, and these findings are summarized in 

Exhibit 3-12. Selected findings include the following: 

Increases in the percentage of teens who had seen Alex Straight-A's "often" 

were statistically significant among teens in all grades, both sexes, all locales, 

and among African Americans and whites; 

Increases in thepercentage of teens who had seen Frying Pan and 911 "often" 

were statistically significant for all subcategories of the four demographic 

groups; 

• Increases in the percentage of teens who had seen Layla "often" were 

statistically significant among females and non-center city residents~ 

• Increases in the percentage of teens who had seen Free Ride "often" were 

statistically significant among whites, males, and non-center city residents; and 

Increases in the percentage of teens who had seen Rite of Passage "often" were 

statistically significant among 7th through 10th graders, whites, Hispanics, 

females, and non-center city residents. 

These increases were statistically significantly greater in target sites than in 

comparison sites. Additional information on teen awareness of the ads by 

demographic characteristics can be found in Appendix E, Tables 27-32. 

3-26 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Exhibit 3-12 

Teens: Significant Differences in Responses.From Baseline to Followup 

Between Target and Comparison Sites,, byDemographics 

Question 

Grade Sex Race/Ethnicity Locale 

Response o ~ • m ~ ~ 

- o ,., 

;::~:~i~ii~::~i~::~i~:i!ii~i!~ii!i!i~!~!i!iiii~!i:=~i~!i~i~i~i~ii~iiiii~iii~iiii~ii:;~:~iii!~iiii~#iiii~i!II~!~ !~ii i~ i~ ;~ ~li !ii~,::~::::~:iiq~ ~i~iii~i~:i!ii '~iiiiY~i~iiY i~ .................. ~i~i ............ ~ ~ i~ i~i~ ~'~' ~ ~ ~ ii::~iii~::~::~!i~ ~i ~ i~?~%~ ~::~:: ~;::!::~i ii ~ ~i ii ~:~,!~ ~'~ ~iE~'~i ~ i~ : ~ tlllfii~iitiiiii~ifili~iiiiii~i~i~®i:~ii~i~i 

TV commercials 

TV shows, news, or movies 

Radio 

Almost every day • • • • . • • _ _ • • • 

or more often 

Learned a lot - • • • O • .... • 

Learned a lot - - • • - • - - • - • 

Learned a lot • - - • • • - - - • • 

ii ..................... ~: "~i ':~ ......... " ': .......... ' : i~i~i!~ii~ ~::!~!~il!~ii~ii ~i@i~i~i~!i~:: ~! ~ !~i;~:#!~ i~;~ii~i~ i~!~ ~i~ ~:~i~i~ ~i~i ~!ii i ~ i~i~!~i!~i!i~:#~I~I~`~I~!~I~i~%~;#~i~1~!!`~m~ ~ "~i~#~ " / I ~ ~iW~ 

Alex Straight A's Often 

Frying Pan Often 

911 Often 

Layla Often 

Free Ride Often 

Rite of Passage Often 

0 • • 

• • - 

0 - • 

-- 0 -- 

- 0 

- • 

- • 

NOTE: Questions are in Teen Questionnaire in Appendix A. Other includes all races/ethnicities other. 

than white, black, and Hispanic. 

Key: • indicates significance in change at the 95% confidence level. 

O indicates significance in change at the 90% confidence level. 

- indicates that there was no significant difference at the 90% or 95% confidence level. 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

3.2.5 

3.2.6 

Perceived Effectiveness of the Ads Among Teens 

There were no significant increases between baseline and followup in the 

percentage of teens in target or comparison sites who "agreed a lot" with specific 

statements about the ads as the following survey results indicate: 

• "Made them more aware of the risks of using drugs" (apisfoximately 32% 

overall); 

• "Made them less likely to try or use drugs" (aPiJroxiriaately 29% overall); 

• "Gave them new information or told them things they didn't know about 

drugs" (approximately 28% overall); and 

• "Exaggerated the risks or dangers of marijuana" (approximately 31% overall). 

Additional information on the perceived effectiveness of the ads among teens by 

their demographic characteristics can be found in Appendix E, Tables 33-36. 

Perceived Effectiveness of the Ads Among TeenS: Differences by 

Grade, Locale, Ethnicity, Gender 

When responses were analyzed by demographic characteristics, no further 

information emerged. 

3.2.7 Awareness of the Risks of Drugs Among Teens 

Teens' responses to questions about the risks of d~gs 'did not show an increase in 

awareness, either within or between the target and comp~]s0n sites. Awareness of 

the risks of marijuana, crack-cocaine, methamphet~ne, ~ind heroin remained the 

same throughout the Media Campaign. 

Crack~Cocaine: Approximately 53 percent of all te6n~ ~t all sites at baseline 

and followup thought there was "great risk" in trying crack-cocaine once or 

twice; 86 percent of target site teens at baseline arid 8~ l~bi:cent at followup and 

84 percent of comparison site youth at both baseii,fie ~fid f6iiowup thought 

there was "great risk" in using crack-cocaine r~iJl~]?ly, arid 

Methamphetamine: Approximately 53 percent 6f all te6ias at all sites at 

baseline and followup thought there was "great risk" in ti:ying 

methamphetamine once or twice; 82 percent thought there was "great risk" in 

using it regularly; and 80 percent thought there was "great risk" of becoming 

addicted. 

With regard to the social and psychological risks associated with 

methamphetamine, teens at baseline and at followup, in both target and 

comparison sites, thought that users were at "great risk" for acting crazy 

(approximately 70%) and becoming violent (approximately 68%). 

3-28 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

3.2.8 

3.2.9 

Heroin: Approximately 57 percent of teens thought there was "great risk" in 

trying heroin; and approximately 85 percent thought there was "great risk" in 

using it regularly. 

Marijuana: Approximately 22 percent of teens thought there was "great risk" 

in trying marijuana; 60 percent of teens at baseline and followup in target sites 

thought there was "great risk" in using it regularly; 59 percent at baseline and 

56 percent at followup perceived this in comparison sites. Two-thirds of teens 

also thought marijuana users were at "great risk" for "getting hooked" (61%); 

or "going on to harder drugs" (60%). 

There was no change in teen awareness of the social and academic risks 

associated with marijuana. The following percentages of teens at baseline and 

followup in both target and comparison sites thought that marijuana users were at 

"great risk" for the following: 

• Doing worse at school, work, or sports (approximately 55%); 

• Becoming a loser (approximately 42%); 

• Messing up their lives (approximately 57%); 

• Missing out on the good things in life (approximately 52%); and 

• Acting foolishly and doing stupid things (approximately 53%). 

However, more teens thought that marijuana users were at "great risk" for the 

following: 

• Upsetting their parents (approximately 72%). 

Additional information on awareness of the risk of drugs can be found in 

Appendix E, Tables 37-40. 

Awareness of the Risks of Drugs Among Teens: Differences by 

Grade, Locale, Ethnicity, and Gender 

When responses to questions about awareness of the risks of drugs were further 

analyzed, there were no statistically significant differences between target and 

comparison sites by demographic characteristics. 

Attitudes Towards Drugs Among Teens 

Teens showed no change in their attitudes toward drugs during Phase I. The 

percentage of teens saying they "agree strongly" with the following statements 

remained unchanged between baseline and followup in both target and 

comparison groups: 

• "Taking drugs scares me" (approximately 33%); 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-29 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

• "I don't want to hang around anyone who uses marijuana" (approximately 

28%); 

• "I would try to talk a friend out of using drugs" (approximately 53%); 

• "The music that my friends and I listen to makes drugs seem cool"; 

(approximately 10%); 

• "Heroin is a dangerously addictive drug" (approximately 85%); and 

• "Heroin will ruin your life" (approximately 84%). 

The implications of these results are detailed in Chapter 4. The low percentages of 

responses to the first three questions seem at odds with responses to the last three. 

This may be because teens understood the questions in an unintended way. For 

example, the first question may have been taken to mean "I am scared that I might 

try drugs," and the second could be interpreted to mean "I might be tempted to 

give in to peer pressure if I hang around people who use drugs." Since the 

question is specific to marijuana, it may mean that use of marijuana by friends 

does not exclude them from being friends. 

Additional information on teen attitudes towards drugs can be found in 

Appendix E, Tables 41-44. 

Analysis of teen attitudes by demographic characteristics did not reveal any 

additional information. 

3.2.10 Sources of Information About Drugs Among Teens 

Teens were asked to identify different sources of information about drugs. The 

percentage of target site teens who said they learned "a lot" about the risks of 

drugs from TV ads, and from TV shows, news, movies, and radio increased 

significantly from baseline to followup. These findings are summarized in 

Exhibit 3-13. 

25 percent of target site teens at followup "learned a lot" from TV 

commercials, compared with 20 percent at baseline, an increase of 

5 percentage points and a 25-percent change. In comparison sites, 20 percent 

responded this way at followup, compared with 23 percent at baseline, a 

decrease of 3 percentage points. This resulted in a significant difference 

between target and comparison sites. 

32 percent of target site teens at followup "learned a lot" from TV shows, 

news, and movies, compared with 30 percent at baseline, an increase of 

2 percentage points. In comparison sites, 30 percent responded this way at 

followup, and 35 percent at baseline, a decrease of 5 percentage points, 

resulting in a significant difference between target and comparison sites. 

3-30 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Q 

~o 

o -I 

¢D 

2 ¢JQ 

C) 

o 

"O 

o__ 

~o cJ ,<: 

Exhibit 3-13 

Sources of Information About Drugs: Percentage of Teens Who Said 

They Learned "a Lot" About Drugs From Specific Media 

100 

80 

60 

{IB Baseline ~ Followup ] 

i 

40 35 

25 23 

0 Target Comparison Target Comparison 

"IV TV shows, 

Ads * news, 

or movies * 

15 

~1 101~,~m 

Target Comparison 

Radio * 

16~I~ ~ ~~16ii16 1112 ............ . 9~:I~~ 

Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison 

Print ads In Billboards Posters on 

newspapers buses, 

or magazines bus stops, 

or subways 

Note: Percentages are weighted. Teen Question 8. 

"Indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

El 

Target Comparison 

School 

posters 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

15 percent of target site teens at followup "learned a lot" from radio, compared 

with 10 percent at baseline. In comparison sites, 10 percent responded this way 

at both followup and baseline, resulting in a significant difference between 

target and comparison sites. 

However, there was no change in the percentages of teens at either baseline or 

followup in target or comparison sites who responded they "learned a lot" about 

drugs from other sources of information: 

• School lessons or programs (approximately 44%); 

• Parents or grandparents (approximately 34% in target sites and 39% in 

comparison sites); 

• Friends (approximately 33%); 

• The streets (approximately 24%); 

• School posters (approximately 19%); 

• Siblings (approximately 21%); 

• Print ads (approximately 16%); 

• Billboards outside (approximately 12%); and 

• Posters on buses, bus-stops, subways (approximately 10%). 

These findings are particularly strong evidence that during the Phase I pilot test, 

teens were more likely to learn about the dangers of drugs from the Media 

Campaign than from other sources. 

3.2.11 Sources of information About Drugs Among Teens: Differences by 

Grade, Locale, Ethnicity, and Gender 

When their responses were analyzed by demographic characteristics, increases in 

the percentage of teens who said they had "learned a lot" from TV commercials 

were statistically significant within target sites and between target and comparison 

sites among 9th-12th graders, males and females, whites, and non-center city 

residents. Increases in the percentage of teens who said they had "learned a lot" 

from TV shows, news, or movies were statistically significant among 11 th and 

12th graders, males, whites, "other" racial and ethnic groups, and non-center city 

residents. Increases in the percentage of teens who said they had "learned a lot" 

from radio, were statistically significant among 7th and 8th graders, whites, males 

and females, and center city and non-center city residents. These increases were 

statistically significantly greater in target than in comparison sites. These findings 

arc summarized in Exhibit 3-12. 

3-32 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

Additional information on sources of information for teens can be found in 

Appendix E, Tables 45-48. 

3.3 

3.3.1 

PARENT FINDINGS 

Parents of children age 18 and younger were asked about their awareness of five 

selected 2 ads: Burbs, O'Connor, Girl Interview, Under Your Nose, and Deal. 

Parents also were asked about their perceptions of the effectiveness of these ads, 

their attitudes toward drug use, and communication with their children about 

drugs. Exhibit 3-14 presents key findings for parents. 

Sample Profile: Comparability of the Target Site and Comparison Site 

Parent Samples, Between Baseline and Followup 

Parents in target sites were similar to parents in comparison sites with regard to 

their demographic characteristics and socioeconomic status as measured by age, 

ethnic background, marital status, education, and household income. Parents in all 

sites also spent similar amounts of time watching television. None of these 

characteristics changed significantly between the baseline and followup periods. 

During Phase I across all sites the following percentages were reported for both 

target and comparison sites: 

Exhibit 3-14 

Increases in Parents Reporting Ads as Sources of Information 

About the Risk of Drugs 

60 

50 

• -, 4O C 

30 

0 

a. 20 

10 

ID Baseline 

II Followup J 

Target Comparison 

Strongly agreed that "ads 

made you more aware of 

the risks of using drugs."* 

Target Comparison 

Strongly agreed that "ads 

have given you new 

information or told you things 

you don't know about drugs."* 

*Significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison 

sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

2 Parents may have seen many more than the five ads over the course of the Media Campaign, but five were selected as 

indicators of awareness of paid ads. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-33 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

3.3.2 

34 percent to 36 percent of'all parents were between ages 18 and 34, 43 percent 

to 45 percent were between ages 35 and 44, and 19 percent to 22 percent were 

age 45 older. 

74 percent to 76 percent of all parents were white, 10 percent to 11 percent 

were African American, and 9 percent to 11 percent were Hispanic. Another 

1 percent to 2 percent were Asian. 

77 percent to 79 percent of all parents were married; 11 percent to 13 percent 

were divorced, separated, or widowed; and 6 percent to 8 percent were single 

and had never married. 

33 to 36 percent of all Parentshad no college education, 26 to 29 percent of all 

parents had completed high school, and 64 percent to 67 percent had some 

college or had graduated from college; 

6 percent to 7 percent of all parents had household incomes of $14,999 or less, 

41 percent to 44 percent had incomes between $15,000 and $49,999; and 

35 percent to 46 percent had incomes of more than $50,0001 

53 percent to 55 percent of all parents watched television every day; and 

another 23 percent to 26 percent watched almost every day. The sample profile 

is displayed in Exhibits 3-15 and 3-16; Additional information on TV viewing 

can be found in Tables 59 and 60 in Appendix E, bound as a separate volume. 

Risk Status in Target and Comparison Sites: Parental Attitudes 

Towards Drugs 

Parental attitudes towards drugs were similar at baseline and followup in target 

and comparison sites. 

In addition, parental attitudes showed no change between baseline and followup 

when compared on the following measures: 

"My child knows exactly how I feel about him/her using drugs" (approximately 

86% of all parents at baseline and followup in both target and comparison sites 

"agreed strongly" with this statement); 

"What I say will have little influence over whether my child tries marijuana" 

(approximately~ . 17% Of all parents at baseline and followup in target and 

comparison sites "agreed strongly" with this statement); 

"It wouldn't worry me if my child tried sniffing things to get high, like glue" 

(approximately 9% of all parents at baseline and followup in target and 

comparison Sites "agreed strongly" with this statement); 

"I don't think it isso bad if my child tries marijuana" (approximately 5% of all 

parents at baseline and followup in target and comparison sites "agreed 

strongly" with this statement); and 

3-34 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

Exhibit. 3-15 

Parent Sample Demographic Characteristics 

Characteristics Target Sites 

Baseline % Followup % 

Age of Parent 

18-34 

35--44 

45+ 

Unknown 

Comparison Sites 

Baseline % Followup % 

35 36 34 34 

43 44 45 43 

22 19 21 22 

0 1 0 1 

Race/Ethnicity 

White 75 74 76 76 

African American 10 10 11 11 

Hispanic 11 11 9 9 

Asian 2 2 1 1 

Other 3 2 3 2 

Marital Status 

Married 79 78 79 77 

Single. 10 11 9 10 

Divorced/separated/widowed 11 11 12 13 

Education 

No college 33 34 36 34 

Some college 25 26 25 28 

Completed college 42 39 39 36 

Income 

$0-$14,999 6 6 7 7 

$15,0007-.$49,999 42 41 44 44 

$50,000+ 42 39 38 35 

TV Watching 

Every day 55 55 55 53 

Almost every day 26 25 25 23 

At Least once per week 16 16 16 18 

Once or twice per month 2 2 3 2 

Other 2 2 3 3 

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. 

"I would be upset if my child tried marijuana." (At baseline, 65% of target site 

parents "agreed strongly" they "would be upset if [their] child ever tried 

marijuana," and 66% agreed at followup. Comparison site parents agreeing 

with that statement • decreased from 67 percent at baseline to 64 percent at 

followup.) 

Disagreeing "strongly" to the last statement and agreeing "strongly" to the three 

statements before that is a proxy measure of the levels of "at risk" families 

surveyed in target and comparison sites. Parents agi:eeing with these statements 

include parents who believe they cannot influence their children, parents who 

have permissive attitudes towards drugs, or parents who deny or do not 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-35 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 3-16 

Responses to Parent Questionnaire in Percentages: 

Aggregate Target and Comparison Sites 

Questions 

i Parents who responded they think 

there is great risk in trying once or 

twice... 

Marijuana 

Cocaine~crack 

Inhalants 

Methamphetamines 

Heroin 

Parents who responded they think 

there is great risk in using regularly... 

Marijuana 

Cocaine/crack 

Inhalants 

Methamphetamines 

Heroin 

Frequency with which parents talked to 

their children about drugs during the 

I past year... 

Never 

Not in the past year 

Once 

Two or three times 

Four or more times 

Don't know / no answer / not asked 

Parents who "agree strongly" with the 

following... 

What I say will have little influence over 

whether my child tries marijuana. 

My child knows exactly how I feel about 

him/her using drugs. 

I don't think it is so bad if my child tries 

marijuana. 

I would be upset if my child ever tried 

marijuana. 

It wouldn't worry me if my child tried 

sniffing things to get high, like glue. 

Parents who "agree a lot" that... 

Commercials or ads made you more 

aware of the risks of using drugs. 

Commercials or ads have given you 

new information or told you things you 

didn't know about drugs. 

Commercials or ads made you aware 

that America's drug problem is 

something that all families should be 

concerned about, 

Parents who reported they saw each ad 

"often" in the past few months 

Burbs 

O'Connor 

Girl Interview 

Under Your Nose 

Deal 

Target 

Baseline% I Followup% 

51 55 

87 89 

83 85 

83 86 

90 90 

80 

91 

90 

89 

91 

5 

2 

3 

17 

50 

24 

17 

86 

5 

65 

8 

42 

23 

65 

83 

92 

92 

91 

92 

5 

1 

4 

16 

50 

23 

18 

85 

6 

66 

10 

51 

30 

70 

15 23 

20 27 

6 16 

4 10 

17 21 

% " Baseline 

Difference % 

4* 53 

1 88 

3* 83 

3* 84 

1 90 

3* 80 

1 91 

2 90 

2* 90 

1 92 

0 6 

0 1 

1 4 

-1 18 

0 5O 

1 21 

1 18 

-2 86 

1 4 

1 67 

2* 8 

9* 43 

7* 24 

5* 66 

8* 13 

7* 15 

11" 3 

6* 5 

4* 15 

Comparison 

Followup I % 

% Difference 

55 

86 

82 

81 

88 

80 

90 

89 

89 

90 

6 

2 

5 

17 

49 

22 

17 

87 

5 

64 

9 

41 

24 

66 

17 

18 

4 

6 

17 

i Overall % 

change' 

2 2 

-2 3* 

-1 4* 

-2 5* 

-2* 3* 

-1 3* 

-1 2* 

-1 3* 

-1 4* 

-2 3* 

-1 1 

1" -2* 

1 1 

-1 0 

-1 1 

1 0 

-1 1 

1 -2 

1 0 

-3 4 

1 1 

-2 11" 

-1 8* 

0 5* 

5* 3* 

3* 5* 

1 10" 

1 5* 

2 2 

Note: Because of rounding, numbers may not add. 

*Indicates significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

' Percentage change represents net difference in change between target and comparison sites (i.e., the target site difference in 

percentage points between baseline and followup, minus the comparison site difference). 

3-36 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

understand the risks of drugs. The significance of these findings is discussed in 

Chapter 4. 

(See also Tables 71-75 in Appendix E for more information on parental attitudes 

toward drugs.) 

3.3.3 Awareness of the Ads Among Parents 

Awareness of anti-drug ads among parents increased substantially between 

baseline and followup during the Phase I Media Campaign, and there were 

substantial differences in this change between target site parents and comparison 

site parents. 

Awareness of all five selected paid ads targeting parents increased significantly 

within target sites from baseline to followup, and, with exception of Deal, this 

increase in awareness was significantly greater in the target sites than in the 

comparison sites. These findings are summarized in Exhibit 3-17. 

The following paragraphs summarize the results for the five parent-oriented ads. 

O'Connor--27 percent of parents in target sites recalled seeing this ad "often" 

at followup, compared with 20 percent at baseline, an increase of 7 percentage 

points and a 35-percent change. In comparison sites only 18 percent of parents 

reported seeing the ad at followup, up from 15 percent at baseline, an increase of 

20 percent. 

Girl Interview-- 16 percent of parents in target sites recalled seeing this ad 

"often" at followup, compared with only 5 percent at baseline, an increase of 

11 percentage points and a 220-percent change. In comparison sites only 

4 percent of parents reported seeing the ad at followup, up from 3 percent at 

baseline, a 33-percent change. Although an awareness level of 16 percent is not 

particularly dramatic, when considering those parents who saw Girl Interview a 

"few times" in addition to those who saw the ad "often," 41 percent of target site 

parents report having ever seen the ad, whereas only 16 percent of comparison 

site parents ever saw it. 

Burbs-- 23 percent of parents in target sites recalled seeing this ad "often" at 

followup, compared with only 15 percent at baseline, an increase of 8 percentage 

points and a 53-percent change. In comparison sites only 17 percent of parents 

recalled seeing this ad "often" at followup, compared with 13 percent at baseline, 

a 3 I-percent change. 

Under Your Nose m 10 percent of parents in target sites had seen this ad 

"often" at followup, compared with 4 percent at baseline, an increase of 

150 percent. In comparison sites only 5 percent had seen this ad "often~' at 

baseline compared with 6 percent at followup, an increase of only 20 percent. 

While this finding is statistically significant, 10 percent awareness is not 

particularly meaningful. However, because of the nature of this ad's content and 

potential concern that it could influence youth in a negative way, Under Your 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-37 
co 

Exhibit 3-17 

Ad Awareness: Percentage of Parents Who. Saw Specific Ads "Often" 

100 

80 

l~Baseline ~ Followupl 

6O 

!-- 

#. 

40 

27 

21 23 

6 3 4 " ~ ~ 

0 ~ __ ..~,~ :~ -.,_ __ 

Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison 

O'Connor * Deal Girl Interview * Burbs * 

Note: Percentages are weighted, Parent Question 12. 

"Indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

10 

Target Comparison 

Under Your Nose * 

tl: 

i: 

0 

w 

w 

w 

I0 
Aggregate Survey Results 

3.3.4 

Nose was usually run in the late fringe daypart (i.e., between 11:30 p.m. and 6:00 

a.m.). This could account for the low level of awareness of this ad among parents. 

As discussed in Chapter 5, the site where Under Your Nose did run often and in 

prime viewing hours (Atlanta) showed a significant increase in parents' 

awareness. Further, the difference between Atlanta and its comparison site, 

Memphis, was significant. 

Deal-- Parental awareness of this ad increased within sites, but the change was 

not significant between target sites and comparison sites; 21 percent of parents in 

target sites recalled seeing this ad "often" at followup, up from 17 percent in the 

baseline period. In comparison sites 17 percent of parents reported this level of 

recall at followup, and 15 percent recalled seeing it "often" at baseline. There was 

a 24-percent change in target sites and a 13-percent change in comparison sites. 

For this ad alone, there was no significant difference between target and 

comparison sites. 

In order to measure their overall exposure to anti-drug ads, parents were asked a 

general awareness question regarding how often they had seen or heard ads telling 

them about the risks of drugs. At followup in target sites, 41 percent of parents 

said they had seen or heard ads telling them about the risks of drugs "almost every 

day or more often," compared with 25 percent at baseline, a 64-percent change. 

There was no change in comparison sites, where only 21 percent of parents at 

baseline and 22 percent at followup reported this, a difference of only 1 

percentage point. 

The effect of exposure to the ads and intensity of the Media Campaign in target 

and comparison sites is discussed in Chapter 4. 

(See Tables 53 to 58 in Appendix E for additional information on parents' 

awareness of the ads.) 

Awareness of the Ads Among Parents: Differences by Five 

Demographic Characteristics: Parental Age, Age of Their Children, 

Level of Education, Household Income, Gender, and Ethnicity 

Parental responses to questions regarding how often they had seen the ads were 

analyzed by demographic groupings. These analyses show that target site 

increases between baseline and followup remained significant for all the ads 

among the groups, as displayed in Exhibit 3-18 but were not practically 

significant in all cases. These increases were statistically significantly greater in 

target sites than in comparison sites. 

O'Connor--There were significant increase among parents who saw the ad 

"often" among parents with no college and those who had completed college, 

high-income parents, fathers, parents between ages 35 and 44, and those with 

children in the 4th through 9th grades. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-39 
O 

Exhibit 3-18 

Parents: Significant Differences in Responses From Baseline to Followup 

Between Target and Comparison Sites, by Demographics 

Question Response 

Education 

(College) Age Group 

o o "- " 

O 

Income Level Race/Ethnicity Grade of Child Sex 

- • 

" ~ = ~ ~ E" " 

............. ~ 

"Frequency of seeing ads about Everyday or ....... - ........ 

the risks of using drugs." more often • • • • • - • • • • - • • • • • i • • 

I 

, ~ - • - • - _ _ • .... • • - [ • - 

Deal 

Girl Interview 

Burbs 

Often - 

I 

Often • 

I 

Often 

m 

..... • - • - _ • • - 

• • • • • • • • - • • • • • • 

- • - _ _ • • ....... • 

Under Your Nose Often • - - • • _ • • • • 

..... ~ ~ ~ ',~,', ~,i ~,,',',;'i ii ~, ii!~!iiiii!ii!! ~iiiiii iii!i!i~iiiiii !!~i ii i~ i~i~i~,~,~ ~ ~,~:~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~,,,,, ~,,,,,~,,,~ ~,~ ,,,~, 

Ads made you aware that 

America's drug problem is ....... 

something that all families Agree a ~o[ - - • - • _ _ • _ _ • _ • _ _ _ 

should be concerned about." 

"Ads have given you new 

information or told you things 

you didn't know about drugs." 

Agree a lot • - - • • _ • • _ • 

NOTE:Questions are in the Parent Questionnaire in Appendix A. 

Key: • indicates that significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

(~) indicates that significance is at the 90% confidence level. 

- indicates that there was no significant difference at the 90% or 95% confidence level. 
Question 

"Ads have made you more 

Response 

Education 

(College) Age Group 

--~" (9 ~" + 

O O ~ ~ ~ 

O 

(J 

Income Level RacelEthnicity Grade of Child Sex 

O "O 

" L 

(J 

"1- U. 

aware of the risks of using i Agree a lot • • • • • - • • • • • • - • - • - • 

drugs." I 

Marijuana Great risk .............. • - - • 

i 

Cocaine-crack Great risk • - • - • .... • .... • - - • 

i 

Inhalants Great risk - - • - • - - - • ..... • - - • 

Methamphetamine Great risk - - • • • - • • - • - • • - • - - • 

i 

Heroin !Great risk - - • - • ...... • - - • - - • 

• • .......................................................... ~ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ' ................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................................... i:":"-:~ .................. ~~: ............................. ' .................................. ~:-" ............... .......................................... 

Marijuana Great risk • - - - • ...... • - - • - - • 

i 

Crack-cocaine Great risk • - - - • - • .... • - - • - - • 

i 

Inhalants Great risk - - • - • - - - • - - • - - • - - • 

i 

Methamphetamine Great risk - - - • • - - • • - - • • - • - - • 

i 

Heroin Great risk - - • - • - - - • - - • - • • - - • 

NOTE:Questions are in the Parent Questionnaire in Appendix A. 

Key: • indicates that significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

O indicates that significance is at the 90% confidence level. 

- indicates that there was no significant difference at the 90% or 95% confidence level. 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Deal--There were significant increases among parents who saw the ad 

"often" among parents with children in the fourth through ninth grades, 

African American parents, and high-income parents. 

Girl Interview---There were significant increases among parents who 

saw the ad "often" among all demographic groups. 

Burbs--There were significant increases in seeing the ad "often" among 

mothers, whites, high-income parents, and parents between ages 35 and 44. 

Under Your Nose---There Were significant increases in seeing the ad 

"often" among parents with no college, mothers and fathers, whites, 

parents of all income groups, parents under age 45, and those with children 

in the fourth through ninth grades. 

When data on overall exposure to anti-drug ads were analyzed by 

demographic subgroups, there were increases among parents who said they 

had seen anti-drug ads telling them about the risks of drugs "almost every 

day or more often." These increases were significant for mothers and 

fathers, parents under age 45, parents with children in all grades, parents of 

all income levels, and white and Hispanic parents. 

(See Tables 53 to 58 in Appendix E for additional information on parents' 

awareness of the ads, by demographic status.) 

3.3.5 Perceived Effectiveness of the Ads Among Parents 

At followup, significantly more target site than comparison site parents 

"agree[d] a lot" that the anti-drug messages they had seen or heard had 

been effective. Comparison site responses showed no significant change 

between baseline and followup. These findings are displayed in 

Exhibit 3-19. 

Survey results for target site parents who agreed with the following 

statements about TV ads are as follows: 

Made them aware that America's drug problem is something that all 

families should be concerned about--Agreement with this statement 

increased from 65 percent at baseline to 70 percent at followup, an 8- 

percent increase. In Comparison sites, only 66 percent of parents at 

baseline or atfollowup agreed with this, resulting in a significant 

difference between target and comparison sites. 

Gave them new information or told them things they didn't know about 

drugs--Agreement with this statement increased from 23 percent at 

baseline to 30 percent at followup, an increase of 7 percentage points 

and a 30-percent increase. In comparison sites, 24 percent of parents at 

baseline and followup agreed, resulting in a significant difference 

between target and comparison sites. 

3-42 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
co 

co 

,I-I 

rExhibit 3-19 

Effectiveness of Ads: Percentage of Parents Saying They "Agree a Lot" With the Statement,.. 

100 

80 

I J Baseline ~ Followup I 

60 

40 -- 

20 

7O 

.... ~i~i~!~ii?:~::~l 

Target ~ Comparison 

Ads "made you more aware 

that America's drug problem 

is something that all families 

should be concerned about" * 

3O 

24 24 

Target Comparison 

• Ads have "given you new 

information or told you things 

you didn't know about drugs" * 

51 

42~ 43 A~ 

.... ~iii~iii::i::~ili ~:

Target Comparison 

Ads "made you more 

aware of the risks 

of using drugs" * 

Note: Percentages are weighted. 

*Indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

(D 

(n t- 

,-I 

< 

(D 

,< 

::0 

u) 

r. 

IN 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

3.3.6 

Made them more aware of the risks of using drugs--Agreement with this 

statement increased from 42 percent at baseline to 50 percent at followup, a 

19-percent increase. In comparison sites, only 43 percent of parents at baseline 

and 41 percent at followup agreed, resulting in a significant difference between 

target and comparison sites. 

(See Tables 53 to 58, Appendix E, for additional information on parents' 

awareness of the ads.) 

At target sites, the more frequently parents saw the ads, the more likely they were 

to rate them as effective. Parents who saw the ads almost every day or more often 

were almost 20 times more likely to rate the ads as effective than parents who saw 

them less than 1 to 3 times per week. (See Tables 59 and 60 in Appendix E.) 

Perceived Effectiveness of the Ads Among Parents: Differences by 

Five Demographic Characteristics-- Parental Age, Age of Their 

Children, Level of Education, Household Income, Gender, and 

Ethnicity 

When the parent survey data regarding the perceived effectiveness of the ads were 

analyzed by demographic subgroups, additional statistically significant patterns 

emerged, as summarized below and as illustrated in Exhibit 3-18. 

The ads made parents aware that America's drug problem is something that 

all families should be concerned about--The percentage of parents who 

"agree[d]" a lot with this statement increased significantly among parents who 

had completed college, mothers, parents ages 35 through 44, parents with 

children in school below 4th grade, African American parents, and middleincome parents; 

Made parents more generally aware of the risks of using drugs--The 

percentage of parents who "agree[d]" a lot with this statement increased 

significantly among all educational levels, all income groups, all racial and 

ethnic groups, mothers, parents under age 45, and parents with children in 

grades 4-6, and 10-12; and 

Gave parents new information or told them things they didn't know about 

drugs--The percentage of parents who "agree[d]" a lot with this statement 

increased significantly among those with no college education, mothers, 

parents under age 45, those with children in grades 7-9, whites, and low- and 

middle-income parents. 

All of these increases were statistically significant and were greater in target than 

in comparison sites. 

(See Tables 53 to 58 in Appendix E for additional information on parents' 

awareness of the ads, by demographic status.) 

3-44 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

3.3.7 Parental Attitudes Toward Drug Use 

As mentioned in the previous section, the ads made parents more generally aware 

of the risks of using drugs. On all of the more specific measures, with the 

exception of one (perceived risk in trying marijuana) parents in target sites 

showed significant increases in negative attitudes toward, and awareness of risks 

of drug use, when compared with parents in comparison sites. These findings are 

displayed in Exhibit 3-20. 

Trying marijuana--Perceived risk of trying marijuana did not change between 

baseline and followup. Approximately between 51 percent and 55 percent of 

all parents at baseline and at followup, in both target and comparison sites, 

thought there was "great risk" in trying marijuana. 

Survey results for the other drugs are as follows: 

Trying crack-cocaine--Responses increased from 87 percent of target site 

parents at baseline to 88 percent at followup, compared with 88percent and 

86 percent, respectively, at comparison sites, resulting in a significant 

difference between target and comparison sites; 

Trying inhalants--Responses increased from 82 percent of target site parents at 

baseline to 85 percent at followup, a 4-percent increase, compared with 

83 percent and 82 percent, respectively, at comparison sites, resulting in a 

significant difference between target and comparison sites; 

Trying methamphetamine--Responses increased from 83 percent of target site 

parents at baseline to 86 percent at followup, an increase of 3 percentage 

points, compared with 84 percent and 81 percent, respectively, at comparison 

sites, a decrease of 3 percentage points, resulting in a significant difference 

between target and comparison sites; 

Trying heroin--Responses increased from 89 percent of target site parents at 

baseline to 90 percent at followup, compared with 90 percent and 87 percent, 

respectively, at comparison sites, a decrease of 3 percentage points, resulting in 

a significant difference between target and comparison sites; 

Using crack-cocaine regularly--Responses increased from 91 percent of target 

site parents at baseline to 92 percent at followup, compared with 91 percent 

and 90 percent, respectively, at comparison sites, resulting in a significant 

difference between target and comparison sites; 

Using inhalants regularly--Responses increased from 90 percent of target site 

parents at baseline to 92 percent at followup, compared with 90 percent and 

89 percent, respectively, at comparison sites, resulting in a significant 

difference between target and comparison sites; 

• Using methamphetamine regularly--Responses increased from 89 percent of 

target site parents at baseline to 91 percent at followup, an increase of 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-45 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

...... Exhibit 3-20 

Parents' Awareness of the • Risk of Drugs: 

Percentage Saying There Is "Great Risk" in... 

100 

Using Drugs Regularly 

:' ", 91 +++~ • 

80' " + ...... 

• 60-- ~ 

i40-- ~ 

20-- ••• 

0 

Target .' Comparison 

Marijuana ** 

9; "m. 

Target Comparison 

CocaineJCrai:k ** 

100 

, 92 

Target Compadson 

Inhalants * 

", 

Target Comparison 

Metharnphetamines * 

Trying Drugs Once or Twice 

L9 9i ++::+~ 92 gO 

Target C~pa~ 

Heroin * 

.. ............ 83 ..~+:~:i:~:+. aa :~ 83 ........... 81 +" 

80 ......... + + 

~ 60 • ",~, . .55 

+. 

I~. 4o "~ 

20 

0 

Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison Target Comparison 

Marijuana ~ Cocainelcrack .k Inhalants *Methamphetamines * Heroin * 

Note: Percentages are weighted. Parent Question # 

• Indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 95% confidence level. 

• *Indicates significant difference in change from baseline to followup between target and comparison sites; significance is at the 90% confidence level. 

3-46 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

3.3.8 

2 percent, compared with 90 percent and 89 percent, respectively, at 

comparison sites, resulting in a significant difference between target and 

comparison sites; 

Using heroin regularlymResponses increased from 91 percent of target site 

parents at baseline to 92 percent at followup, compared with 91 percent and 

90 percent, respectively, at comparison sites. This resulted in a significant 

difference between target and comparison sites; and 

Using marijuana regularly--Responses increased from 80 percent of target site 

parents at baseline to 83 percent at followup, a percent change of 4, compared 

with 80 percent and 78 percent, respectively, at comparison sites, a 3-percent 

decrease, resulting in a significant difference between target and comparison 

sites. 

For 9 of the 10 instances mentioned above (the exception being trying marijuana 

once or twice), significant differences in perceived risk over time were the result 

of declines in perceived risk among comparison site parents in conjunction with 

modest increases in perceived risk among target site parents. This strongly 

suggests that during the pilot test, the Media Campaign led to changes in target 

site parent attitudes toward drugs. Interpretations of this finding are presented in 

Chapter 4. 

(See also Tables 66-70 in Appendix E for more information on parents' 

awareness of the risk of drugs.) 

Parental Awareness of the Risks of Drugs: Differences by Five 

Demographic Characteristicsm Parental Age, Age of Their Children, 

Level of Education, Household Income, Gender, and Ethnicity 

When the parent data were analyzed by demographic subgroupings, there were 

significant increases among various groups who thought there was "great risk" in 

trying some drugs. The following is a summary of survey results regarding 

parents who thought there was great risk in "trying" the following drugs; the 

findings are displayed in detail in Exhibit 3-18: 

• Marijuana--A significant increase occurred among mothers and parents with 

children in the grades 7-9; 

Crack-cocaine--A significant increase occurred among mothers, parents with 

children in grades 7-9, parents of low and high (but not middle) educational 

levels, white parents, and parents between ages 35 and 44; 

Inhalants-- A significant increase occurred among mothers, parents with 

children in grades 7-9, parents of high educational level, high-income 

parents, and parents between ages 35 and 44; 

• Methamphetamine-- A significant increase occurred among mothers, parents 

with children in school below fourth grade and grades 7-9, parents of high 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-47 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

3.3.9 

educational level, those under age 45, white parents, Hispanic parents, and 

low- and middle-income parents; and 

Heroin-- A significant increase occurred among mothers, parents with 

children in the seventh through ninth grades, parents of high educational level, 

those ages 35 to 44, and Hispanic parents. 

There also were significant increases among parents of some demographic groups 

who thought there was "great risk" in "regular use" of the following drugs: 

Marijuana--There was a significant increase among mothers, parents with 

children in grades 7-9, parents with no college, those between ages 35 and 44, 

parents of low educational level, and Hispanic parents; 

Crack-cocaine--A significant increase occurred among mothers, parents with 

children in grades 7-9, parents with no college, those between ages 35 and 44, 

parents of low income, parents with low educational level, and Hispanic 

parents; 

Inhalants--A significant increase occurred among mothers, parents with 

children in grades 7-9, parents who had completed college, those between 

ages 35 and 44, parents of high income, and Hispanic parents; 

Methamphetamine--A significant increase occurred among mothers, parents 

with children in school under 4th grade and in ninth grades 7-9, those under 

age 45, middle- and high-income parents, and Hispanic parents; and 

Heroin--There was a significant increase among those who thought there was 

"great risk" in regular use of heroin for mothers, parents with children in 

grades 4-9, parents who had completed college, those ages 35 to 44, highincome parents, and Hispanic parents. 

These increases all resulted in statistically significant differences between target 

and comparison sites. 

(See also Tables 66-70 in Appendix E for more information on parents' 

awareness of the risk of drugs by demographic status.) 

Discussion of Drugs With Child 

When asked whether they had spoken with their child about drugs in the past 

year, the percentage of parents who responded affirmatively did not increase from 

baseline to followup. In target sites, approximately 65 percent of parents at both 

baseline and followup said they had spoken with their children about drugs four 

or more times in the past year. In comparison sites approximately 62 percent of 

parents had done so. Approximately 22 percent of all parents reported that they 

had spoken to their children about drugs two or three times in the past year. 

3-48 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Aggregate Survey Results 

3.3.9.1 

(See also Tables 76-80 in Appendix E for more information on discussion of 

drugs with children.) 

Discussion of Drugs With Children: Differences by Parental Age, Age 

of Their Children, Level of Education, Household Income, Gender, 

and Ethnicity 

When data on parental discussion with children about drugs were analyzed by 

demographic subgroupings, no new patterns emerged. 

(See also Tables 76-80 in Appendix E for more information on discussion of 

drugs with children, by demographic status.) 

3.4 CONCLUSION 

Taken as a whole, the aggregate results presented in this chapter indicate that the 

domain where change was expected during Phase I of the Media Campaign (i.e., 

awareness of paid anti-drug ads) was, in fact, influenced by the intervention. For 

the majority of survey ads that respondents were queried about, youth, teens, and 

parents in target sites showed increased awareness from baseline to followup--- 

change that was statistically significant and change that was greater than the 

change occurring in comparison sites. The fact that other significant changes also 

were detected so soon after implementation of the Media Campaign on measures 

of additional domains in the survey is promising. These early findings help to 

identify other ways in which the Media Campaign can be expected to have an 

impact once it has been implemented for a longer duration than the Phase I pilot 

period. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 3-49 

4. DISCUSSION OF CROSS-SITE SURVEY RESULTS 

The purpose of this chapter is to examine key survey find!ngs (presented in 

Chapter 3) from Phase I of the ONDCP MediaCampaign' in the context of other 

data sources: media monitoring, media buy, and site visits (datafrom comparison 

sites are used only when they Clarify target site issues). Several distinctions in the 

media monitoring and media buy data sources are noteworthy. Media monitoring 

report data on paid Campaign ads and PSAs in target and comparison sites during 

the baseline period (October - December 1997) and five months of the 

intervention period (January - May 1998). Although media monitoring data are 

available for June, data for this month are not included in the analysis because the 

surveys were completed in late May and early June. Consequently, respondents 

who completed the surveys,would not have been exposed to or influenced by June 

broadcasts of the ads. In addition, .media monitoring data are presented in terms of 

the average monthly number of times an ad aired. Media buy data refer only to 

paid Campaign ads that were planned to air in target sites from January through 

June 1998. Furthermore, media buy data present the actual number of times paid 

ads were scheduled to air and their estimated GRPs. Data from these additional 

sources are used to help explain, clarify, or elaborate on survey findings about 

youth (4th-6th graders), teenagers (7th-12th graderS), and parents. 

Survey findings in Chapter 3 showthat ad awareness and frequency of seeing or 

hearing anti-drug ads at target sites increased substantially between baseline and 

followup and that there were significantly higher levels of awareness at target 

sites than at comparison sites. The combined analyses and integratio n of the data 

sources indicate that Phase I of the Media Campaign has achieved its intended 

goal of raising people's awareness of anti-drug messages among youth, teens, and 

parents. 

Exhibit 4-1 on the following page presents aggregate Campaign survey data. The 

data reflect youth, teen, and parent awareness concerning the specific paid 

Campaign~ads directed toward each group. Several important caveats, however, 

should be noted. First, due to the fact that the response categories on the youth 

,survey differed from teens and parents, the youth percentages are higher. That is, 

the response category on the youth survey is based on a "yes" response (youth 

have ever seen the paid ad), whereas the response categories for teens and parents 

are based on the response category "often" (teens and parents remember seeing 

the paid ad "often"). : 

Second, all paid Campaign ads included in the survey instruments did not air in 

all target sites. In fact, the number of sites where paid ads aired ranged frorn3 to 

12 sites (for a complete list detailing the schedule for which ads were to be 

purchased aired in target sites refer to the matrix in Appendix A). Only five paid 

ads were purchased in all sites (Long Way Home, Alex Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, 

1Throughout this chapter we refer simply to the Media Campaign. The three successive site visits are called 

baseline, intermediate, orfollowup. Sites are either target or comparison. The term youth refers to a student in 

4th-6th grades while teen refers to a student in 7th-12th grades. Campaign ads refers to anti-drug ads used in 

the Media Campaign whether aired as paid ads or public service announcements. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-1 
Testing .the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Girl Interview, O'Connor). So when analyzing the aggregate effectiveness of 

particular ads, it is important to note the number of sites in which the ads aired as 

paid advertisements. With this in mind, Exhibit 4-1 also includes the number of 

sites in which the ads were scheduled as paid ads. It should be noted that not all 

ads scheduled as paid ads aired as paid ads. For example, Layla was planned but 

did not appear as a paid ad in Milwaukee or Portland. 

Third, the reach and frequency for each ad varied by site and oftentimes the ads 

listed in the survey instruments may not have been those with the greatest reach 

and frequency in the site; thus, these findings likely understate overall awareness 

of the Campaign's ads. 

Fourth, the post-buy information provided by the media buyers indicates that the 

adult target audience were more likely to see the youth and teen ads than the ads 

geared to parents and other adult care givers. For example, the adult gross rating 

points (an indicator of reachand frequency) for the teen-targeted ad Frying Pan 

were higher than for any individual adult-oriented ad, with the exception of the 

parent ad Kitchen in three sites. Also potentially affecting awareness of particular 

ads is the fact that while the target audiences and ads were broken down by age 

groups, the ability to purchase ads was limited to time slots favoring youth aged 

12-17 and adults aged 25-54. 

This chapter is organized around six key topics: awareness of specific media 

campaign ads, perceived effectiveness of anti-drug ads, awareness of risk of 

Exhibit 4-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads: Aggregate Youth, Teen, and Parent Data 

Target Comparison [ Campaign Survey Data ,o.°,,.~o, I Followup I % - .. o/I Followun I % / Overall% 

~=~'~'"'° '° % Difference uase,ne ~o % '- D fference Difference 

;:,: iiii ;i ............................................................................................................................................ !: ................. / #A6ADS browning i8stesi ~ ~;~;;~::~::~:~ i; i!ii:;ii!i~i!i!i~i! i i)!iiii!:!!i;1i%:: !::ii iii!ii!!!iiii iiiili !ii!i iii iii!iiii iiiiii~,iiii!iilil i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 

30 44 14* 29 27 -2 16* 

Girlfriend (7 sites) ~ 27 " 43 16" 29 27 -2 18" 

Long Way Home (12 sites) 1 

Noses (8 sites) ~ 

PAiDADS 911 (6 sites) 

. Alex StraightA's) (12 sites) ~ 

Free Ride (4 sites) ~ 

Frying Pan (12 sites) ~ 

Layla (8 sites) ~ 

Rite of Passage (5 sites) ~ 

PARENTsiiiiiiiiiii!i!i}iiii!ii{!!!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i 

Deal (6 sites) 1 

Girl Interview (12 sites) 1 

O'Connor (12 sites) 1 

Under Your Nose (8 sites) 1 

43 68 25* 41 40 -1 - 26* 

39 51 12" 36 37 1 11" 

11 23 12* 8 8 0 12* 

9 25 16* 7 7 0 16" 

7 10 3* 8 8 0 3 

22 49 . 27 ° 16 16 0 27* 

12 16 4* 11 12 1 3 

9 14 5* 9 8 "1 6* 

15 23 8* 13 17 4* 4* 

17 21 4* 15 17 2 2 

6 16 10" 3 4 1 9* 

20 27 7* 15 18 3* 4* 

4 10 6* 5 6 1"° 5" 

Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level. 

1 Indicates the number of sites where the ad was scheduled to air as a paid advertisement. 

Note: Additional paid ads aired in sites via cable and Channel One. 

4-2 Office of National Drug .Control .Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

drugs, attitudes toward drugs, sources of information about drugs, and parentchild discussions about drugs. In each section, we first summarize relevant survey 

findings and then examine (a) media monitoring data, when appropriate; and 

(b) site visit data that lend an interpretation or better understanding of these 

survey findings. Information from the media buying plan and post-buy data, 

particularly gross rating points which serve as a proxy for reach and frequency, 

are also included as appropriate. 

4.1 

4.1.1 

AWARENESS OF SPECIFIC MEDIA CAMPAIGN ADS 

Following the Phase I of the Media Campaign, survey findings indicate 

substantial increases in target site youth, teen, and parent awareness of ONDCP's 

paid anti-drug ads relative to comparison sites. Media monitoring and site visit 

data support these findings. In fact, a strong correlation exists between the 

frequency with which paid ads air and awareness of these ads. 

Summary .of Survey Findings on Awareness of Specific Ads 

Awareness of the anti-drug ads included in the survey increased substantially 

among target site youth between baseline and followup but remained 

unchanged in the comparison sites. 

The increase in awareness of the paid Campaign ads Long Way Home, 

Girlfriend, Drowning, and Noses was statistically significant among all 

demographic groups. Among those who saw Noses, increases were 

statistically significant for fourth graders, whites, females, and center city 

youth. 

Teen awareness of the paid Campaign ads increased substantially during the 

Phase I Media Campaign as evidenced by the change in awareness of four of 

six ads, all of which was significant when differences in target sites were 

compared with differences in comparison sites. 

• From baseline to followup, the percent of teens that reported "often" seeing all 

six teen-targeted ads increased significantly in the target sites. 

Parent awareness of the paid Campaign ads increased substantially during the 

Phase I Media Campaign as evidenced by the change in awareness of four of 

the five parent targeted ads, all of which was significant when differences in 

target sites were compared with differences in comparison sites. 

• From baseline to followup, the percent of parents that reported "often" seeing 

all five parent-targeted ads increased significantly in the target sites. 

At followup in target sites, 40.6 percent of parents reported that they had seen 

or heard ads telling them about the risks of drugs "almost every day or more 

often" compared with 25.4 percent at baseline. By contrast, responses in the 

comparison sites remained constant at about 20 percent. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-3 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

4.1.2 Use of Media .Monitoring Data to Interpret .Survey Findings 

As indicated in Exhibit 4-1, following Phase I of the Media Campaign 

significantly more youth, teens, and parents in the target sites reported seeing paid 

Campaign ads than comparison site respondents. Among youth, survey findings 

indicate that the percent of youth that recognized the four Campaign ads, included 

in the survey instruments, increased significantly. For example, target site youth 

recall of Long Way Home increased from 43 percent at baseline to 68 percent at 

followup, while youth recall in the comparison sites decreased slightly from 41 

percent at baseline to 40 percent at followup. 

Correspondingly, Long Way [lome aired in all 12 target sites--more than any 

other of the subset of youth-targeted paid Campaign ads during the intervention 

period. In addition, whereas Long Way Home aired as a paid ad 138.2 times a 

month (or 34.6 times a week) in target sites, in comparison sites the ad aired as a 

PSA only 19.2 times a month (or 4.8 times a week). 

Furthermore, media monitoring datasuggest that the hour in which the paid ads 

aired contributed to the substantial increases in target site awareness of Campaign 

ads relative to comparison site responses. For example, Long Way Home aired in 

target sites seven times more often in viewing periods when youth most often 

watch TV (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 

p.m.; and weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). Similarly, Girlfriend, 

Drowning, and Noses aired 4, 6, and 15 times more often during prime viewing 

hours for youth. : 

Media monitoring data help to explain survey findings with respect to increases in 

teen ad awareness. For example, recall of Frying Pan increased more than any 

other teen-targeted paid Campaign ad that respondents were asked about. In fact, 

nearly half of teens in target sites recalled seeing the paid ad Frying Pan at 

followup. Not surprisingly, Frying Pan aired in more sites than any other of the 

paid teen ads included in the survey instruments with the exception of Alex 

StraightA's (both ads appeared in 12 sites). Media monitoring data show that as a 

PSA Frying Pan did not air in either the target or comparison sites during the 

baseline period. In the intervention period, however, the ad aired only once in the 

comparison sites as a PSA while averaging 137 a month or 34.3 times a week as a 

paid Campaign ad in target sites. What is more, 55.7 percent Of the time Frying 

Pan aired as a paid Campaign ad, and it ran during optimal teen viewing periods 

(prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; and 

weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). According to the media buy data, 

Frying Pan aired 638 times as a paid ad on broadcast TV alone. 

Alex StraightA's aired as a paid Campaign ad in all 12 target sites during the 

intervention period. Available media monitoring data show that as a PSA Alex 

Straight A's did not air during the entire baseline period in the target sites. During 

the interventionperiod, however, Alex Straight A's aired an average of 114.6 

times a month or 28.7 times a week in target sites, 52.6 percent of the time in 

prime teen viewing periods. Media buy data indicate this ad aired a total of 670 

4-4 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

times on broadcast TV, not including cable and Channel One. Alex Straight A's 

did not air at all in the comparison sites. 

The paid Campaign ad 911 aired in six target sites. On average 911 aired in the 

target sites 29.2 times a month or 7.3 times weekly during the intervention period. 

Moreover, 36.6 percent of the time 911 aired in prime teen viewing periods. By 

contrast, in the comparison sites 911 aired on average less than three times a 

month in the baseline period, decreasing to less than one time a month in the 

intervention period. While the average number of times that 911 aired is lower 

than the other two paid ads, Frying Pan and Alex Straight A "s, that increased to 

significant degrees across sites, it is worth noting that media monitoring data was 

available for only three of the six target sites. Therefore, the aforementioned data 

may actually underestimate the average number of times that 911 aired as a paid 

ad. 

The paid Campaign ad Rite of Passage aired in five target sites. On average Rite 

of Passage aired in the target sites 38.2 times a month or 9.6 times weekly during 

the intervention period. While the average number of times that Rite of Passage 

aired is lower than the other two paid teen ads (Frying Pan and Alex Straight A 's) 

that experienced significant increases in teen recall across sites, media monitoring 

data was available for only four of the five target sites. Post-buy media purchase 

data indicate this ad aired 181 times in the sites where it was a paid ad, not 

including Channel One and local cable buys. Again therefore, the data may 

actually underestimate the average number of times that Rite of Passage aired as a 

paid ad. Moreover, 46.1 percent of the time Rite of Passage aired in prime.teen 

viewing periods. By contrast, Rite of Passage aired as a PSA in comparison sites 

at baseline on average 2.3 times a month and not at all during the intervention 

period. 

The two paid ads that did not show significant cross-site increases in teen recall 

(Free Ride and Layla) did however show significant increases within site. It is 

worth noting that of the six teen-targeted Campaign ads Free Ride aired in the 

fewest number of sites (4 of 12 target sites) a total of 156 times on broadcast TV 

according to media buy information. Arguably, this may have contributed to the 

lack of a significant increase across sites. With respect to Layla, the ad aired in 

fewer target sites as a paid ad than planned. Layla was scheduled to air as a paid 

ad in Portland and Milwaukee, but post-buy data indicate the ad was broadcast as 

a PSA in these two target sites. 

Among parents, survey findings indicate that across sites the percent of youth that 

recognized four of the five Campaign ads, that were included in the survey and 

were directed toward parents, increased significantly. Within site analysis shows 

that the percentage of parents that recalled all five ads increased to a statistically 

significant degree--Burbs, Deal, Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your 

NoSe. It should be noted the adult-targeted ad with the greatest monthly frequency 

and GRPs was Kitchen, which was not included in the survey instruments. 

Media monitoring data clearly identify why target site parents' recall of Girl 

Interview, Under Your Nose, and O'Connor increased significantly across and 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-5 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

within sites. For example, the average number of times Girl Interview aired in 

target sites increased from 31 per month (or once a day) at baseline to 122.2 per 

month (or 4 times a day) during the intervention. Over the same time period, the 

average number of times Girl Interview aired in comparison sites actually 

remained constant and low. 

Similarly, from baseline to intervention the average number of times Under Your 

Nose aired increased from 0.6 to 71.6 airings per month and according to the 

media buy data, totaled 100 times across sites. By contrast, the ad aired 

infrequently in the comparison sites. Media monitoring further show that, while 

the average number of times that O'Connor aired at baseline was comparable 

between the target and comparison sites (target sites 40.7 per month, comparison 

sites 43.7 per month), during the intervention the average decreased in the 

Comparison site while increasing substantially in the target sites (to 140.2 per 

month). 

4.1.3 Use of Media Buy Information To Interpret Survey Findings 

Planned media buying information and post-buy data also were used to help 

explain increases in awareness for particular ads that were included in the survey 

instruments. As discussed previously, the Campaign sought to reach 90 percent of 

each target audience with an average of four exposures each week. Post-audited 

media buy information indicate that for television and radio combined, the 

primary medi~ used in Phase I, that approximately 79 percent of each target 

audience saw or heard three of the anti-drug messages each week. As final data on 

reach and frequency are not yet available, gross rating points (GRPs) are used as a 

proxy for each ad's reach and frequency with higher GRPs indicating that the ad 

was reaching a larger percentage of the audience with greater frequency. 

Exhibit 4-2 provides estimates of average GRPs for the paid ads that were 

included in the survey instruments. The highest GRPs for the youth ads were for 

Noses, for teens, Frying Pan had the highest GRPs, and for parents and other 

adult influencers, Girl Interview had the highest GRPs. The monthly breakdown 

of planned GRP distribution for all media combined by target audience is 

provided in Exhibit 4-3. This exhibit illustrates the emphasis on youth and teens 

and shows the peaks and valleys in terms of exposure to Media Campaign 

messages. Exhibit 4-4, in contrast to Exhibit 4-3, includes spill-over effects, 

which refers to adults' exposure to ads targeting youth and teens and youth's and 

teens' exposure to ads targeting adults. Exhibits 4-3 and 4-4 partially explain the 

lack of significant increases in parents' and other adults' awareness of the adulttargeted ads. As illustrated in Exhibit 4-4, the number of ads designed for each 

target audience that aired is much lower for adults than for youth and teens. The 

incorporation of youth/teen ads that adults were exposed through intentional and 

unintentional spill-over boosts the Campaign's reach and frequency with adults. 

Post-media buy information indicate, for example, that more adults saw Frying 

Pan than any of the ads designed to specifically target adults. 

4-6 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
U) 

n" 

Exhibit 4-1 

Estimated Average GRPs for the Paid Anti-Drug Television Ads Included 

in Phase ! Survey Instruments 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 tt I 

[-IYouth Ads 

mTeen Ads 

IB Adult Ads 

J 

oo' o~O 

"~ ~" <c"' o" .~'~" o .~o 

,,o. 4,, ° ,~.~ 

Ads 

Source: ,Bates, 2/16/99 

O 

m, 

w 

o 

u~ 

u~ 

m= 

O 7  ̧ 

o 

o 

u) ? 

(D. 

fJ~ t- 

(D 

33 

U~ 

e" 

m 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 4-2 

Phase IPlanned Monthly GRP Distribution for All Media Combined 

3,000 

2,500 

a. 

nO 2,000 

o 1,500 

~" 1,000 

c 

o 

:E 500 

0 

Jan. Feb. Mar. .April May June 

1998 

Source: Bates, 2/16/99 

• -AdultGRPs • --e---Youth/Teen GRPs 

Exhibit 4-3 

Total Estimated Purchased GRPs for Broadcast and Cable TV 

m 

IZ: 

40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

Channel One* 

[] Youth/Teen 

r 

Broadcast Cable Ads 

Ads** 

IIAdult 

*Channel One is an in-school network used to reach youth and teens. 

**GRPs are provided for the ads designed for the particular audience; e.g., the youth/teen GRPs are for ads 

that were designed to target youth and teens and not for any youth/teen ads that were purchased to air during 

an adult time slot with the intention of reaching a portion of the adult audience. 

Note: Cable and Channel One were used to increase the reach and frequency to the youth and teen 

audiences, while other media were used to increase the reach and frequency to adults. 

4-8 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

4.1.4 

For ads appearing on cable, only the total number and the total estimated 

• purchased GRPs of paid ads were available, but the media buying plan indicates 

the cable spots were primarily used to increase reach and frequency among the 

youth and teen audiences. Exhibit 4-5 illustrates the estimated total number of ads 

airing by target site for cable and broadcast television. Exhibit 4-6 provides the 

GRPs for the ads purchased through cable and broadcast TV. 

Use of Site Visit Data To Interpret Survey Findings 

Focus groups were conducted during site visits with 4th-6th graders, 7th-9th 

graders, 10th-12th graders and parents. Of the four ads that the survey asked 4th6th graders about (Long Way Home, Girlfriend, Drowning, and Noses), only Long 

Way Home and Drowning were mentioned with any regularity in focus groups. 

This generally holds for the three other focus group categories (i.e., junior high 

school students, high school students, and parents): The majority of references to 

Media Campaign ads offered by teens (7 th- 12 th graders) and parents participating 

in the focus groups came from those living in the target sites. 

Frying Pan was the one ad that relatively large numbers of youth focus group 

participants (i.e., youth focus groups participants in 11 of 12 target sites) recalled. 

In fact, Frying Pan was the most frequently cited ad by participants in all four 

focus group categories. Although the Frying Pan ad was not targeted for 4th-6th 

graders, many of them knew about it and talked about it. 

Comments from the followup Site visit reports help to explainfocus group 

participants' widespread familiarity with the Frying Pan ad. At an Atlanta center 

city middle school, "One girl was particularly impressed by 'Frying Pan,' saying, 

'I didn't know most drugs can turn out to be like that.'" At a Baltimore center city 

middle school, "All of the participants had seen the 'Frying Pan' ad and said that 

the message they got was 'don't do that, it will mess with your brain and hurt 

your family.'" 

In summary, survey data on youth, teen, and parent awareness of Media 

Campaign ads explicitly demonstrate that people in target sites recalled seeing the 

Media Campaign ads. Media monitoring data dem0nstrate that the Media 

Campaign ads mentioned in youth, teen, and parent surveys were aired much 

more frequently during the Media Campaign intervention in target sites than they 

were in comparison sites. Focus group data confirm the same pattern of ad 

awareness. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-9 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 4-1 

Frequency of Airing of Paid Anti-Drug Ads, by Target Site for Cable 

and Broadcast 

25,000 

20,000 

G) mmm 

I-- 15,000 ~":~::~: q)- 

O 

z 5,000 

o ~~ ~~ ~ -- 

/o.O, ..,.o// ,o,-," /\,/,oo 

[-IYouth/Teen Broadcast TV Ads DYouthrl'een Cable TV Ads* mAdult Broadcast TV Ads 

*The local cable buys were used primarily to increase reach and frequency for the youth and teen audiences, with 

other media being used for adults. 

Source: Bates, 2/16/99 

Exhibit 4-2 

Estimated Purchase GRP Delivery for Youth/Teen and 

Adult Television Buys 

FI n 

3,500 

3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

U~ 

= H 

DYouth/l"een Broadcast TV Ads DYouth/l"een Cable TV Ads 

DAdult Broadcast TV Ads ==Adult Cable TV Ads 

*The local cable buys were used primarily to increase reach and frequency for the youth and teen audiences, 

with other media being used for adults. 

Sources: Bates, 2/16/99 and 3/10/99 

4-10 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

4.2 PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTI-DRUG ADS 

4.2.1 

4.2.2 

Summary of Survey Findings on Perceived Effectiveness of AntiDrug Ads 

0 Youth responses also showed evidence of the ads' effectiveness. At followup 

significantly more youth in target sites than in comparison sites agreed that the 

anti-drug messages they had seen or heard had been effective. 

The ads made them more aware of how dangerous drugs are-- 

Agreement with this statement increased from 74.1 percent of 

youth at baseline to 80.4 percent at followup. In comparison sites 

approximately 74 percent of youth responded in this way at both 

baseline and followup. 

The ads tell you something you didn't know about drugs-- 

Agreement with this statement increased from 57.5 percent of 

youth at baseline to 61.4 percent at followup. In comparison sites 

on average, approximately 55 percent of youth responded in this 

way at both baseline and followup. 

The ads tell lies about how dangerous drugs are--Agreement with 

this statement decreased from 29.7 percent of youth at baseline to 

26.0 percent at followup. In comparison sites 29.7 percent of youth 

responded in this way at both baseline and followup. 

There were no significant increases between baseline and followup in 

the percentage of teens in target or comparison sites who "agreed a lot" with 

specific statements about the ads such as "made them more aware of the risks 

of using drugs," "made them less likely to try or use drugs," "gave them new 

information or told them things they didn't know about drugs," and 

"exaggerated the risks or dangers of marijuana." 

At followup, significantly more target site than comparison site parents 

"agree[d] a lot" that the anti-drug messages they had seen or heard had been 

effective. Comparison site responses showed no significant change between 

baseline and followup. 

At target sites, the more frequently parents saw anti-drug ads, the more likely 

they were to rate them as effective. Parents who saw the ads almost every day 

or more often were almost 20 times more likely to rate the ads as effective 

than parents who saw them less than 1 to 3 times per week. 

Use of Site Visit Data To Interpret Survey Findings 

Although media monitoring data were not appropriate for understanding 

responses to questions pertaining to perceived effectiveness of ads, site visit data 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-11 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

were analyzed under this domain. Focus group participants in 4th-6th grades 

offered few comments about ad effectiveness, but 7th-9th graders, 10th-12th 

• •graders, and parents were more candid. Among 7th-9th graders, the most 

commonly cited category of effectiveness was "ad increases people's awareness 

about the danger of drugs." These focus group participants also commented 

frequently that the "ads help change people's attitudes about drugs." 

Among 10th-12th graders, the following kinds of comments were commonly 

offered: (1) "ad reaches younger children, the most important target audience;" 

(2) "ad is graphic, dramatic, visual, shocking, or eye-catching;" (3) "ad increases 

people's awareness about the dangers of drugs;" and (4) "ad helps change 

people's attitudes about drugs.•" Parents participating in the focus groups often 

cited the fact that the ads "help parents and young people talk with each other." 

Elementaryschool youth repeatedly,described anti-drug ads that make drugs 

"seem real scary [non-center city Baltimore 4th-6th grade student]." Because this 

age group typically views drugs negatively (i.e., they have not yet experienced the 

peer pressure, curiosity about, and exposure to drugs that characterize the middle 

school years), they appear predisposed not to try them. In phase I the ads targeting 

youth appeared to reinforce the negative views toward drugs that these youth have 

already acquired from other sources. 

Teenagers participating in the focus groups often reported being exposed first 

hand to drugs at home, through a sibling's or parent's use. In center city areas, 

some teenagers spoke about witnessing the public use and sale of drugs in their 

neighborhoods. For these reasons, anti-drug ads may be providing more new 

information about drugs and significantly increasing awareness of drugs for a 

smaller group of teenagers than they are for elementary school youth. The 

elementary school youth often are encountering anti-drug information from 

school, peers, parents, or media for the first time. 

Teen 'focus group members favorably mentioned the following specific ads or 

types of ads: Teeth because "it shows that drugs can make you ugly" [Atlanta 

non-center city 7th-9th gi:ade female]; "the 911 phone call ad regarding a 

methamphetamine overdose" [Tucson 7th-9th grader]; the anti-methamphetamine 

ads, because they reinforce values and "make you feel better about your decision 

not to use drugs" [Denver non-center city 10th-12th grader]; Long Way Home and 

an ad with "JJ the basketball player, whose dream was destroyed by drugs" 

[Atlanta center city 10th-12th grader]; and Frying Pan because "it makes you see 

how a drug can make yo u act wild and how it can affect your family" [Atlanta 

non-center city 7th-9th grader]. 

Some teenagers at nearly every site claimed that the ads would not affect their 

attitudes or behavior regarding drug use. They often fully acknowledged knowing 

the risks of drug use behavior and stated that the decision to use or not use was 

personal and contingent on factors other than the message of a television 

advertisement. For example, one Birmingham high school focus group participant 

explained, "It's basically a mind thing. People do what they want. It has more to 

do with what they want to do themselves than with what other people say." 

4-12 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

Ads targeting marijuana occasionally provoked confusion. One center city 

Houston high school student responded to a specific ad, "The one 'smoking 

marijuana' one is dumb; they send a message, but also say that you can get high." 

A Duluth teenager claimed he did not understand the point of Burbs, an ad 

featuring a non-center city boy on a skateboard which cautions parents that 

marijuana smoking is a non-center city as well as an center city phenomenon. A 

Duluth center city parent also misinterpreted this ad, saying that it encouraged 

youth in the suburbs to smoke marijuana. Two girls in a Denver non-center city 

focus group warned that the Cannabis Stupida billboard probably had the 

opposite of its intended effect, because the marijuana leaf "looks attractive if you 

smoke weed, and it looks like an ad for marijuana if you don't read the 

words."(This ad is not longer being used because of such feedback). 

Parent comments addressed ad effectiveness from two points of view: how the ads 

affected parents personally and how parents thought the ads would affect youth 

and teenagers. The general consensus of the majority of parents in nine of the 

twelve target sites (Boise, Denver, Hartford, Houston, Milwaukee, Portland, 

San Diego, Tucson, and Washington, D.C.) was that the ads provide a positive 

contribution to a wider, more comprehensive effort to address youth and adult 

drug use. Most parent focus group members deemed the ads effective particularly 

those targeting adults. 

Parents in focus groups at eight target sites (Baltimore, Denver, Hartford, 

Milwaukee, Portland, Sioux City, Tucson, and Washington, D.C.) believed that 

anti-drug ads that target parents are especially effective. They believe that parents 

themselves are most likely to learn from the ads and to alter their behavior in 

response to the messages. Parents indicated they generally have fewer sources of 

drug information than do teenagers. A mother explained (Denver) that the Frying 

Pan ad made her realize that teenagers were using drugs other than marijuana. 

Many parents seem to underestimate the drug problem, and anti-drug 

advertisements serve to increase that awareness significantly. 

Parents reported that the ads encourage parents to initiate a dialogue with their 

children about drugs. One non-center city Hartford parent explained, 

"Conversations do happen when there are more opportunities to see and discuss 

and address the issue." Portland focus group participants agreed that open-ended 

ads were most useful because "they don't preach but leave it open-ended so you 

have to start discussions." Parents in a Milwaukee focus group spoke of an 

inhalant ad that had encouraged them tO' talk to their children about the dangers of 

sniffmg household products. One Washington, D.C., mother said that the ads she 

had seen helped her talk to her children about drugs. 

In nine of the twelve target sites (Boise, Denver, Hartford, Houston, Milwaukee, 

Portland, San Diego, Tucson, and Washington, D.C.), participants agreed that 

anti-drug advertising was at least somewhat effective in reaching youth and 

teenagers. Most parents said that the' ads should be one component of a wider 

education effort. As one Portland father commented, the ads tied in nicely with 

"school and everything they [his children] are exposed to." A Hartford father 

thought watching anti-drug ads repeatedly could condition youth and adult 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-13 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

4.2.2.1 

attitudes, thereby gradually creating a less drug-tolerant atmosphere in the 

community. 

Atlanta, Baltimore, and Sioux City parents expressed the view that ads would 

probably not influence a significant number of youth. Non-center City Baltimore 

parents thought that only a small minority would be reached. Sioux City parents 

thought ads would have to be run much more frequently and that only younger 

children (who had not yet encountered peer influence) would respond to them. 

Another parent cautioned that drug income helps support many single-parent 

homes, adding, "You are not going to get rid of drugs because it's an underground 

economy." 

Most parents believed that ads targeting younger children were far more effective 

than those targeting older youth or teenagers. Community informants agreed with 

this view, explaining that changes in attitudes would occur primarily among 

younger children but not as much among teenagers. They attribute this to peer 

pressure and the fact that many teenagers do not think marijuana is dangerous. 

Hartford non-center city parents believed that ads could influence youth or 

teenagers who are considering whether to try drugs but not those who are already 

using drugs. They agreed that those who want to use would use, despite anti-drug 

advertising, but that ads can reinforce the decision "not to use." 

Recommendations for Improving Anti-Drug Ads 

Focus group participants' made a number of recommendations for improving ads. 

The consensus among participants in the 4th-6th grade, 7th-9th grade, 10th-12th 

grade, and parent focus groups was that ads should "show real (including 

negative) consequences of drug use such as degraded physical appearance, 

before/after contrasts, and use testimonials from real, local people who relate their 

experiences." For three of the four groups (7th-9th graders, 10th-12th graders, 

and parents), participants frequently recommended use of ads that "are shocking, 

eye-catching, dramatic." 

High school and middle school focus group discussions offered detailed insights 

into the qualities that many teenagers think make ads more effective fortheir 

peers. Teenagers who believed that the anti-drug ads are beneficial suggested (as 

did their younger counterparts) that ads must present graphic depictions of real 

situations of drug use and stress their negative consequences. Immediate and 

long-term consequences Cited by youth include degraded physical appearance, 

loss of friends, jobs, money, health, and sometimes life, as well as legal 

consequences and the impact of drug use on others. 

The following are some specific suggestions for improving the effectiveness of 

ads: 

• "Show someone sick from drinking, or someone dying from a heroin 

overdose" [Atlanta non-center city 10th-12th grader]; 

4-14 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

• "Show crack heads who are dirty, with no teeth and no money" [Denver 

center city 10th-12th grader]; 

• "Have the ad in black and white, scan faces of people who have done drugs, 

and then show a graveyard" [Hartford non-center city 10th-12th grader]; and 

• "Show a mother who takes drugs while pregnant and the baby comes out 

small or dies" [Washington, D.C., non-center city 10th-12th grader]. 

Ads that were the most detailed, eye-catching, creative, and frightening were 

thought to be most likely to capture the attention of teenagers, and as one Portland 

high school student explained, "[it has] to be graphic in this desensitized world to 

have it get to you." 

Similarly, parents suggested that ads should depict the many types of realistic 

consequences of drug use. Suggestions for ways to best illustrate reality included: 

• Using people who have gone through addiction and rehabilitation; 

• Showing that even the good students are on drugs [Houston]; 

• Comparing the lives of two groups of youth [one that uses drugs and one that 

does not] over a 10-year period and pose the question, "Which person do you 

want to end up being?; 

• Depicting a youth paralyzed by a drive-by shooting along with scenes of a 

funeral home or cemetery; portraying a teenaged girl who denies she has a 

drinking problem until she is date-raped and discarded [Milwaukee]; 

• Portraying a jail scene, or local people whose lives have been ruined; 

• "Includ[ing] toe tags;" 

• Deglamorizing the distribution of drugs; and 

• Showing a beautiful girl whose physical appearance is ravaged by drugs use 

[Portland]. 

Parents in some focus groups also called for realistic images of the ravages of 

drug use and real testimonies from various spokespersons that had direct 

experience with the dangers of drugs. Suggestions included interviewing a 

teenager in recovery [non-center city Baltimore], using sports figures to give their 

own histories of drug use and arrests [non-center city Portland], and using a local 

community person who had set a good example (e.g., a father in the focus group 

who had participated in a rehabilitation program as a teenager, turned his life 

around, and become a counselor in the same prevention program) [Atlanta]. 

Responses to the survey on the effectiveness of Media Campaign ads show that 

overall, youth and parents in target sites believed the ads they had seen or heard 

were effective in that they learned new information from the ads about drugs. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-15 
Testing the Anti*Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Focus group data, however, were extremely useful in identifying the specific 

content of anti-drug ads that people consider to be effective or influential, which 

in turn offerspossible explanations for why survey respondents perceived the 

Media Campaign ads to be effective. 

4,3 

4.3.1 

AWARENESS OF RISK OF DRUGS 

Summary of Survey Findings on Awareness of Risk of Drugs 

Within both target and comparison sites, awareness among youth of the risks 

of drugs was greater at followup than at baseline for cocaine, crack, inhalants, 

methamphetamine, and heroin. Increases in the awareness of the risks of 

methamphetamine and heroin were significantly higher in target sites than in 

comparison sites. 

Approximately 80 percent of all youth at baseline and followup in both target 

and comparison sites thought marijuana was "very dangerous." 

Awareness of risk of cigarette and beer use actually decreased significantly at 

followup among both target and comparison site youth. This may be an 

indication that youth, in the absence of an intensive educational effort, begin 

to adjust to and accept societal levels of smoking and drinking as they move 

through the school year. 

Increases in awareness of the risks associated with heroin use between 

baseline and followup within target sites, and differences between target sites 

and comparison sites, were statistically significant among the following 

groups: all races, males and females, non-center city youth, and fourth and 

fifth graders. For methamphetamine, risk awareness increased significantly 

among whites, males and females, non-center city youth, and fourth graders. 

Teens' responses to questions about the risks of drugs did not demonstrate that 

their awareness had increased, either within or between the target and 

comparison sites. Awareness of the risks of marijuana, cocaine/crack, 

methamphetamine, and heroin remained unchanged throughout the Media 

Campaign. 

There was no change in teen awareness of the social and academic risks 

associated with marijuana. When asked about the risk among marijuana users 

of "going on to harder drugs," there was an increase in the percentage of 

female and Hispanic target site teens that thought there was "great risk." 

The ads made more parents aware of the risks of using drugs. On every 

measure, with the exception of one (perceived risk in trying marijuana) 

parents in target sites showed significant increases in awareness of risks when 

compared with parents in comparison sites. 

4-16 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

4.3.2 Use of Media Monitoring Data To Interpret Survey Findings 

Survey findings indicate that target site youth believe that cocaine, crack, 

inhalants, methamphetamine, and heroin pose dangerous risks. Media monitoring 

data provide some context to this finding and strongly suggest that the Media 

Campaign is largely responsible for the increases in educating youth about the 

risks of drugs. The total number of all ads (Media Campaign, PDFA, and other 

sponsors) focusing on inhalants increased sharply across the target sites during the 

intervention period, from 81.6 per month (or 2.7 times a day) tO 364.8 per month 

(or 12.2 times a day) during the intervention. In fact, the overall number of 

inhalant ads ranked third behind general drug-related ads and marijuana ads. 

By contrast, the average monthly number of inhalant ads decreased slightly in the 

comparison sites from baseline to intervention. At baseline an average of 118.7 

inhalant ads aired in comparison sites per month (or 4 per day). During the 

intervention the average number of inhalant ads that aired actually decreased in 

comparison sites to 100.2 per month (or 3.3 per day). Therefore, 269.7 percent 

more Media Campaign/PDFA inhalant ads aired daily in the target sites than in 

the comparison sites over the course of the intervention. It is worth noting that 

fully 82.3 percent of all inhalant ads that aired during the intervention period in 

target sites were Media Campaign/PDFA ads (thus airing in better time slots than 

would be expected for public service announcements), which strongly suggests 

that the Media Campaign influenced youth with respect to inhalant use. 

It is also worth noting that two of the five youth-targeted Media Campaign ads-- 

Noses and Drowning--focused on inhalants. These ads aired during the 

intervention period 228.6 times a month across all target sites--much more often 

than any other youth-targeted ad. In fact, together the two youth-targeted Media 

Campaign inhalant ads increased by 600 percent in the intervention period. By 

sharp contrast, in comparison sites youth ads focusing on inhal~ts aired only 9.4 

times a month, down 9.6 percentage points from the baseline period. 

Media monitoring data show that approximately 42 percent of all Media 

Campaign ads included in the evaluation specifically targeted parents. These ads, 

Burbs, Deal, Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose, showed a 

516 percent increase in broadcast frequency from baseline to followup in target 

sites, which helps explain why parental awareness of risk increased in these sites. 

A review of the total number of anti-drug ads targeting specific drugs that actually 

aired in target sites versus comparison sites supports the assertion that, in target 

sites, viewing ads increased parents' awareness of drug risks. During the 

intervention period, an average of 337.4 ads per month focused on crack/cocaine 

ads (219.2 of which were Media Campalgn/PDFA ads), 300.4 ads per month 

focused on heroin (157.6 of which were Media Campaign/PDFA ads), 364.8 ads 

per month focused on inhalants (300.2 of which were Media Campaign/PDFA 

ads), and 81.4 ads per month focused on methamphetamine (29.2 of which were 

Media Campaign/PDFA ads). 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-17. 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

It is important to note that many more anti-drug ads of all types aired in target 

sites than in comparison sites and that the Media Campaign ads typically aired 

during programming and time slots during which target audience viewership was 

highest. These same ads, when aired as PSAs in comparison sites, usually reached 

a much smaller percentage of their intended audience due to the fact that PSAs 

typically air in time slots during which the target audience was lowest. Also, the 

majority of anti-drugs ads airing in comparison sites as public service 

announcements were Media Campaign ads targeted toward parents as opposed to 

those targeted toward youth and teenagers. 

• During the intervention, media monitoring data show that 30.6 percent of the 

Media Campaign ads included in the survey were targeted toward teenagers. 

Although the percentage of Media Campaign ads that targeted teenagers was 

smaller than that targeting youth (27.9 percent) or parents (41.5 percent), the 

airing of teen ads increased dramatically in target sites from baseline to 

intervention (from 6 per month to 420 per month). Over the same period, the 

average number of airings decreased (from 4.7 at baseline to 3.6 at intervention) 

in comparison sites. This helps to explain survey findings that show increased 

awareness among teens in target sites (when compared with that for comparison 

sites) of nearly all Media Campaign ads targeted toward that age group (911, Alex 

Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, Layla, Right of Passage, and Portland-specific ads 

Everclear, Lauryn Hill, and Sublime2). 

4.3.3 Use of Site Visit Data To Interpret Survey Findings 

The methamphetamine ad Battery Acid was recalled by 4th-6th grade focus group 

participants in non-center city Sioux City, non-center city Tucson, and both center 

city and non-center city Denver. The fact that methamphetamine distribution is 

concentrated in select areas nationally, combined with the fact that 

methamphetamine ads targeted only those areas, may explain why only 46 percent 

of target site youth and 40 percent of comparison site youth view 

methamphetamine use as "very dangerous." This low percentage also may be 

attributed in part to lack of familiarity with the drug among younger children. 

Particularly noteworthy, however, is that youth across target sites showed 

significant increased awareness of this drug from baseline to followup, in spite of 

the fact that only half of the target sites aired a Media Campaign ad that targeted 

methamphetamine use. 

Increased awareness of risk in target sites that have a methamphetamine problem 

also may be attributed to heightened public awareness in those cities that have 

publicized methamphetamine-related incidents, or where projects are underway to 

combat the problem. For example, in Boise a methamphetamine-related homicide 

occurred (May 1998), an incidence of hotel arson was attributed to a man whose 

mother reported that "meth had eaten [her] son's brain up," and a former police 

officer from a nearby community was arrested for selling methamphetamine. 

2 Portland-specific results are discussed in Chapter 5. 

4-18 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

Youth peer norms, as supported by focus group and other site visit data, are 

predominantly anti-drug, despite some youths' vast knowledge of, and exposure 

to drug use environments. Anti-drug education in schools and at home, along with 

anti-tobacco campaigns, appears to have been largely effective in instilling these 

anti-drug attitudes in younger children, who make few distinctions between the 

risks of different drugs. 

Youth in 4th-6th grades commonly view all drugs, especially alcohol and 

tobacco, as very dangerous, typically commenting that "drugs can hurt you," "you 

can die," and "Why waste your life?" [Portland]. Many of these youth quickly 

mention tobacco-related health problems in their families or family members who 

have gotten sick from alcohol. Most youth are familiar with marijuana, as in the 

case of a San Diego focus group whose members viewed smoking as negative but 

do not make a clear distinction between smoking marijuana and smoking tobacco. 

Hartford youth aptly summarized a view held by most 4th-6th grade youth--that 

youth their age think that drugs are "un-cool," and that individuals who opt not to 

use drugs are smarter than those who choose to use them. 

Youth in 4th-6th grade focus groups at most sites repeatedly expressed antitobacco views, and many of the ads they described were graphic television ads or 

posters that display the detrimental effects of smoking. Perhaps in the absence of 

intensive, ongoing national anti-tobacco and alcohol campaigns, youth's 

perceptions of risks associated with these drugs have eroded over time, as 

indicated by youth on the survey. It may also indicate that, as the focus of antidrug ads (both Media Campaign and others) targets illegal drugs, youth begin to 

forget about the risks of alcohol and tobacco, or to view them as less risky in 

comparison. 

Middle and high school students in focus group discussions made frequent 

distinctions between types of drugs, viewing some as more dangerous than others, 

and making distinctions between the frequency of use, type of drug used, and 

circumstances surrounding use. One Portland teenager expressed the opinion that 

"shrooms and acid are okay every once in a while." Parents in a Denver focus 

group asserted that teenagers are clearly aware of the line between social use and 

addiction. Teenagers' comments often reflected this distinction, as described by 

one high school student: "occasional drug use at a private residence or rural field 

party, when friends are present, and you don't have to drive home, is not 

dangerous" [an Austin non-center city high school student]. 

Nowhere are distinctions more clearly pronounced than in teenagers' views 

concerning the primary drugs of choice--tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana--and 

their views of other serious drugs. Teenagers across all sites described tobacco, 

alcohol, and marijuana as the most prevalent drugs of choice and agreed that the 

majority Of their peers view these drugs as acceptable. At the same time, they see 

other drugs as unacceptable. Parents in Tucson agreed that teenagers think alcohol 

and marijuana are "harmless," and one non-center city San Diego mother stated 

that teenagers do not even view alcohol and marijuana as drugs. This observation 

was reinforced during a Hartford center city middle school focus group 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-19 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

discussion, when some participants acknowledged the presence of "weed" at 

parties, but others casually reported the same parties to be "drug-free." 

Site visit data collected from teenager and parent focus groups help to explain 

some of the factors that affect teenagers' perceptions of drug risk and hence can 

provide further insight into the survey findings on risks of drugs. The consensus 

among teenagers in focus groups at eight target sites (Boise, Denver, Hartford, 

Houston, Milwaukee, Portland, San Diego, and Sioux City) and among parents at 

four target sites (Baltimore, Denver, Houston, and Tucson) was that most 

teenagers know a great deal about the risks of drugs yet still choose to try them. 

Teenagers in seven target sites (Baltimore, Boise, Denver, Hartford, Portland, 

San Diego, and Washington, D.C.) and parents in three target sites (Atlanta, 

Baltimore, and Portland) cautioned that even when teenagers know the risks, they 

do not believe that the dangers will affect them personally. 

This common feeling of invincibility among adolescents, or "immunity," as a 

group of Boise students described it, is blamed for many high-risk behaviors in 

which middle and high school youth engage, despite repeated warnings from 

school, parents, and the media. One center city Boise 7th-9th grade focus group 

participant explained, "With health classes everyone knows the dangers of drugs. 

But we have the teen mentality, and until we get knocked down, we don't think 

anything bad will happen to us." 

Many of the teenagers commented that even when their peers do believe in the 

risk, they see drug use as "cool," and as one center city high school student stated, 

"so cool that it outranks that it's dangerous" (center city Houston). Teenagers in 

Portland suggested that only significant events such as a local drunk driving 

incident or a case of pregnancy complications attributed to drug use might change 

beliefs about alcohol and drugs. A Denver high school student echoed this 

sentiment, when he responded to the question, "What makes a kid stop taking 

drugs?" with the answer, "Seeing family members die." 

One of the main reasons teenagers, parents, and community informants offered 

for teenagers' willingness to use drugs in spite of their awareness of the risks is 

peer pressure. Teenage focus group participants in five target sites (Atlanta, 

Boise, Houston, San Diego, and Washington, D.C.) spoke openly about the 

pressure they feel from their friends. One 9th grade girl in Boise stated that the 

decision on whether or not to use drugs depended on peer influence, saying, 

"Depends on their environment. If their friends are using them, then they'll want 

to follow the crowd." 

Awareness of risk appears to diminish among teenagers as they gain firsthand 

experience with drug use, often by trying drugs or alcohol themselves or by 

witnessing drug and alcohol use among peers and adults. Teenagers hear the 

prevention messages, but the messages do not match what they actually see with 

their friends. The ads preach "gloom and doom," yet their friends use drugs 

recreationally and do not seem to be suffering from it [Sioux City site report]. A 

non-center city Washington, D.C., high school student noted that youth go 

4-20 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

through the D.A.R.E. program in middle school, but then "they try drugs, nothing 

happens, so they keep going." 

This ambiguity about the relative risks of some people using particular drugs 

under certain circumstances is accentuated by a variety of mixed messages that 

teenagers receive from their environment. Even though there is an increase in 

teen's recognition of anti-drug ads in the media, many pro-drug messages from 

beer commercials, cigarette ads, movies, and popular music are competing for 

their attention [Milwaukee and Tucson]. Teenagers in a Portland focus group 

described what they saw as a general desensitization within their peer group and 

among adults regarding adolescent drug usage. One student in the group 

commented that "teachers don't approach you unless you are 'blasted!'" 

A major source of this mixed message about the risks of drugs often cited by 

teenagers, parents, and community informants is parents who use drugs 

themselves or who allow their children to use drugs. Both parents and teenagers in 

focus groups described situations in which parents sanction the use of alcohol or 

marijuana for teenagers. An incensed Milwaukee parent related, "I'm seeing that 

we' re even having parents who are inviting either middle school or freshman, 

sophomore-age high schoolers to their home and allowing them...you 

know...freely, to drink alcohol and even sometimes supplying alcohol." Parents in 

a Denver focus group asserted that some parents give beer and marijuana to 

children as young as 14 or 15, because "They figure it's better doing it at home 

with them than out on the street." 

The majority of parents are receptive to and complementary of anti-drug 

messages they have seen in the media. They admit that ads remind them of the 

risks, inform them about specific drugs and about the scope of the national drug 

problem, encourage them to open a dialogue about drugs with their children, and 

encourage them to act as responsible role models. Parents see anti-drug ads as a 

positive component of a wider program of anti-drug education, and though they 

do not look to advertising to single-handedly mend the complex problem of youth 

drug use, they do want to see more anti-drug ads more frequently that are realistic 

and frightening enough to get their children's attention. 

One of the major goals of the Media Campaign, in addition to raising awareness 

of anti-drug ads and their content, is to encourage local communities to mobilize 

their own anti-drug initiatives and education campaigns. Although developing 

partnerships to encourage community-level anti-drug activities is a focus of 

Phase II and III rather than Phase I, site visit data at followup indicate that many 

anti-drug events and initiatives have occurred in target sites since the Media 

Campaign began in January. A number of new anti-drug efforts are being planned 

for future implementation. For example in Baltimore, Maryland Public Television 

participated in the national outreach campaign, TAKE A STEP, an education and 

prevention initiative designed to supplement the Bill Moyers series on addiction. 

Nearby Anne Arundel County released a long-range strategic plan for substance 

abuse prevention, "Mission Possible: A Drug-Free Community," scheduled to be 

implemented in Fall 1998, and another Maryland county near Baltimore recently 

implemented a D.A.R.E. program for parents. All of these community activities 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-21 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

could have heightened the awareness of the risks of drugs among young people 

and parents in the target sites. 

In addition, shortly after the Media Campaign began, "Assets for Colorado 

Youth" began its own media campaign in an effort to highlight positive youth 

behaviors through radio and newspaper advertisements. The Drug Enforcement 

Administration's office of Demand Reduction has stepped up its mentorship 

programs at Boys and Girls Clubs of greater Houston, and the City of Hartford 

Youth Services Department has initiated several new local prevention efforts, 

including a Summer Youth Employment program through which youth will 

receive training on substance abuse issues and peer education so that they can 

host workshops throughout the city. These other events may have contributed to 

increasing community members' perceptions that drugs pose a serious risk. 

Youth and parent survey responses show that perceptions of the risk of drugs 

increased significantly among those in target sites who were exposed to the Media 

Campaign. Media monitoring data are useful for demonstrating how perceived 

risk could be influenced by exposure to anti-drug ads, particularly ads targeting 

specific types of drugs. Site visit data also help to clarify how young people's 

perceptions of risk are influenced by peer norms as well as by a range of other 

contextual factors in addition to the Media Campaign. 

4.4 ATTITUDES TOWARD DRUGS 

4.4.1 Summary of Survey Findings on Attitudes Toward Drugs 

Attitudes toward inhalants changed significantly between baseline and 

followup among target site youth. At followup 66.6 percent agreed that 

"things you sniff or huff to get high can kill you," up from 60.7 percent at 

baseline. 

Changes in attitude were not expected within the short timeframe of Phase I, 

and the survey results indicate that attitudes toward drugs among youth 

remained largely unchanged between baseline and followup in both target and 

comparison sites. Approximately 93 percent of all youth agreed that "using 

drugs is dangerous," and an average of 34 percent of all youth agreed that "it 

is hard tO say 'no' when friends want you to try drugs." 

The percentage of youth who "agree a lot" with the statement "I don't want to 

hang around people who do drugs" declined between baseline and followup 

among all demographic groups in target sites. The percentage of female and of 

non-center city youth that "agree a lot" with the statement "I am scared of 

taking drugs" also declined significantly between baseline and followup in 

target sites. 

Teens showed no change in their attitudes toward drugs during Phase I. 

The percentage of teens saying they "agree strongly" with the following 

statements remained unchanged between baseline and followup in both target 

4-22 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

4.4.2 

and comparison groups. Teens said "Taking drugs scares me," "I don't want 

to hang around anyone who uses marijuana," "I would try to talk a friend out 

of using drugs," "The music that my friends and I listen to makes drugs seem 

cool," "Heroin is a dangerously addictive drug," and "Heroin will ruin your 

life." 

Parental attitudes toward drugs remained largely unchanged between baseline 

and followup, with the exception of those parents saying they "agree strongly" 

or "agree somewhat" that they "would be upset if [their] child ever tried 

marijuana." Target site parents agreeing with that statement increased from 

79.7 percent at baseline to 81.8 percent at followup. Comparison site parents 

agreeing with that statement decreased from 81.8 percent at baseline to 

80.0 percent at followup. 

Use of Media Monitoring Data To Interpret Survey Findings 

Media monitoring data help to explain youth survey findings related to their views 

on the risks of using inhalants. More inhalant-specific Media Campaign ads were 

broadcast at the target sites than in the comparison sites. In fact, in the target sites, 

at baseline, on average, 55 inhalant-specific ads aired per month, while during the 

intervention period on average 300.2 aired per month. By contrast, on average 

only 18 inhalant ads aired per month in the comparison sites during the Media 

Campaign. 

The average number of times that inhalant-specific ads aired further explains the 

significant increase in the percentage of target site youth who, according to survey 

findings, believe that inhalants are life threatening. For example, the average 

number of times that Noses, an ad targeted to youth, aired increased in the target 

sites from 27 per month at baseline to 99.6 per month during the intervention. In 

the comparison sites, Noses aired 17.3 per month at baseline, and these broadcasts 

decreased over the time of the Media Campaign. The frequency of Drowning, also 

aimed at youth, increased from 27.3 per month to 129 per month during the 

intervention in target sites. This ad was not shown as a PSA in most of the 

comparison sites. The frequency of Under Your Nose, aimed at parents, increased 

in the target sites from .7 per month at baseline to 71.6 per month during the 

intervention but aired as a PSA only a few times in one of the 12 comparison 

sites. 

The media monitoring data specific to heroin suggest that the lack of change in 

teenagers' attitudes about this substance does not appear to be due to limited 

broadcasting of ads focused on heroin. Indeed, heroin ads increased during the 

Media Campaign to a greater degree in the target sites than in the comparison 

sites. The average number of heroin ads directed to parents, teenagers, and youth 

increased from 52 per month to 300.4 per month over time in the target sites; 

there was a much smaller increase in frequency of airing these ads in the 

comparison sites. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-23 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

4.4.3 Use of Site Visit Data To Interpret Survey Findings 

Site visit data help to explain survey results related to perceived risk of using 

inhalants and other drugs. Focus group discussions at followup revealed some of 

the factors influencing these attitudes. First, students in seven of the target sites 

and five of the comparison sites indicated that they have recently been exposed to 

anti-drug education programs in school or in community-based organizations. 

This recent exposure to drug education programming could have helped reinforce 

their anti-drug attitudes. 

Discussions with focus groups at followup in 11 of the target and 10 of the 

comparison sites indicated that most youth believe that drug use is dangerous. For 

example, non-center city Tucson youth perceived that "drugs are stupid." They 

also noted health consequences such as "killing brain cells." Non-center city 

Portland youth consistently expressed the view that drugs can "hurt you" and 

"you can die." This attitude has no doubt been reinforced by the communitybased prevention efforts often directed toward youth. For example, during the 

baseline site visit to Hartford, site visitors reported that the Capitol Area 

Substance Abuse Council (CASAC), a regional initiative, administered 

community education programs for professionals on inhalant abuse prevention. 

News stories on inhalant use were also broadcast on two major television stations 

in Hartford. At the time of the intermediate site visit, site visitors noted that 

CASAC provided inhalant abuse prevention and awareness training for DARE 

officers, PTAs, churches, prevention specialists, drug counselors, and youth 

groups. 

At followup heroin mentions in the teen focus groups in both the target and 

comparison sites were very limited. When heroin was mentioned, teenagers noted 

that the level of tolerance for this drag and other drugs is much less than that for 

marijuana. The consensus was that heroin, is not sanctioned by this age group. 

This suggests that the most effective strategy may be the use of Media Campaign 

ads that focus on substances that teenagers use commonly. 

Site visit data also help to support survey findings related to teen attitudes toward 

marijuana use. A Washington, D.C., center city high school student made the 

following comment about marijuana: "It comes from the ground, so it's good for 

you." Teenagers, especially those in high school, said at baseline that they like 

marijuana because it is accessible, cheap, transportable, easy to cover up, and 

relaxing. Thus, if teen norms indicate that marijuana use is prevalent and teens' 

attitudes toward it are permissive, it is not surprising that most teenagers 

disagreed with the statement, "I don't want to hang around anyone who uses 

marijuana." Agreeing with that statement would mean having to give up many 

friends and parties. It appears that many nonusers accept or tolerate marijuana use 

among their peers because they perceive its use as widespread. 

Followup focus group discussions revealed some factors that may affect 

teenagers' reluctance to influence their friends. As with youth, many teenagers 

(7th-12th graders at 7 target sites and 6 comparison sites) said they and their 

peers were fully aware of the dangers of drugs. At the same time, they perceived 

4-24 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

that drug use is perceived as cool. Teenagers mentioned a variety of factors that 

outweigh the dangers of drug use for them and their peers, including a feeling of 

personal immunity, a don't-care attitude about risks, and a desire to want to look 

or be cool. 

Peer pressure was mentioned as a factor by many focus group participants at 

baseline and followup but was mentioned more often by middle school students 

than by high school students. A middle school student in Boise said, "Depends on 

their environment. If their friends are using them, then they'll want to follow the 

crowd." A Washington, D.C., middle school student found peer pressure to use 

drugs very strong and said that "If youth resist, they are called names and put 

down." 

Participants in a majority of the middle and high school focus groups conducted at 

baseline and followup in the target and comparison sites said that they or their 

peers had been exposed to drug use often at parties, at school, or in their 

neighborhoods. Center city high school students in Portland agreed there was a 

general desensitization among both peers and adults regarding adolescent drug 

use. 

In summary, survey responses for youth that showed a change in attitude toward 

drugs were limited to specific subgroups. Although this domain of the study was 

not expected to change during the relatively short Media Campaign in Phase I, 

media monitoring data are helpful in showing that youth in target sites were 

exposed to an extensive array of anti-drug advertising, which could account for 

some of their changed attitudes. Site visit data on youth confirmed that their 

attitudes are similar across sites and identified various community efforts that 

reinforce youth's anti-drug attitudes. Focus group data on teenagers also provide 

insight into their attitudes and why those attitudes may be more difficult to • 

change. 

4.5 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT DRUGS 

" 4.5.1 Summary of Survey Findings on Sources of Information About Drugs 

• There was a substantial increase among youth in target sites that reported 

learning "a lot" about the negative aspects of drugs from TV ads. 

• Overall, parents, grandparents, school, and friends remained the most 

important sources of information on drugs among youth. 

Target site youth who said they had seen anti-drug ads on TV increased 

significantly between baseline and followup (from 85% to 89%) compared 

with the increase among comparison site youth (from 86% to 87%). 

Recognition of anti-drug ads on billboards, posters on buses, bus stops, or 

subways, and school posters showed no significant increases when target sites 

were compared with comparison sites. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-25 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

The percentage of target site teens that said they "learned a lot" about the risks 

of drugs from TV ads, TV shows, news, movies, and the radio increased from 

baseline to followup. Changes in responses were statistically significant when 

compared with decreases in the same measures within comparison sites. 

The percentage of teens who said they had "learned a lot" from TV ads was 

statistically significant within target sites and between target and comparison 

sites among 9th-12th graders, males and females, whites, and non-center city 

residents. 

/ 

Increases in the percentage of teens who said they had "learned a lot" from 

radio, were statistically significant among 7th and 8th graders, males and 

females, whites, and center-city and non-center city residents. 

4.5.2 Use of Media Monitoring Data To Interpret Su~ey Findings 

Media monitoring data suggest why statistically significant changes occurred 

between baseline and followup in the percentage of youth that learned from 

television, and specifically television ads, that drugs are bad for them. The 

average number of all anti-drug ads--PSAs and the paid Campaign ads--was 

similar during the baseline period in target and comparison sites. In fact, media 

monitoring data show that only 9 percent more ads aired in target sites than in 

comparison sites at baseline. 

During the Media Campaign, however, media monitoring detected 96.5 percent 

more anti-drug television ads in target sites than in comparison sites (3,992.6 paid 

anti-drug ads per month and PSAs in target sites compared to 2,031.6 anti-drug 

ads per month in comparison sites). The difference in the volume of ads between 

target and comparison sites is even more pronounced when the focus is narrowed 

to ads targeted at youth during the Media Campaign. These ads included Noses, 

Long Way Home, Girlfriend, Drowning. During the intervention period, those ads 

were shown 8.7 times more often in target sites than in comparison sites (446.2 

per month in target sites compared to 51.4 per month in comparison sites). 

4;5.3 Use of Media Buy Information To Interpret Survey Findings 

The media buying information, which focuses only .on the paid component of the 

Campaign, provides valuable information on the target audience exposure to the 

paid ad demonstrating a correlation between the gross rating points achieved and 

changes in awareness. As final post-audited data on the reach and frequency for 

Phase I was unavailable as this report was being prepared, GRP data are used as 

proxy measures. (Estimated variance between the buy information provided and 

the audited post-buy information is plus or minus 10 %.) As mentioned previously 

a GRP is a unit of measurement of advertising audience size, equal to one percent 

of the ,total potential audience universe. It is used to measure the exposure of one 

or more programs or commercials without regard to multiple exposure of the 

same advertising to individuals. Thus, a GRP is the product of media reach times 

exposure frequency. GRP data indicate that paid Campaign ads aired during prime 

4-26 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

viewing times with a frequency that ensured that the majority of the target 

audiences were exposed to the ads. 

4.5.4 Use of Site Visit Data To Interpret Survey Findings 

Focus group data from intermediate and followup site visits generally confirm the 

impact of the Media Campaign in target sites. Youth in focus groups in target 

sites had seen and could remember Media Campaign ads and understood their 

message to be that drugs are bad for them. Although youth in focus groups in 

comparison sites also understood the message of anti-drug ads, they typically 

could not recall specific ads or were more likely to recall an anti-tobacco ad. 

As with youth, baseline focus groups with teenagers confirmed, with some 

exceptions, how they learn about drugs. Focus groups were conducted with two 

groups of teenagers--7th-9th graders and 10th-12th graders (i.e., usually middle 

school and high school students). School was the most frequently mentioned 

source for information about drugs. In many sites, teenagers reported that they 

had attended D.A.R.E. classes when they were in fifth grade, and they continued 

to receive instruction about drugs in health classes in middle and high school. 

School also was a negative source of information for some teenagers, who said 

they learned about drugs from other students who use drugs. Other teenagers 

described hallways smelling of marijuana, students using drugs near school, 

violent drug-related incidents in school restrooms, and drug arrests in school. 

Other frequently mentioned sources were friends, parents, television, personal and 

family experience, and "on the street." Many of the teenagers in focus groups had 

used drugs themselves (usually marijuana), and some had sold drugs. "It's all 

about the money," said one non-center city teenager. 

Focus group data from intermediate and followup site visits confirm that 

teenagers in target sites saw the Media Campaign ads and could recall them, often 

in great detail. Focus group participants in target sites also confirmed hearing 

Media Campaign radio spots. Many high school students reported that they listen 

to the radio more frequently than they watch television. Focus groups of young 

people from all three age groups could recite lines from Stupid and variations on 

Just Say Nah. 

In summary, youth and teen survey responses clearly indicate that television, and 

especially television anti-drug ads, became a common source of information 

about the risks of drugs in target sites during Phase I of the Media Campaign. 

Focus group data confirm the sources from which youth and teenagers learn about 

drugs, and media monitoring data help explain why there were statistically 

significant changes in the percentages of youth and teenagers who "learned a lot" 

about drugs from television. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-27 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

4.6 PARENT-CHILD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DRUGS 

4.6.1 Summary of Survey Findings on Parent-Child Discussions 

About Drugs 

Changes in behavior were not expected during the short timeframe of Phase I. 

The percentage of parents who responded affirmatively when asked whether 

they had spoken with their children about drugs in the past year did not 

increase from baseline to followup. In target sites approximately 64.6 percent 

ofparents at both baselin e and followup said they had spoken with their 

children about drugs ~four or more times in the past year. In comparison sites 

• approximately 62.0 percent of parents had done so. 

4.6.2 Use of Site Visit Data To Interpret Survey Findings 

Media monitoring data were not applicable to understanding survey results on 

parents' communication with their children. However, site visit findings support 

the survey data that point tO the •powerful role parents can play in preventing 

youth drug use. Focus group parents at all sites stressed the importance of talking 

to children about the risks and dangers of drug use and communicating values 

about staying away from drugs. Focus group parents across all target sites 

reported that Media Campaign ads provided an opportunity for them to initiate 

conversations about drugs with their children. Comments from youth confirmed 

the parents' perceptions. For example, focus group youth named parents as one of 

the major sources of information about drugs (along with school, peers, and the 

media). A focus group of 10th-12th graders said that fear of getting in trouble 

with their parents was a reason why they did not use drugs. 3 

The strongest evidence from the focus group data on this topic tomes from a 

content analysis of parent s' comments on what make s Current anti-drug ads 

effective. ,Among eight categories'0f ad effectiveness cited, "helping parents and 

young people talk with each other' ' was ranked number one by a considerable 

number of parents participating in focus groups. This is very strong evidence of 

parents' agreement that helping parents communic'ate with their children about the 

dangers of drugs was the most effective part of current ads included in the Media 

Campaign. 

Comments about ad effectiveness from followup target site visit reports include 

the following: "N0n-center:city [Hartford] parents were in general agreement that 

• anti-drug ads could change attitudes toward drugs. They believed that the 

increased exposure to the issue as a result of anti-drug ads could help parents 

• broach the subject of drugs with their children and that, as one member pointed 

3 These fOcUS' group and survey findings support other recent survey results regarding parents' influence on their 

children's drug use. For example, the University of Minnesota's Adolescent Health Program found that parent-child 

connectedness was protective against several'health risk behaviors, including substance use (Resnick et al., 1997). And 

the Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE) found that students who reported that their parents talked to 

them "a lot" about alcohol and other drug s weretess likely to report illicit drug use than students whose parents "never" 

discussed drugs with them (PRIDE, 1998). 

4-28 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Discussion of Cross-Site Survey Results 

out, '...Conversations do happen when there are, more ,opportunities to see and 

discuss and address the issue.' "In Milwaukee, "Non-center city parents spoke 

openly about the effectiveness of ads to parents because they served as reminders 

about the need to dialogue with children." 

Furthermore, a non-center city [Portland] parent focus group noted that "some of 

the ads may serve as positive 'lead-ins' to discussions with their children about 

drugs." One participant felt that "this was true if children are not already on 

drugs." "Center city [Portland] parents commented that many of the ads were 

'good.' One participant noted that she liked the fact that "the ads were 'openended'; they don't preach but leave it open-ended so you have to start 

discussions." Parents in the Non-center City [Tucson] focus group were able to 

identify several ads geared to parents, and it was noted that the ads could be "an 

effective way to bring up the topic with your child and increase your awareness as 

a parent about drugs." 

Conversely, many parents described reasons that parents did not talk to their 

children about drugs nor had difficulties doing so effectively. These included 

parent drug use, past or present (both legal and illegal drugs); lack of information 

about drugs, the youth drug culture, or how and when to present information to 

their children; denial that the problem could ever affect their children; and 

acceptance of youth drug use. In Baltimore focus group parents reported that "the 

ads have changed parents' attitudes about the community in general, but their 

attitudes about their own children concerning drugs will be impervious." 

Parent responses to the survey showed clearly thai the vastmajority of parents are 

talking to their children about drugs. While media monitoring data were not 

useful for understanding more about this finding, focus group data proved to be 

extremely valuable in identifying ways in which the Media Campaign has helped 

to facilitate parent-initiated discussions with their children. Further, focus group 

data are useful for understanding possible reasons behind the survey responses for 

parents who do not talk with their children about drugs. 

i' 

• ~i  ̧ 

4.7 CONCLUSION 

This discussion of cross-site survey findings integrates data from the surveys, 

media monitoring, and site visits to help explain significant findings in six key 

areas. Most importantly, Phase I of the Media Campaign has achieved its intended 

goal of raising awareness about specific anti-drug messages among youth, teens, 

and parents. The increase in awareness is correlated with an increased frequency 

of exposure to the Media Campaign ads, particularly TV ads, and includes 

recognition by youth and parents in target sites of the risks of drugs. Additionally, 

the paid Media Campaign ads were aired during programming and time slots for 

which target audience viewership was the highest. The site visit data explain how 

increased awareness and perceptions of risk are influenced by young people's 

peer norms and attitudes as well as a range of other contextual factors to which 

they are exposed. Furthermore, youth and parents in the target sites agreed that , 

the anti-drug messages that they had seen or heard had been effective. Focus 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 4-29 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

group participants of all ages recommended the use of ads that depict the 

consequences of drug use including graphic representations of real situations. 

Study findings also provided clues to understanding change or lack of change in 

other areas such as attitudes and behavior, which were not, intended goals of the 

Phase I Media Campaign. For example, as expected, the attitudes of youth, teens, 

and parents in the target sites did not change within the short time frame of Phase 

I compared with those in the comparison sites except for youth's attitudes 

pertaining to inhalants. Although there was no major change regarding whether 

parents had spoken with their children about drugs over the past year, focus 

groups parents from all target sites reported that Media Campaign ads provided 

starting points for initiating conversations about drugs with their children. In 

summary, an integration of data from the survey findings, media monitoring, and 

site visits indicates an increased awareness of anti-drug ads as well as the dangers 

of drug use, and the Phase I Media Campaign has played a major role in achieving 

these results. 

4.8 REFERENCES 

Patton, M.Q. 1980. Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

PRIDE. 1998. "Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Use Among Teens: Despite 

Progress, Drug Usage Remains Twice the 1990 Rate." PRIDE News Release. 

Atlanta, GA. 

Resnick, M.D., Bearman, P.S., Blum, R.W., Bauman, K.E., Harris, K.M., Jones, 

J., Tabor, J., Beuhring, T., Sieving, R.E., Shew, M., Ireland, M., Bearinger, 

L.H., and Udry, J.R. 1997. "Protecting Adolescents From Harm: Findings 

From the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescence Health." Journal of the 

American Medical Association 278(10): 823-32. 

Synergies, 1997. Inhalants: The Silent Epidemic. Austin, TX: National Inhalant 

Prevention Coalition (www.inhalants.org). 

Trotter, R.T. III, and Schensul, J.J. 1998. "Methods in Applied Anthropology." In 

Bernard, H.R., ed. Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. Walnut 

Creek, CA: Alta Mira Pres 

4-30 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
5. SITE-LEVEL RESULTS 

This chapter presents site-level results for each target site using a case study 

format. The focus of each case study is on survey findings at the site level, using 

site-specific findings from site visits, media monitoring, GRP data, and other 

media buying plan information to explain and interpret the survey results for each 

site. As in Chapter 4, media monitoring data refer to Campaign ads and PSAs, 

whereas media buy data refer only to paid Campaign ads. 

Media monitoring data are presented in terms of the average monthly number of 

times that ads aired. Media buy data present the actual number of times that paid 

ads were scheduled to air and estimates of audience exposure in terms of GRPs. 

The case studies are presented in alphabetical order by target site, and each case 

study is organized into the following sections: 

Introduction- Includes a brief summary of the demographics of the target 

site's Metropolitan Statistical Area (based on 1990 census data and the 1995 

Uniform Crime Reports), the scope of the drug problem in the area, and the 

drug problem among youth and teens; 

Intervention-- Lists the TV ads included on the evaluation surveys for youth, 

teens, and parents that were detected by media monitoring in the target sitel; 

for each case study, a table is presented which includes the specific paid ads 

and PSAs for the respective site about which students and parents were 

surveyed; 

Survey Findings-- Summarizes the main findings for target and comparison 

site; identifies the comparison site; presents findings that are statistically 

significant across the target and comparison sites for youth, teens, and parents; 

and discusses results of media monitoring and how these data may have 

affected survey findings at the site-level; 

Community Impact m Describes the target site's response to Phase I of the 

Media Campaign, as indicated by such factors as increased calls for 

information and assistance regarding drug abuse, efforts to support the Media 

Campaign (e.g., a school poster contest based on anti-drug ads seen by the 

children), any local media efforts in the target and comparison sites; or new 

program initiatives inspired by the Campaign; and 

Summary of Findings--. Presents a summary of the survey findings for 

youth, teens, and parents, as well as impact of the Media Campaign on the 

community. 

The focus throughout is on the target site, with data from the comparison site used 

to explain statistically significant differences between the sites. In this chapter, the 

term "cross-site" refers to the analysis that compares a specific target site with it's 

specific, matched comparison site. The site-level analyses draw upon data from 

1 A comprehensive listing of all Phase I advertisements is presented in Appendix A. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-1 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

media monitoring, media buying, focus groups, and community respondent 

interviews to support reliable interpretation of the data. Media monitoring data 

were not,available for three target sites (Boise, Sioux City, and Tucson) and two 

comparison sites (Eugene and Duluth). Fuller contextual descriptions of the target 

and comparison sites are available in Testing the Anti-Drug Message in 12 

American Cities: National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, Phase I 

(Report No. 1) (September 1998). 

Description of the Phase I Media Campaign intervention in the target site is 

subject to several limitations. Because the emphasis in the case studies is on 

survey findings at the site level, and because the surveys do not address specific 

radio, newspaper, or other media advertisements, the description in the 

Intervention section is limited to television ads. The description is further limited 

in that it does not include all of the anti-drug TV ads---either from the Media 

Campaign or from other sources--detected in the target site by media monitoring. 

The listing of television ads discussed in this chapter is confined to those that 

were included in the survey instruments for each of the three age groups and were 

classified as PSAs or paid ads according to the media buying plan for that site. 

For youth (grades 4-6), the ads were included in the Survey instrument were 

Noses, Long Way Home, Drowning, and Girlfriend. For teens (grades 7-12), ads 

included on the survey were Alex Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, 911, Layla, Free Ride, 

and Rite of Passage. TV ads on the parentsurvey were Burbs, Girl Interview, 

Under Your Nose, Deal, and O'Connor (see Section 2.2.5, Interpretation of 

Survey Findings, for a discussion of the implications of awareness of these ads). 

The media buying plans varied for each site, and it should be noted that the 

buying plans were not always implemented as planned which affected the 

frequency of the ads as well as their placement, and thus, percentage of the target 

audience reached. For example, Layla was part of the media buying plan for 

Portland and Milwaukee but according to post-buy data did not air as a paid ad. 

Furthermore, local cable (e.g., Nickelodeon and MTV) was purchased in each 

target site in bulk to reach youth and teens. The only data currently available on 

the cable purchases is the number of ads purchased in each site. The planned 

Phase I buy intended to deliver an incremental 1,253 GRPs per market in cable. 

As discussed in the target site findings, the number of ads varies by market based 

on the number of systems purchased and the buying groups' determination of the 

number of units needed to reach the ad awareness goal. Advertising time was also 

purchased in each site on in-school Channel One increased the reach and 

frequencyof some of the ads, including ads not part of the buying plan for the 

sites. Another limitation is that TV was not the primary medium used to reach 

parents. Thus the parent ads aired fewer times than those targeting teens and 

youth, resulting in lower levels of awareness of specific adult targeted ads. 

In addition to the media monitoring data, information on gross rating points and 

the frequency with which paid ads aired are used in the site-level descriptions to 

assist:in verifying that the ads identified in the buying plan and included in the 

survey instruments reached the target audiences. Gross rating points reflect 

5-2 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
. Site-Level Results 

audience share, one unit of GRP is equal to one percent of the total potential 

audience universe. GRPs are used to measure the exposure of one or more 

programs or commercials without regard to the multiple exposure of the same 

advertising to individuals. 

Another point of clarification is that not all of the ads mentioned above were 

shown in all target sites as paid Media Campaign ads. For example, one ad 

directed at teens--911--was purchased only in sites that experienced a 

methamphetamine problem. Exhibits 5-1 through 5-12 display the mix of paid 

ads and PSAs specific to each of the target sites. The distinction between paid ads 

and PSAs for each site was determined by the Media Campaign implementation 

plan. 

Three other facts about the media monitoring data help explain the information 

presented in the Survey Findings section of each case study. First, in spite of the 

limitations that arise in the discussion of survey ads, media monitoring detected 

other TV ads that may have influenced awareness and attitudes. Therefore, 

discussion of "ads from all sources" includes ads included in the surveys, other 

paid Media Campaign television ads, and ads produced by other sponsors--such 

as the Partnership for a Drug-Free America or local organizations--that aired as 

part of the pro bono component or as public service announcements (PSAs). 

Second, although the Phase I Media Campaign spanned 26 weeks from January 

• through June 1998, media monitoring data presented are for five months only, 

from January through May. June data are not included in the analysis because the 

evaluation surveys were completed in late May and early June. Therefore, 

respondents that had already completed the surveys would not have been exposed 

to or influenced by the June broadcasts of the ads. Third, comparisons between 

baseline and intervention periods span unequal timeframes. While the intervention 

period, for purposes of this analysis, covered the five months from January 

through May, the baseline period spanned only three months (October, 

November, and December 1997). To compensate for the difference in length of 

periods, data are presented as much as possible in terms of monthly averages. 

Another important note is that Media Campaign ads on cable TV were not tracked 

by the media monitoring component. 

The Survey Findings sections of the Baltimore, Denver, Hartford, and Portland 

case studies include an explanation of substitutions made for youth and teen data 

in their comparison sites. In each instance, arrangements to conduct the student 

surveys could not be made with a sufficient number of schools in the original 

comparison site (Richmond, Albuquerque, Harrisburg, and Spokane, 

respectively). For purposes of analysis, substitutions were made using youth and 

teen survey data--along with relevant media monitoring data for youth and teen 

ads from another, comparable comparison site (Memphis, Austin, Nashville, 

and Eugene, respectively). The substitutions were possible because data collection 

in all three modalities--survey, site visit, and media monitoring~was identical in 

all 24 sites. In other words, the same kinds of data that were collected in 

Richmond were collected in Memphis, so that data for youth and teens in 

Memphis could be substituted for Richmond data. At the same time, the 

Officeof National Drug Control Policy 5.3 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

discussion of findings for parents uses survey and media monitoring data from the 

original comparison sites. 

The site-level analysis focuses on awareness of the Media Campaign ads included 

in the survey. Site-specific analyses of ad awareness (comparing each target site 

with its matched comparison site) are presented for each of the 12 target sites. At 

the aggregate level (all target sites together and all comparison sites together), 

data analyses revealed statistically significant differences in ad awareness for all 

four of the ads targeted at youth, four of the six ads targeted at teens, and four of 

the five ads targeted at parents. In this chapter we examine ad awareness in more 

detail by controlling for whether an ad aired as a ~ in a target site, and how this 

may have affected recognition of the ad. 

In addition, it is important to note that the percentages of ad awareness among 

youth are higher than teens and parents due to the response categories that were 

examined. Youth responses were based on a "yes" category, youth who eve...__Ar saw 

the ads. Teens' and parents' responses are based on an "often" or "a few times" 

category. If the categories "often" and "a few times" were combined to provide 

an indicator of those who ever saw the ads, the percentage of teens and parents 

that recognized ads would have been higher. Therefore, in some instances in the 

case studies, significant differences in awareness are reported for an ad in terms of 

those who had "ever" seen an ad. 

In addition to the television advertisements, 20 other items from the youth, teen, 

and parent surveys showed significant differences at the aggregate level and were 

therefore examined at the site level. Those 20 items were distributed over four 

other areas covered by this evaluation: effectiveness of ads, awareness of the risk 

of using drugs, attitudes toward drugs, and sources of information about drugs. 

(As expected, no significant difference was found in Phase I for use of drugs). 

The reason for examining the other 20 items was to determine if the pattern of 

significant differences detected at the aggregate level was repeated at the site 

level. The items that showed statistically significant differences at the site level 

for a given target site are highlighted in the case study for that site. If a variable 

did not differ significantly for that site, it is discussed only to provide important 

contextual information. Site-level data that were examined are included in tables 

that appear in Appendix E. 

5-4 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Atlanta 

5.1 ATLANTA 

Atlanta is the capital of Georgia and the largest commercial, industrial, and 

financial center in the Southeast. Located between the southeast Atlantic coast 

and the gulf coast, it also is a major transportation center. Interstate highways 

radiate from Atlanta like spokes on a wheel, and the area is served by one of the 

largest and busiest airports in the country. The Atlanta metropolitan area 

encompasses 20 counties spread over a wide geographic area, much of which is 

rural. The total population of the metropolitan statistical area is 2,833,511, of 

which 71 percent are white and 25 percent African American. The city itself, 

however, is 67 percent African American and 31 percent white. Children between 

the ages of 5 and 17 are 18 percent of the population, and nearly 14 percent of 

children under age 18 live below the poverty level. 

The city of Atlanta and surrounding Fulton and neighboring DeKalb counties 

have been designated a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). Although 

cocaine, crack-cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine are available, the drug of 

choice among Atlanta-area youth is marijuana. Underage drinking also is a major 

problem. Drug Use Forecasting data for 1996 indicated that of young men ages 15 

to 20 arrested in the city of Atlanta, 76 percent tested positive for marijuana. Safe 

and Drug-Free School survey data for 1997 for Atlanta and immediately 

surrounding cities and counties showed that 29 percent of 10th graders have 

smoked marijuana, and 48 percent of 8th graders and 61 percent of 10th graders 

have used alcohol. 

Open-air drug markets in Atlanta and resulting high center city arrest rates make 

it appear as if drug use and trafficking are primarily center city problems. Key 

informants, however, reported that the incidence of youth substance abuse is as 

high in the affluent non-center city communities as in center city Atlanta. 

5.1.1 Intervention 

The ONDCP Director kicked off Phase I of the Media Campaign in Atlanta on 

January 20, 1998. Phase I used existing ads available through the Partnership for a 

Drug Free America (PDFA), including television and radio spots, newspaper ads, 

and billboards. A comprehensive listing of all Phase I advertisements is presented 

in Appendix A. The media buying plan for Atlanta included 19 different TV ads 

with 13 additional ads that aired on Channel One in schools. Youth, teens, and 

parents were surveyed about their awareness of a subset of these ads. Exhibit 5-1 

presents those paid ads and PSAs for Atlanta that were included in the survey 

instruments. 

The subset of paid Campaign ads for Atlanta focused on the following drugs: 

drugs in general (35.4%), inhalants (21.6%), crack (21.4%), marijuana (12.9%), 

and heroin (8.7%). Paid advertisements directed at youth included Drowning, 

Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. Alex Straight A ' s, Free Ride, Frying Pan, 

and Layla were the paid ads directed at teens, and Deal, Girl Interview, 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-5 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

O'Connor, and Under Your Nose were the paid ads directed at parents. PSA ads 

included 911 and Rite of Passage for teens, and Burbs for parents. 

Exhibit 5-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads in Atlanta/Memphis 

Campaign Survey Data 

Paid ads Drowning 

Girlfriend 

Long Way Home 

Noses 

~i~ ~:~':~:~: :+:~':':::" ": '"" ::~! :''''':~i~:'::~::~:i~'~!~l ~ ~ ~ ~"":::" "~:i~i~i ~:::~'~ ~;/~:~ ~:i:~:~ ~'~ 

Paid ads Alex Straight A's 

Free Ride 

Frying Pan 

Lay/a 

PSAs 911 

Rite of Passage 

Paid ads Deal 

Girl Interview 

O'Connor 

Under Your Nose 

PSAs Bu~s 

Atlanta 

(Target) 

Baseline I Followup I % 

% I % I Difference 

48 63 15* 

43 65 22* 

41 78 37* 

44 58 14* 

4 16 12" 

10 20 10" 

21 43 22* 

20 22 2 

6 7 1 

11 12 1 

24 36 12* 

9 13 4 

17 27 10* 

4 13 9* 

22 25 3 

Memphis 

(Comparison) 

Baseline I F°ll°wup I % 

% I % ~ Difference 

37 24 -13* 

37 29 -8 

60 50 -10 

61 58 -3 

9 8 -1 

13 10 -3 

21 18 -3 

12 16 4 

12 8 -4 

13 10 -3 

16 22 6 

4 5 1 

14 19 5 

8 6 -2 

12 20 8* 

Overall % 

Difference 

28" 

30* 

47* 

17"* 

13" 

13" 

25* 

-2 

5 

4 

6 

3 

5 

11" 

-5 

* Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level, 

Note: Additional paid ads aired via cable and Channel One. 

5.1.2 Survey Findings 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percent of Atlanta 

youth compared to Memphis youth that reported seeing all four paid 

Campaign ads "often"--Drowning, Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percent of Atlanta 

teens compared to Memphis teens that reported seeing three of the four paid 

ads "often"~Frying Pan, Alex Straight A's, and Free Ride. 

Survey datashow statistically significant increases in the percent of Atlanta 

youth compared to Memphis youth that reported seeing all four paid 

Campaign ads "often"--Drowning, Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percent of Atlanta 

teens compared to Memphis teens that reported seeing the fourth paid ad 

"often" or "a few times"--Layla. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percent of Atlanta 

parents compared to Memphis parents that reported seeing one of the four 

paid Campaign ads "often"--Under Your Nose. 

5-6 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Atlanta 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percent of Atlanta 

parents from baseline to followup that report seeing three of the four paid 

Campaign ads directed at parents--Under Your Nose, Deal, and O'Connor. 

Surveys were administered to youth and teens in schools, and parents via 

telephone before and near the end of the Phase I Media Campaign in the target 

site, Atlanta, and its comparison site, Memphis. This section compares survey 

results from Atlanta and Memphis, focusing on statistically significant 

differences. Data from media monitoring and focus groups are presented to 

support reliable interpretation of the survey data. 

Survey findings may have been affected by the existence of other anti-drug media 

campaigns in each city. In Atlanta, Mission New Hope sponsored a media 

campaign, using PDFA ads, in 1997. In Memphis, the Shelby County Sheriff's 

Initiative, featuring radio and some television ads, had been in effect for several 

years prior to the Campaign and continued through the period of the Phase I 

Media Campaign. 

5.1.2.1 Youth 

Four paid Campaign ads were directed toward youth in Atlanta--Drowning, 

Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. When comparing Atlanta and Memphis 

youth responses from baseline to followup, survey data show a statistically 

significant increase in the percentage of target site youth in Atlanta that learned "a 

lot from TV commercials" about the negative effects that drugs have on them. In 

fact, the data indicate an 11 percent increase (from 40 % at baseline to 51% at 

followup) in Atlanta, compared to a 6 percent decrease in Memphis (from 57 % at 

baseline to 51% at followup). 

Correspondingly, survey data show statistically significant increases in youth 

awareness of all four paid Campaign ads--Drowning, Girlfriend, Long Way 

Home, and Noses--between the target site teens in Atlanta and the comparison 

site teens in Memphis when youth were asked if they had seen the ads "often". 

The percent increases in recall of the four paid Campaign ads are as follows: Long 

Way Home (41% to 78% in Atlanta, 60% to 50% in Memphis), Girlfriend (43% to 

65% in Atlanta, 37% to 29% in Memphis), Drowning (48% to 63% in Atlanta, 

37% to 24% in Memphis), and Noses (44% to 58% in Atlanta, 61% to 58% in 

Memphis). 

Media monitoring and GRP data help explain the statistically significant cross-site 

increases in recall of the four paid Campaign ads directed at youth in Atlanta. 

Although Long Way Home did not air in either the baseline or intervention period 

in the comparison site, the ad aired in both periods in the target site. Monitoring 

data suggest that the time of day when the ad aired contributed to the dramatic 

increase in youth awareness of Long Way Home at followup. For example, 

although Long Way Home aired at a similar rate in the target site during the 

baseline and intervention period in Atlanta (baseline: 20.4 times a month or 5.1 a 

week; intervention: 22.4 times a month or 5.6 a week), the ad aired twice as often 

during hours when youth were most likely to be watching TV (prime access: 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-7 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; and weekend daytime: 

6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). Media buying data further indicate that Long Way Home 

was scheduled to air as a paid ad 40 times for a total of 216 GRPs during the 

intervention period. 

Media monitoring data further support survey findings that indicate a statistically 

significant cross-site increase in youth awareness of the paid ad Drowning. Like 

the ad Long Way Home, Drowning did not air in either the baseline or 

intervention period in the comparison site but aired during both periods in the 

target site. In addition, the average number of times that Drowning aired 

substantially increased in Atlantamfrom 13.6 times a month (or 3.4 times a week) 

at baseline to 24.6 times a month (or 6.2 times a week) during the intervention 

according to media monitoring data. What is more, as a paid Campaign ad 

Drowning aired nearly three times more often in viewing periods when youth 

were most likely to be watching TV than when it aired as a PSA in the baseline 

period. The media buy data indicate Drowning aired the most frequently of all 

youth-targeted TV ads for a total of 63 times and 275 GRPs. 

The remaining two paid Campaign ads directed at youth are Girlfriend (which did 

not air in the baseline or intervention period in the comparison site), and Noses 

(which did air in the baseline period and aired only a few times in the intervention 

period in the comparison site). Although according to media monitoring data 

Girlfriend and Noses aired fewer times than Long Way Home and Drowning, 

survey data indicate cross-site statistically significant increases in youth recall of 

the ads. Not surprisingly, during the intervention Girlfriend and Noses aired 62.2 

percent and 77.0 percent of the time in prime youth viewing hours when youth 

were most likely to be watching TV, respectively. The media buy data indicate 

Girlfriend was scheduled to air as a paid ad 53 times for 254 GRPs and Noses, 19 

times for 201 GRPs. 

5.1.2.1 Teen 

When comparing target to comparison site teen responses, survey data show 

statistically significant increases in the percent of Atlanta teens that report "often" 

seeing three of the four paid Campaign ads included in the survey--Frying Pan, 

Alex Straight A 's, and Free Ride. What is more, survey data show even greater 

statistical significance with regard to the percentage of teens that report seeing all 

four paid ads "often" or "a few times". 

In fact, the percentage of teens that recalled seeing Frying Pan "often" or "a few 

times" increased from 52 percent at baseline to 69 percent at followup, while 

decreasing in the comparison site from 47 percent to 40 percent. Similarly, the 

percentage of Atlanta teens that recalled the paid ad Layla increased from 44 

percent to 62 percent, relative to only a marginal increase in Memphis from 45 

percent to 46 percent. Additionally, the percentage of Atlanta teens that recalled 

seeing Alex Straight A's rose from 40 percent to 54 percent, while increasing only 

slightly in Memphis from 34 percent to 36 percent. Lastly, the percentage of 

Atlanta teens recalling Free Ride increased from 24 percent to 41 percent 

compared to a decrease in Memphis from 32 percent to 24 percent. 

5-8 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Atlanta 

Media monitoring data provide some explanation of these findings. First, the data 

indicate that the four paid ads directed at teens in Atlanta did not air during the 

baseline period in either Atlanta or Memphis. During the intervention, however, 

the average number of times the paid ads aired increased substantially in the 

target site, while airing only a few times in the comparison site. In the target site 

during the intervention, Frying Pan aired 20.6 times a month (or 5.2 times a 

week). Similarly, Layla aired 19.8 times a month (or 5 times a week). Free Ride 

aired 13.2 times a month (or 3.3 times a week). And Alex Straight A's aired 10.6 

times a month (or 2.7 times a week). Also, it should be noted that Frying Pan was 

a new ad and thus, may have attracted more notice and that Layla and Frying Pan 

aired the most frequently and achieved the highest reach of the teen ads, airing 68 

times for 367 GRPs and 61 times for 319 GRPs, respectively. 

Media monitoring data further support survey findings when analyzing the times 

of day during which the paid Campaign ads aired. For example, although Alex 

Straight A's aired fewer times than any of the other three paid Campaign ads in 

Atlanta, 60.4 percent of the time it aired during times when teens were most likely 

to be watching TV (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 

10:59 p.m.; and weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). Similarly, Layla and 

Free Ride aired 56.6 percent and 51.5 percent of the time in prime viewing hours, 

respectively. Lastly, Frying Pan aired 42.7 percent of the time in prime viewing 

hours. As expected, teen awareness of the PSAs, 911 and Rite of Passage, 

remained low in Atlanta and Memphis in the baseline and intervention period. 

5.1.2.2 Parents 

Five Campaign ads were directed toward parents in Atlanta, four of which were 

included in the survey instrument. 911 and Rite of Passage were two PSAs 

directed toward parents. When comparing target to comparison site parent 

responses from baseline to followup, survey data show statistically significant 

increases in the percentage of Atlanta parents that reported seeing one of the four 

paid Campaign ads "often"--Under Your Nose. Media monitoring data support 

this finding. Although Under Your Nose did not air in the target or comparison 

site during the baseline period, it aired on average 20.4 times a month (or 5.1 

times a week) in the target site for a total of 39 GRPs. In addition, Under Your 

Nose aired 41.6 percent of the time during hours when parents were most likely to 

be watching TV (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 

10:59 p.m.; and weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). 

Moreover, when asked if parents had seen the paid ads "often" or "a few times", 

survey data show that parent recall in Atlanta increased, while remaining 

relatively constant in Memphis. For example, parent recollection of O'Connor 

rose from 69 percent at baseline in Atlanta to 75 percent at follow-up, while only 

slightly increasing in Memphis from 64 percent to 67 percent. Similarly, parent 

recollection of Deal increased from 56 percent to 66 percent from baseline to 

followup, while rising to a lesser degree in Memphis from 50 percent to 55 

percent. Moreover, recall of Under Your Nose increased from 36 percent to 44 

percent from baseline to followup in Atlanta, but fell from 37 percent to 28 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-9 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

percent in Memphis. And lastly, parent recognition of Girl Interview increased 

from 31 percent at baseline to 36 percent at followup, while holding constant at 

18 percent in the comparison site. Girl Interview aired more frequently than any 

other paid ad included in the survey, airing 13 times according to the media buy 

information. 

It is also worth noting the statistically significant within-site percent increases in 

Atlanta from baseline to fol!owup with respect to parents' recall of three of the 

four paid Campaign adsmDeal, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose. Media 

monitoring data provide some explanation of the increases in parent recollection 

of O'Connor and Deal. First, O'Connor aired nearly 10 times more often in 

Atlanta during the intervention period than at baseline, 46 percent of which 

occurred during prime parent viewing hours. And second, from the baseline to 

intervention period the average number of times Deal aired increased in Atlanta 

from less than one time a month to 33.4 (or 8.4 times a week), while increasing in 

Memphis from less than one time a month to 6 times a month. Increases in 

Atlanta parents' awareness of Deal is further explained by the fact that 46 percent 

of the time Deal aired during prime viewing hours (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 

p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; and weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 

p.m.). 

Media monitoring data provide some explanation why three of the four paid ads-- 

O'Connor, Deal, and Girl Interview--did not show cross-site statistically 

significant differences from baseline to followup. For example, the average 

number of times O'Connor aired increased in both the target and comparison site 

(Atlanta, baseline: 2.3 times a month compared to intervention: 13.6; Memphis, 

baseline: 5 times a month compared to intervention: 8.2). Similarly, monitoring 

data show substantial increases from baseline to intervention in the average 

number of times that Deal aired in both the target and comparison site. Girl 

Interview aired substantially more often than any of the other parent targeted 

Campaign ads during the baseline period, and the rate at which the ad aired 

remained constant from the baseline to the intervention period. It is also worth 

noting that while the average number of times Burbs aired as a PSA in Atlanta 

and Memphis increased substantially from the baseline to the intervention period, 

awareness rose only slightly. As expected, media monitoring data show that 

Burbs aired as a PSA in non-prime parent viewing hours 74 percent of the time in 

the target site and 83 percent in the comparison site. 

5.1.3 Community Impact 

Key informants reported increased awareness in anti-drug messages from TV. 

One coalition director attributed that to the major anti-drug media campaign that 

had been conducted in the Atlanta area in 1997, for which 1,962 PDFA ads ran. 

During part of that time, all ads were tagged with a special "211" telephone 

number, through which callers were referred by United Way to the center or 

program appropriate for their needs. United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta received 

950 substance abuse-related calls through the 211 number during that period. 

5-10 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Atlanta 

In addition, during the Media Campaign, the local coalition that provides antidrug information and referrals reportedly received three to four additional calls 

per week, compared with the same period the previous year. No increase in the 

rate of calls was noted by the 211 help line. 

5.1.4 Summary of Findings 

Survey data from the target site Atlanta and the comparison site Memphis indicate 

increases in youth, teen, and parent awareness of anti-drug messages via the 

television. Indeed, data clearly show increases in awareness of paid Campaign ads 

directed at all three groups. 

More specifically, survey data show cross-site statistically significant increases in 

awareness of all four paid Campaign ads directed at youth: Drowning, Girlfriend, 

Long Way Home, and Noses. Media monitoring data clearly indicate that during 

the intervention the majority of paid ads aired during viewing hours when youth 

were most likely to be watching TV. 

In addition, survey data show statistically significant cross-site increases in 

awareness of three of the four paid Campaign ads directed at teens--Frying Pan, 

Alex Straight A' s, and Free Ride (response: "often"). Survey data also indicate 

statistically significant cross-site increases in awareness of the fourth paid 

Campaign ad--Layla (responses: "often" or "a few times"). Media monitoring 

data suggest that the increases in awareness correlate with the high percentage of 

paid ads that aired in prime teen TV viewing hours. 

Lastly, survey data show cross-site statistically significant increases in awareness 

of one of the four paid Campaign ad directed at parents--Under Your Nose. In 

addition, survey data indicate within-site statistically significant increases in. 

awareness of three of the four paid Campaign ad directed at parents--Under Your 

Nose, Deal, and O'Connor. Media monitoring data support these findings, 

indicating that the average number of times paid Campaign ads aired increased 

substantially during the intervention period. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-11 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.2 BALTIMORE 

Located near the head of Chesapeake Bay, Baltimore is the largest city in 

Maryland and part of the densely populated Boston-Washington corridor. The 

Baltimore Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) includes the city of Baltimore and 

surrounding Baltimore County; neighboring Hartford, Carroll, Howard, and Anne 

Arundel Counties; and, across the bay, Queen Anne's County. The population of 

the Baltimore MSA is 2,383,172 and includes urban, suburban, and rural areas 

with a variety of geographical, economic, and social conditions. In contrast, 

Baltimore City is a center city community of 726,096 with declining economic 

opportunities for its residents. In the Greater Baltimore area, 71 percent of 

residents are white and 25 percent are African American. The population of the 

city is 60 percent African American and 39 percent white. The official 

unemployment rate in the MSA is 4.8 percent, and the 1995 crime rate was 1,335 

per 100,000 residents. Sixteen percent of the population is between ages 5 and 17, 

and 34 percent of children under age 18 live below the poverty level. 

The city of Baltimore and Baltimore, Howard, and Anne Arundel Counties are 

part of the Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 

(HIDTA), created in 1992 to address drug distribution in the BaltimoreWashington corridor. In spite of the introduction of crack-cocaine in Baltimore in 

the 1980s, heroin has reportedly retained its historic hold on the addicted 

population. The introduction of crack did, however, affect Baltimore's drugtrafficking culture. In some parts of the city, drugs are sold openly on street 

comers, where customers include non-center City residents. 

Key informants reported that marijuana is the drug of choice among teens in the 

Baltimore area, with alcohol and tobacco use also common. Some teens 

reportedly regard marijuana not as an illicit drug, but as something to smoke as 

routinely as cigarettes. Law enforcement authorities report that, in addition to 

drug use, youth and teens frequently engage in drug trafficking. 

5.2.1 Intervention 

The ONDCP Director kicked off Phase I of the Media Campaign in Baltimore on 

January 13, 1998. Phase I used existing ads available through the Partnership for a 

Drug-Free America (PDFA), including television and radio spots, newspaper ads, 

and billboards. A comprehensive listing of all Phase I advertisements is presented 

in Appendix A. Baltimore received several paid television Campaign ads and 

PSAs. Youth, teens, and parents were surveyed about their awareness on a subset 

of these ads. Exhibit 5-2 presents those paid Campaign ads and PSAs for 

Baltimore that were included in the survey instruments. 

The subset of paid Campaign ads for Baltimore focused on the following drugs: 

drugs in general (27.6%), inhalants (26.0%), crack (17.4%), heroin (17.2%), and 

marijuana (11.7%). The paid advertisements directed at youth included Drowning, 

Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. Alex Straight A ' s, Free Ride, Frying Pan, 

and Layla were the paid ads directed at teens, and Deal, Girl Interview, 

5-12 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Baltimore 

O'Connor, and Under Your Nose were the paid ads directed at parents. PSA ads 

included 911 and Rite of Passage for teens, and Burbs for parents. These 11 ads 

collectively were shown an average of 179.0 times a month in Baltimore during 

Phase 1. 

Exhibit 5-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads in Baltimore/Memphis 

Campaign Survey Data 

Paid ads Drowning 

Girlfriend 

Long Way Home 

Noses 

~!::iiir 'i f " 'ii" "i:: ................................ "'" '~ ............. 

Paid ads Alex Straight A's 

Free Ride 

Frying Pan 

Layla 

PSAs 911 

Rite of Passable 

Paid ads Deal 

Girl Interview 

O'Connor 

Under Your Nose 

Baltimore 

(Target) 

Baseline I Followup I % 

% / % ~ Difference 

36 58 22* 

35 46 11 

46 67 21 * 

50 71 21" 

PSAs Bu~s 

10 31 21" 

11 18 7** 

22 68 46* 

17 22 5 

9 9 0 

9 9 0 

21 22 1 

5 18 13" 

16 29 13" 

6 11 5** 

16 21 5 

Memphis/Richmond 

(Comparison) 

Baseline I Followup I % 

% J % Difference 

37 24 -13* 

37 29 -8 

60 50 -10 

61 58 -3 

9 8 -1 

13 10 -3 

21 18 -3 

12 16 4 

12 8 -4 

13 10 -3 

* Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level. 

24 22 -2 

3 2 -1 

17 21 4 

3 7 4** 

14 24 10" 

~Memphis replaces the comparison site of Richmond for youth and teen data; Richmond serves as the comparison site for parents 

because parent surveys were completed in that site (see Chapter 2). 

Note: Additional paid ads aired via cable and Channel One. 

Overall % 

Difference 

::: ,: : ::: : ::::+::.>.: .... 

35* 

19"* 

31" 

24* 

20* 

10"* 

49* 

1 

4 

3 

3 

14" 

9 

1 

-5 

5.2.2 Survey Findings 

Survey data show statistically significant increases from baseline to followup 

in the percentage of Baltimore youth, compared to Memphis youth, that 

reported "often" seeing all four paid Campaign ads--Drowning, Girlfriend, 

Long Way Home, and Noses. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases from baseline to followup 

in the percentage of Baltimore teens, compared to Memphis teens, that 

reported "often" seeing of three of the four paid Campaign ads--Alex Straight 

A's, Free Ride, and Frying Pan. 

Survey data show a statistically significant increase from baseline to followup 

in the percentage of Baltimore parents, compared to Richmond parents, that 

reported "often" seeing the paid Campaign ad Girl Interview. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-13 
Testing theAnti.Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.2.2.1 

• ~ Survey data Show statistically significant increases from baseline to followup 

among Baltimore parents who reported "often" seeing three of the four paid 

Campaign ads--Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose. 

The comparison site for Baltimore was Richmond, Virginia, where telephone 

surveys were conducted with a sample of parents. Because too few schools were 

available in Richmond to Conduct the in-school youth and teen surveys, Memphis, 

Tennesseewas substituted asthe comparison site for those two groups. Both 

Richmond and•MemPhis are comparable to Baltimore in demographics and 

community characteristics. 

Surveys were administered to youth, teens, and parents before and near the end of 

the Media Campaign. This section compares survey results from Baltimore and 

Memphis for youth and teens, and Baltimore and Richmond for parents. The 

foc.us of the comparison is on statistically significant differences. Data from 

media monitoring and: focus groups are presented to support reliable interpretation 

0fthe surveydata. 

Survey findings in all three sites may have been affected by Other, local anti-drug 

advertising. In Baltimore, prior to the Media Campaign, residents were exposed to 

a statewide, multimedia anti-substance-abuse campaign conducted by the Media 

Adyertising Pai'tnership for a Drug-Free Maryland. In addition,• two local 

television programs, .Straight Talk and Steering Clear, address drug and violence 

issues, in Baltimore duringeach broadcast. In Memphis, the Shelby County 

Sheriff's Initiative, featuring anti-drag radio and television ads, had been in effect 

for several years prior to and throughout the period of the Phase I Media 

Campaign. In Richmond, during the 5 months of the Media Campaign, the Metro 

Richmond Coalition Against :Drugs ran PDFA ads, including some used in the 

Media Campaign, televising the Coalition's name and toll-free telephone number. 

Youth 

.., • 

The increase in: the percentage Of Baltimore youth that recalled seeing all four 

paid Campaign ads (Drowning, Long Way Home, Noses, and Girlfriend) "often" 

from baseline t o followup was statistically significant when compared with the 

change in recognition of the same ads by Memphis youth. From baseline to 

foll0wup, recognition :of Drowning increased in Baltimore (from 36% of youth 

surveyed to 58%) anddecreased in Memphis (from 37% to 24%); recognition of 

Long• Way Home increased in Baltimore (from 46% to 67%)and decreased in 

Memphis (from 60% to:50%); recognition of Noses increased in Baltimore (from 

50% to 71,%) and decreased in Memphis (from 61% to 58%); and recognition of 

Girlfriend increaSed in Baltimore (from 35% to 46%) and decreased in Memphis 

• (from 37% to 29%). 

Media monitoring data help explain the survey findings. Drdwning, Long • Way 

Home, and Girlfriend warenot shgwn in Memphis during the intervention period, 

and Noses•was shown less than'once a month during the same period. By contrast, 

media monitoring data indicate Drowning aired a monthly average of 11.4 times 

in Baltimore; Long Way Home was shown 26.2 times; Girlfriend aired 9.2 times; 

• . .,.. • 

5-14 ' Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Baltimore 

and Noses 26.8 times. In addition, 46.6 percent of these four ads aired in 

Baltimore during hours when youth were most likely to be watching TV (prime 

access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; weekend 

daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). Overall, Baltimore youth were exposed to the 

four paid Campaign ads an average of 73.6 times per month, while Memphis 

youth, during the same time period, were exposed to only one of these ads-- 

Noses--an average of less than once per month. Hence, it is not surprising that 

youth recognition of all four paid Campaign ads showed statistically significant 

cross-site increases from baseline to followup. 

5.2.2.2 Teens 

Baltimore teens were surveyed on how much they learned about the risks of drugs 

from various sources of information. Survey findings indicate that there was a 

statistically significantincrease in teens reporting TV commercials as a source of 

drug information in Baltimore from 19 percent at baseline t033 percent at 

followup. By contrast, TV commercials declined as a source of drug information 

among Memphis teens from 36 percent at baseline to 31 percent at followup. 

The increased percentage of Baltimore teens that "learned a 10t" from TV 

commercials corresponds to an increase in the volume of paid anti-drug ads aired 

during the Media Campaign. The four paid 'Campaign ads targeted at teens in 

Baltimore were Alex Straight A ' s, Free Ride, Frying Pan, and Eayla. The 

percentage of Baltimore teens that recalled seeing Alex Straight A 's, Free Ride 

and Frying Pan "often" increased significantly compared to the figure in 

Memphis from baseline to followup. The change in recognition of these three ads 

from baseline to followup are as follows: Alex StraightA's (10% to 31% in 

Baltimore, 9% to 8% in Memphis); Free Ride (1 i% to 18% in Baltimore, 13% to 

10% in Memphis); and Frying Pan (22% to 68% in Baltimore, 21% to 18% in 

Memphis). 

Media monitoring and media buy data support these survey findings. Media 

monitoring data indicate that the average monthly airings of Frying Pan were 

greater than the average monthly airings of all other paid teen ads combined: 30.8 

times per month for Frying Pan, compared with 16:0 times per month for Free 

Ride and Layla combined. Furthermore, over half (56.5%) of the Frying Pan ads 

aired during hours When teens were most likely to be watching TV (prime access: 

7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time:- 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; weekend daytime: 6:00 

a.m. -5:00 p.m.). Not surprisingly, Frying Pan was the ad most frequently 

mentioned by all focus group participants in Baltimore. Moreover, the media buy 

data indicate that Frying Pan was scheduled to air more frequently and to achieve 

the highest reach of any of the Phase I TV ads, airing 87 times for a total of 482 

GRPs. Alex Straight A's was the second most purchased ad, with the buying plan 

indicating 62 paid spots for a total of 411 GRPs. Free Ride aired a monthly 

average of 5.2 times in Baltimore, but did not air at all in Memphis. Finally, the 

fact that 66.7 percent of Layla ads aired when teens were most likely to be 

watching TV (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 

p.m.; and weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.) may have contributed to the 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-15 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

increased recognition of Layla among Baltimore teens between baseline and 

followup. 

5.2.2.3 Parents 

Parent survey data from Baltimore are compared with parent survey data from 

Richmond. 

Four paid Campaign ads targeted at parents--Deal, Girl Interview, O'Connor, 

and Under Your Nose-- aired in Baltimore. The increase in the percentage of 

Baltimore parents that recalled seeing Girl Interview often was statistically 

significant across sites. Parent recall of these three paid Campaign ads showed a 

statistically significant increase from baseline to followup: Girl Interview (5% to 

18% in Baltimore, 3% to 2% in Memphis), O'Connor (16% to 29% in Baltimore, 

17% to 21% in Memphis), and Under YourNose (6% to 11% in Baltimore, 3% to 

7% in Memphis). 

Media monitoring data help explain Baltimore parents' increased awareness of 

O'Connor, Girl Interview, and Under Your Nose. O'Connor was shown in 

Baltimore an average of 5 times per month during baseline, but nearly twice that 

often (9.2 times per month) during the intervention. By contrast, in Richmond the 

monthly average number of times O'Connor aired decreased slightly, from 2 to 

1.4 times. Following a similar pattern, Girl Interview aired an average of 1.7 

times per month at baseline, but increased to 8.8 times per month during the 

intervention in Baltimore, compared with a decrease from 1.7 to 1.4 times per 

month in Richmond. The ad Under Your Nose aired 8.4 times per month in 

Baltimore during the intervention period but was not shown at all in Richmond 

during that same time. Furthermore, 35.7 percent of Under Your Nose ads aired in 

Baltimore during hours when parents were most likely to be watching TV (prime 

access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; weekend 

daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). The media buy data indicate these ads were 

scheduled to air between 5 and 11 times each during Phase I. 

5.2.3 

5.2.4 

Community Impact 

Key informants in the Baltimore area observed that awareness of the drug 

problem in the community may have been raised slightly by the Media Campaign, 

but awareness there is reported to be historically high. The magnitude of the drug 

problem in the Baltimore area over the past several years has attracted numerous 

Federal, State, local, and foundation grants, as well as private donations from 

philanthropists to address drug use and trafficking. Several new or experimental 

approaches to the drug problem have kept the issue in the public eye. 

Summary of Findings 

Survey data from Baltimore and its two comparison sites show that awareness of 

anti-drug messages on television increased during the Phase I Media Campaign 

5-16 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Baltimore 

among youth, teens, and parents surveyed in Baltimore. All three groups reported 

increased awareness of individual ads that were described in the surveys. 

The increase in ad recognition by Baltimore youth was statistically significant for 

all four paid Campaign ads targeted at them: Drowning, Long Way Home, and 

Noses. Among Baltimore teens, survey findings indicate that there was a 

statistically significant increase in TV commercials as a source of drug 

information. Survey data also show statistically significant cross-site increases for 

three of the four paid Campaign ads targeted at teens: Alex Straight A's, Free 

Ride, and Frying Pan. Frying Pan was also the ad most frequently mentioned by 

all focus group participants in Baltimore. 

Recognition of Girl Interview showed a statistically significant cross-site increase 

among Baltimore parents and, survey data show within site statistically significant 

increases in awareness for three of the four paid Campaign ads targeted at them 

(Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose). These findings clearly 

demonstrate that all three target groups in Baltimore--youth, teens, and parents-- 

increased their awareness of anti-drug messages via the ONDCP Media 

Campaign. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-17 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.3 BOISE 

Located in western Idaho, Boise is a,small city with a population of 205,775. The 

Boise Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), known as the Treasure Valley 

because it is surrounded by mountains, in addition to being suburban and rural. 

This area is fast-growing, relatively affluent, and politically and socially 

conservative. TheMSA consists of Ada and Canyon Counties, and its population 

as well as that Of the city of Boise has grown in recent years. The population of 

the MSA is 96 percent white, 2 percent Hispanic, 0.5 percent African American, 

and 1.5 percent • other (Native American, Asian, and other). Minority residents 

tend to be concentrated in the center-city. The annual crime rate of the city is 366 

per 100,000 residents, and 10.9 percent of children under age 18 live below the 

poverty level. The unemployment rate of the city is 4 percent, and 20 percent of 

the population is between ages 5 and 17. 

Recently Boise has experienced a number of drug and drug-relatedproblems ~uch 

as youth-related shootings and a rise in• the use of methamphetamines by teens. 

Methamphetamine drug arrests are common in the area, though police say that no 

single group of traffickers exclusively controls the methamphetamine market, 

because the drug is so prevalent and easy to manufacture. Alcohol consumption 

also is viewed as a serious problem among young people. The local cultivation of 

marijuana also has proven a persistent problem in the Boise area, and law 

enforcement data indicate marijuana poSsession is the most common juvenile 

drug-related offense in Boise. 

5.3.1 Intervention 

In January 1998 a Senior representative of the Office of National Drug Control 

Policy (ONDCP) kicked off the Media Campaign. Phase I of the.Media Campaign 

used existing ads avaJ!able through PDFA, including television and radio spots, 

newspaper ads, and billboards. A comprehensive listing of all Phase I 

advertisements is presented in Appendix A. Boise received several paid ads and 

PSAs. Youth, teen, and parents were surveyed about their awareness of a subset 

of these ads. Exhibit 5-3 presents those ads and PSAs for Boise that were included 

in the survey instruments. 

The paid Campaign ads for Boise focused on the following drugs: marijuana, 

drugs in general, heroin, and methamphetamine. Only one of the paid 

advertisements that was directed at youth was included in the survey instrument-- 

Long Way Home. 911; Alex Straight A 's, Frying Pan, and Layla were the paid ads 

• directed at teens, and Burbs, Girl Interview, and O'Connor were paid ads directed 

at parents and included in the survey instrument. 

t 

5,18 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Boise 

Exhibit 5-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads in Boise/Eugene 

Campaign :survey uata 

Paid ads Long Way Home 

PSAs Drowning 

Girlfriend 

Noses 

• ....................... ~i :~ ;'~'.~" ~"~"~i:~ '::: ~:::"~:::~' ~:~:"",'." '~:~:. ~ "~,'.~t~"! 

Paid ads 911 

Alex Straight A's 

Frying Pan 

Layla 

PSAs Free Ride 

Rite of P~s~_~e ,~ 

Paidads Burbs 

Girl Interview 

O'Connor 

PSAs Deal 

Under Your Nose 

Boise 

(Target) 

Baseline I Followup I % 

_ % I 

38 71 33* 

17 17 0 

20 23 3 

24 26 2 

• :~: "~,~: "~ : i~ ~ ~, "~i~ i~:~ ~t~%~i~.~ 

12 31 19" 

8 35 27* 

20 42 22* 

11 9 -2 

6 3 -3* 

8 8 0 

23 28 5 

2 24 22* 

46 52 6 

13 18 5 

4 5 1 

Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level. 

Note: Additional paid ads aired via cable and Channel One. 

Eugene 

• (Comparison) 

Baseline I Followup I % 

% J % " I Differp.np.e.o, 

34 , .37 3 

24 25 1 

26 ' . • 20 -6* 

30 33 3 

5 5 0 

6 5 -1 

9 21 12 

8 6 -2 

4 3 -1 

'5 . . 5 - 0 

• " 13 17' 4 

3 " 7 4** 

13 15 2 

10 14 4 

3 5 2 

Overall % 

Difference 

30* 

-1 

9* 

-1 

19" 

28* 

10 

0 

-2 

0 

1 

18" 

4 

1 

-1 

5.3.2 Survey Findings 

• The percent of Boise youth that reported learning about the •negative effects of 

drugs from television ads increased significantly from baseline to followup. 

• The percent of Boise youth that recalled "often" seeing the One paid 

Campaign ad included in thesurvey directed toward youth, Long Way Home, 

increased significantly. 

• After Phase I of the Media Campaign, the percent of Boise youth that 

reported that methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin were dangerous 

increased at statistically significant levels. 

At followup, the percent increase of Boise teens that reported seeing the ads 

911 and Alex Straight A's "often" were statistically significant when 

compared with recognition •of the ads among Eugene teens. In addition, the 

percent of Boise teens that recalled seeing the paid Campaign ad Frying Pan 

"often" or "a few times" increased to a statistically significant degree withinsite. 

Survey data show that a statistically significant percent of Boise parents 

recalled seeing Girl Interview ,often", compared to Eugene parents. And the 

percent of Boise parents that recalled seeing Burbs and O'Connor increased as 

well but not to a statistically significant level. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy " 5~19, 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.3.2.1 

The percent of parents that reported seeing Burbs "often" or "a few times" 

increased to a statistically significant degree from baseline to followup in 

Boise. 

The data presented in this section focus on findings reported by youth, teens, and 

parents surveyed in the Boise metropolitan area and the Eugene, Oregon, 

comparison community before and near the end of the Phase I Media Campaign. 

Surveys for youth and teens were administered in schools, while the parent survey 

was conducted over the telephone. Findings are presented for survey questions 

where significant differences between the two communities were identified. Data 

collected from focus groups and community respondent interviews are presented 

to support reliable interpretation of the survey data (media monitoring data were 

not available). 

An intervening variable in Boise that may have influenced the study findings was 

the existence of a family responsibility and anti-drug media campaign called 

Community In Action--Enough Is Enough. This campaign was initiated in 1997 

through a partnership between a local television station and the Boise Mayor's 

Office. The program targeted 7th-12th graders and was designed to stimulate 

community activism and raise community consciousness of drug-related issues. A 

week-long visit in April 1997, including a rally at the Boise State Pavilion, by 

inspirational speaker Milton Creagh was the foundation of the campaign. Also as 

part of this campaign, the local NBC affiliate aired five prime time, commercialfree broadcasts on the hazards of drugs. These broadcasts reached more than 

250,000 viewers. A second motivational rally took place in April 1998. 

Youth 

Only one of the paid Campaign ads directed toward Boise youth, Long Way 

Home, was included in the survey instrument. The other youth ads included in the 

survey--Drowning, Girlfriend, and Noses--aired as PSAs. When youth were 

asked on the survey where they learned information about drugs, the percent of 

Boise youth that reported learning about the negative effects of drugs from 

television ads increased from 32 percent to 41 percent from baseline to followup. 

This increase is statistically significant when compared with the decrease among 

Eugene youth, from 41 percent to 37 percent. 

Over the same period, Exhibit 5-3 above clearly indicates an increase in the 

percent of Boise youth that recalled "often" seeing the one paid Campaign ad 

directed toward Boise youth, Long Way Home. In fact, the increase from baseline 

to followup was statistically significant, rising from 38 percent to 71 percent, 

compared to only a slight increase among Eugene youth from 34 percent to 37 

percent. The media buying plan estimates that the ad was purchased to air 19 

times during prime viewing hours for youth. As expected, youth recognition of 

two other PSAs directed at youth, Drowning and Noses, remained constant and 

low. 

Local key community informants report that methamphetamines are one of the 

most serious drugs used by young people in the Boise metropolitan area. 

5-20 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Boise 

Following Phase I of the Media Campaign, survey findings clearly indicate that 

the percent of Boise youth that find methamphetamine use to be dangerous 

increased substantially, from 49 percent of those surveyed at baseline to 

73 percent at followup. This is statistically significant when compared to Eugene 

youth (from 43% to 46 %). 

Similarly, focus group discussions with Boise youth indicate that youth learn of 

the dangers of methamphetamine use from ads they see on television. In fact, 

center-city and non-center city focus group youth in Boise were aware of many 

anti-drug ads on television, were able to name them, and understood their 

messages. What is more, Boise youth focus groups report that the anti-drug ads 

they see on TV encourage them never to use drugs. Lastly, survey data show that, 

compared to the baseline period, after Phase I of the Media Campaign, a 

statistically significant percent of Boise youth responded that using cocaine 

(increased from 82 % to 91%) and heroin (increased from 72 % to 83 %) was 

dangerous. 

5.3.2.2 Teens 

Results for four of the paid Campaign ads directed toward Boise teens--911, Alex 

Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, and Layla--are provided below. Survey data clearly 

show increases in recognition of three of the four paid ads. Increases from 

baseline to followup in the percentage of Boise teens that reported seeing the ads 

911 and Alex Straight A's "often" were statistically significant when compared 

with recognition of the ads among Eugene teens. In addition, the percent of Boise 

teens that recalled seeing the paid Campaign ad Frying Pan "often" or "a few 

times" increased to a statistically significant degree within-site, increasing from 

20 percent at baseline to 42 percent at followup. 

Survey data show that the percentage of youth that recalled the three 

aforementioned paid Campaign ads was substantially greater when teens were 

asked if they had seen the ads "often" or "a few times". In fact, Boise teen 

recognition of Alex Straight A's increased from 44 percent to 77 percent, while 

the percent of Eugene teens that recognized the ad increased only slightly, from 

30 percent to 35 percent. Similarly, Boise teen recall of 911 increased from 34 

percent to 66 percent, compared with recognition among Eugene teens, which fell 

from 24 percent to 19 percent. And Boise teen recall of Frying Pan increased 

from 46 percent to 82 percent, while increasing to a lesser degree in Eugene from 

38 percent to 49 percent. The media buy data support the findings of increased 

awareness. 911 and Alex Straight A's aired the most frequently of these ads at 105 

and 61 times, respectively. In addition, Frying Pan was purchased to air 29 times 

during prime viewing hours to achieve 200 GRPs, compared to almost 500 for 

911 and 460 for Alex Straight A 's. 

Teen focus group participants in Boise were vocal in their reaction to the Media 

Campaign ads. Middle and high school participants in Boise said, "even if you are 

already doing drugs, the ads will make you think" and that every time you see an 

ad, "it will have a deeper impact." 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-21 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.3.2.3 Parents 

Of the five Campaign ads targeting parents and included on the parent survey 

instrument, three aired as paid ads: Burbs, Girl Interview, and O'Connor. Parents 

were asked.how often they had seen or heard ads telling them about the risks of 

drugs. From baseline to followup, the percentage of Boise parents that said they 

had seen or heard ads on TV "almost every day" or "more often" doubled from 

24 percent to 50 percent. This percent change was statistically significant when 

compared to the slight increase among Eugene parents, from 18 percent to 

23 percent. It should be noted that, although TV was not the primary medium 

used to reach parents, media buy data indicate that adults not only were exposed 

to ads targeted to adults but also to ads targeted to youth and teens. 

With regard to the effectiveness of the anti-drug ads they had seen, a statistically 

significant percentage of Boise parents responded that the ads they saw on TV 

made them aware that America's drug problem is something that all families 

should be concerned about. In fact, from baseline to followup positive responses 

to this question increased (from 63% to 74%), compared to a slight decline among 

Eugene parents (from 58% to 56%). 

Of the three paid Campaign ads that were directed toward parents in Boise--Girl 

Interview, O'Connor, and Burbs--survey data show that a statistically significant 

percentage of Boise parents recalled seeing Girl Interview "often", compared to 

Eugene parents. Exhibit 5-3 clearly shows the percentage of Boise parents that 

reported "often" seeing Girl Interview increased substantially from baseline to 

followup (from 2% to 24%), compared to a much smaller increase among Eugene 

parents (from 3% to 7%). However, media buy data indicate this ad was only 

scheduled to air once as a paid ad; thus, this ad likely aired with much greater 

frequency as a part of the pro bono match requirement. 

Moreover, the percentage of parents that reported seeing Burbs "often" or "a few 

times" increased to a statistically significant degree from baseline to followup in 

Boise (from 57% to 73%). Burbs was scheduled to run 11 times as a paid ad in 

Boise, the most of paid adult-targeted ads. In addition, the percentage of Boise 

parents that recalled seeing O'Connor increased but not to a statistically 

signif'xcant level. As expected, during the intervention period the percentage of 

Boise parents that reported seeing the ads Deal and Under Your Nose, which aired 

as PSAs in the target site, was far lower than for the paid Campaign ads. 

Finally, non-center city focus group parents in Boise recalled televised local antidrug ads as well as Media Campaign ads. Non-center city focus group parents in 

Boise reported that the ads provided information along with an opportunity to talk 

to their children about drug use. These parents believed the ads were effective and 

should be used in conjunction with family- and school-based education. Similarly, 

youth influencers (adult mentors) also reported that the anti-drug messages 

provided them with an opportunity to talk to the children they worked with. 

5-22 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Boise 

5.3.3 Community Impact 

In support of Phase I of the Media Campaign, the local Regional Alcohol Drug 

Awareness Resources (RADAR) center posted a toll-free telephone number on its 

Web site. The local representative from Parents and Youth Against Drug Abuse 

(PAYADA) sent speakers into the schools to prepare school counselors and 

administrators for the Media Campaign, and to make sure that printed information 

pertaining to drugs was available and being distributed in the schools. 

In June 1998 the Partnership for a Drug-Free America presented a preview via 

satellite of its newest anti-methamphetamine TV and radio advertisements. This 

presentation was held at an Idaho National Guard facility and included 

presentations from local law enforcement officials. In attendance were 22 

participants from agencies that serve juveniles, private practice substance abuse 

treatment providers, and grass-roots anti-drug groups. These participants saw a 

video presentation of the latest ONDCP/PDFA television and radio ads. The 

Media Campaign presentation provided representatives of public and private 

organizations and agencies from different fields a chance to network with one 

another. Three local television stations covered the event, and one station aired 

one of the ads as part of an evening news story about the Media Campaign. 

5.3.4 Summary of Findings 

Survey data show that awareness of the anti-drug message increased in the target 

site following Phase I of the Media Campaign. For example, the percentage of 

Boise youth that reported learning about the negative effects of drugs from 

television ads increased significantly from baseline to followup from 32 percent 

of those surveyed to 41 percent. More specifically, the percent of Boise youth that 

recalled "often" seeing the one paid Campaign ad included in the survey directed 

toward Boise youth, Long Way Home, rose significantly from 38 percent to 

71 percent. In addition, from baseline to followup, the percentage of Boise youth 

that reported that methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin use were dangerous 

increased to statistically significant degrees. 

With respect to the paid Campaign ads directed toward teens, at followup, the 

percentage of Boise teens that reported seeing the ads 911 and Alex Straight A's 

"often" was statistically significant when compared with recognition of the ads 

among Eugene teens. In addition, the percentage of Boise teens that recalled 

seeing the paid Campaign ad Frying Pan "often" or "a few times" increased to a 

statistically significant degree within-site. 

Furthermore, survey data show that a statistically significant percentage of Boise 

parents recalled seeing Girl Interview "often", compared to Eugene parents. In 

addition, the percentage of parents that reported seeing Burbs "often" or "a few 

times" increased to a statistically significant degree from baseline to followup in 

Boise (from 57 % to 73 %). The percentage of Boise parents that recalled seeing 

O'Connor increased but not to a statistically significant level. Finally, Boise 

parents reported that the Media Campaign ads were effective because the ads 

made them aware that America's drug problem is something about which all 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-23 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

families should be concerned. And non-center city focus group parents and youth 

influencers stated that the ads provided an opportunity for them to talk with youth 

about drug use. 

Therefore, parents, youth, and teens in Boise were clearly aware of the paid 

ONDCP Media Campaign. In addition to recognizing the ads directed toward 

them, the three groups became much more aware of the dangers and risks of 

illegal drugs from these ads. Lastly, the Media Campaign also affected the 

community as ~ indicated by outreach activities in the schools and a PDFA ad 

preview event in June 1998, which brought together a wide range of public- and 

private-sector organizations. 

5-24 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Denver 

5.4 DENVER 

Denver is the capital of Colorado and the largest city in the Rocky Mountain area. 

The Denver metropolitan area includes the city and county of Denver, Adams 

County to the north and east of Denver, Arapahoe County to the east and south, 

Jefferson County to the west, and Douglas County to the south and west. These 

counties stretch from the east slope of the Rocky Mountains into the Great Plains 

and encompass the urban center~ industrial areas, affluent suburbs, and rural 

expanses. The total population of 1,622,980 is approximately 80 percent white, 

12 percent Hispanic, 5 percent African American, 2 percent Asian, and less than 

1 percent American Indian. About 18 percent of the population is between the ages 

of 5 and 17, and 13.4 percent of children under 18 live below the poverty level. 

Denver is recognized as the center of drug distribution activities for the Rocky 

Mountain region. Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming have been designated a High 

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). Marijuana, methamphetamine, 

cocaine, crack-cocaine, and heroin come into Denver from Mexico via the 

Southwest Border States and California. Marijuana is grown throughout 

Colorado, and the sparsely populated areas in the State are a haven for 

methamphetamine labs. Reports from the Community Epidemiology Work Group 

(CEWG) indicate that methamphetamine use increased steadily in Denver from 

1992 to 1997, and also that cocaine and marijuana were the predominant drugs of 

abuse from 1991 to 1995, as measured by drug treatment admissions. Key 

informants report that the drugs of choice among teens are marijuana, alcohol, and 

tobacco. 

5.4.1 Intervention 

The ONDCP Director kicked off Phase I of the Media Campaign in Denver on 

January 20, 1998, with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA) administrator, and representatives from the offices of 

U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and the mayor of Denver. Phase I used 

existing ads available through the Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA), 

including television and radio spots, newspaper ads, and billboards. A 

comprehensive listing of all Phase I advertisements is presented in Appendix A. 

Denver received several paid TV ads and PSAs. Youth, teens, and parents were 

surveyed about their awareness of a subset of these ads. Exhibit 5-4 presents those 

paid ads and PSAs that were included in the survey instruments. The subset of 

paid campaign ads for Denver focused on the following drugs: drugs in general 

(43.9%), marijuana (40%), methamphetamine (10.1%), and heroin (6%). One 

paid advertisement included in the survey, Long Way Home, was directed at 

youth. 911, Alex Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, Layla, and Rite of Passage were the 

paid ads directed at teens. Burbs, Girl Interview, and O'Connor, and were among 

the paid ads directed at parents. PSAs, included, but were not limited to, Free 

Ride for teens and Deal and Under Your Nose for parents. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-25 
Testingthe Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 5-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads in Denver/Austin ~ 

Campaign Survey Data 

Paid ads Long Way Home 

PSAs Drowning 

Girlfriend 

Noses 

Paid ads 911 

Alex Straight A's 

Frying Pan 

Lay/a 

Rite of Passage 

PSAs Free Ride 

Paid ads Burbs 

Gift/nterview 

O'Connor 

PSAs Deal 

Under Your Nose 

Denver 

~Target) 

Baseline I Followup I % 

% I % I Difference 

46 78 32* 

27 22 -5 

22 34 12** 

36 42 6 

11 36 25* 

5 37 32* 

11 47 36* 

8 22 14" 

7 29 22* 

4 7 3 

Austin/Albuquerque 

(Comparison) 

Baseline I Followup % 

% I % I Difference 

28 25 -3 

27 26 -1 

21 18 -3 

29 28 -1 

5 7 2 

5 6 1 

11 11 0 

8 8 0 

7 6 -1 

4 4 0 

13 22 9** 

6 13 7* 

20 20 0 

15 12 -3 

4 9 5** 

~i~i:~:~:~:~i~:~:~:~::~:~ ~::::::: ~|~U~Ue~}~i i~i~ ~:~i~i~i~iiil 

14 14 0 

3 2 -1 

13 16 3 

12 11 -1 

5 5 0 

Overall % 

Difference 

35* 

-4 

15" 

7 

23" 

31" 

36" 

14" 

23" 

3* 

9 

8" 

-3 

-2 

5 

Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level. 

'Austin replaces the comparison site of Albuquerque for youth and teen data; Albuquerque serves as the comparison site for parents 

because parent surveys were completed in that site (see Chapter 2). 

Note: Additional paid ads aired via cable and Channel One. 

5.4.2 Survey Findings 

Survey data show statistically significant differences in the percent of Denver 

youth compared to Austin youth from baseline to comparison that report 

seeing or hearing messages from the TV about the negative effects of using 

drugs. 

Survey data show a cross-site statistically significant increase from baseline to 

followup among Denver youth that reported "often" seeing the one paid 

Campaign ad directed toward youth--Long Way Home. 

Survey data show cross-site statistically significant increases from baseline to 

foll0wup among Denver teens that reported "often" seeing all five paid 

Campaign ads directed at teens--Frying Pan, Alex Straight A ' s, 911, Rite of 

Passage, and Layla. 

Survey data show a cross-site statistically significant increase from baseline to 

followup among Denver parents that reported "often" seeing one paid 

Campaign ad--Girl Interview. 

5-26 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Denver 

5.4.2.1 

Survey data show a within-site statistically significant increase from baseline 

to followup among Denver parents that reported "often" seeing the paid 

Campaign ad, Burbs. 

The comparison site selected for Denver was Albuquerque, New Mexico, where 

telephone surveys were conducted with a sample of parents. Because not enough 

schools were available for conducting surveys of youth and teens, Austin, Texas 

was selected as a substitute comparison site for those age groups. Both 

Albuquerque and Austin are comparable to Denver in demographic and 

community characteristics. 

Surveys were administered to youth, teens, and parents before and near the end of 

the Media Campaign in the Denver target site and in the Albuquerque and Austin 

comparison sites. This section compares survey results for youth and teens in 

Denver and Austin and for parents in Denver and Albuquerque. The results 

presented focus on differences that are statistically significant. Media monitoring 

and focus group data also are presented to support reliable interpretation of the 

survey data. 

Survey findings in Denver may have been affected by a second media campaign. 

In 1997 the Colorado Trust funded a 5-year, $10 million project with the 

Minneapolis-based Search Institute to operate Assets for Colorado Youth. That 

project supports communities in their implementation of the Institute's Asset 

Building Model. Assets for Colorado Youth launched a media campaign in 

January 1998 that began with radio spots and advertisements in the Rocky 

Mountain News. The 3-year public awareness campaign will include television 

spots, outdoor billboards, and bus bench and movie theater advertisements--all 

spotlighting assets for positive youth development. 

Youth 

Long Way Home was the only paid Campaign ad on the survey instrument 

directed toward Denver youth. Survey data clearly indicate increased awareness 

among target site youth in Denver with respect to learning about the anti-drug 

message from television. For instance, in response to the question "do you ever 

see/hear messages that say drugs are bad on TV," 95 percent of the Denver youth 

surveyed at followup responded "yes," compared with 85 percent at baseline. 

Although the positive response rate in Austin was comparable to that for Denver 

at baseline (84%), it was unchanged at fo!lowup; thus the 10-percent increase in 

Denver is statistically significant across sites. 

In line with these findings, exhibit 5-4 above shows statistically significant 

differences in youth awareness of the one paid Campaign ads directed at youth in 

Denver--Long Way Home. In fact, target site youth recognition of Long Way 

Home increased substantially from 46 percent at baseline to 78 percent at 

followup in Denver, compared with a decline from 28 percent to 25 percent in 

Austin. Media monitoring suggest that the time of day during which the paid ad 

aired contributed to the statistically significant increase in awareness. For 

example, the percentage of times Long Way Home aired during hours when youth 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-27 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

were most likely to be watching TV (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime 

time 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.: and weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.) 

increased from 6 percent at baseline to 63 percent during the intervention period. 

According to the media buy plan, the ad was scheduled to air 33 times as a paid 

ad for a total of 197 GRPs. 

Other anti-drug PSA ads directed at youth in the Denver included Drowning, 

Girlfriend, and Noses. Although the percent difference between the target site 

youth in Denver and the comparison site youth in Austin with respect to seeing 

the ad Girlfriend "often" was statistically significant, the difference was less than 

half as great as the difference in recognition of the paid ad Long Way Home (a 

15% increase compared to a 35% difference). As expected, the difference in recall 

of Noses was less dramatic (from 36% to 42% in Denver and from 29% to 28% in 

Austin). Lastly, recollection of the remaining PSA mentioned in the survey, 

Drowning, decreased in both sites (from 27% to 23% in Denver and from 27% to 

26% in Austin). 

5.4.2.2 Teens 

Five paid Campaign ads, included in the survey instrument, were directed toward 

Denver teens--911, Alex Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, Layla, and Rite of Passage. In 

addition, Free Ride was one of the PSAs directed toward teens. Survey data 

suggest that the Media Campaign had a significant impact on teens in Denver. For 

example, from the baseline to intervention period, between the target site youth in 

Denver and the comparison site youth in Austin, survey data indicate a substantial 

change in the percentage of teens that learned "a lot" about the risks of drugs from 

TV commercials. In fact, the percentage of teens in Denver that "learned a lot" 

about the risks and dangers of drugs from TV increased to a statistically 

significant degreemfrom 15 percent at baseline to 23 percent at followup, 

compared with a decrease from 19 percent to 12 percent in Austin. 

Furthermore, survey data suggest that this increase in teen awareness of the risks 

of using drugs may be attributed to the paid Campaign. For example, when teens 

were asked if they had seen paid Campaign TV ads "often", the data show 

statistically significant differences with respect to awareness of all five of the ads 

directed at teens--Frying Pan, Alex Straight A ' s, 911, Rite of Passage, and Layla. 

Likewise, increases in teen awareness of the five paid ads show even greater 

statistical significance for the percentage of teens that report ever seeing the paid 

ads (response: "often" or "a few times"). 

Indeed, the percent of teens that reported seeing the paid ads "often" or "a few 

times" increased in the target site for Frying Pan from 42 percent to 79 percent, 

Alex StraightA's from 28 percent to 71 percent, 911 from 35 percent to 68 

percent, Rite of Passage from 33 percent to 56 percent, and Layla 43 percent to 60 

percent. At the same time, recall of these ads remained relatively low and constant 

in the comparison site. It is also worth noting that teen recall of Free Ride, which 

aired as a PSA in the target site, remained constant from baseline to intervention 

(from 21% to 25 %). 

5-28 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Denver 

Media monitoring data further explain the dramatic increases in target site 

recollection of all five paid Campaign ads directed at teens. For example, in 

Denver four of the five paid ads--Frying Pan, Alex Straight A ' s, Rite of Passage, 

and Layla--aired 50 percent of the time during hours when teens were most likely 

watching TV (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 

p.m.; and weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). The media buy data indicate 

that among these ads, Alex Straight A's reached the greatest share of teens, 

achieving 333 GRPs from the 51 times it aired as a paid ad. The number of airings 

and GRPs for Frying Pan, Layla, and Rite of Passage were 33 times for 224 

GRPs, 36 times for 181 GRPs, and 30 times for 193 GRPs, respectively. Although 

media monitoring data indicate 911 aired more than any other paid ad in Denver, 

the media buy data estimate the ad aired 17 times. (It should be noted that the 

media monitoring data include the number of times the ad aired as a paid ad and 

as a PSA as part of the pro bono component.) 

Focus group data further support survey and media monitoring findings. 

Specifically, Denver teens reported seeing Alex Straight A's, 911, Layla, and 

Frying Pan. Moreover, Frying Pan was the TV ad recalled most frequently by 

members of all teen focus groups (middle school and high school students in 

center city and non-center city locales). Opinions of the ads and their 

effectiveness varied, but three boys in the center city high school focus group 

reported that the paid Campaign ad, 911, was "scary" and convinced them not to 

use methamphetamine. 

5.4.2.3 Parents 

Parent survey data from Denver are compared with parent survey data from 

Albuquerque. Three paid Campaign ads were directed toward Denver parents-- 

Burbs, Girl Interview, and O'Connor. Survey data suggest that the Media 

Campaign had a significant impact on Denver parents. For example, from the 

baseline to intervention period, the target and comparison site survey data indicate 

a significant change in the percent of Denver parents that learned "a lot" about the 

risks of drugs from TV commercials. In fact, the percent of parents that saw TV 

ads "every day or almost every day" or "more than once a day" focusing on the 

risks of drugs increased to a statistically significant degree--from 21 percent at 

baseline to 38 percent at followup, while remaining constant at about 25 percent 

in Albuquerque. 

With respect to Denver parents' recall of the paid Campaign ads directed toward 

them, a statistically significant percent of Denver parents from baseline to 

followup reported seeing the paid ad, Girl Interview "often" compared to 

Albuquerque parents. Moreover, although parent recollection of the paid ad Burbs 

did not increase to a statistically significant degree across sites, from baseline to 

followup, survey data indicate a statistically significant within-site increase in the 

percent of Denver parents that saw the paid ad Burbs "often". 

Media monitoring data suggest why parent recall of the third paid ad, O'Connor, 

did not increase to a statistically significant degree either across sites or within 

site. First, at baseline in Denver parent awareness of O'Connor was the highest of 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-29 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

the three paid ads. In fact, during the baseline period O'Connor aired in the target 

site 12.3 times a month (3.1 times a week). And second, nearly half of the times 

O'Connor aired as a PSA in the comparison site it aired during prime time. 

Lastly, as expected, parent recall of the two PSAs targeted at Denver parents, 

Deal and Under Your Nose, did not increase to a statistically significant degree 

across sites. 

5.4.3 Community Impact 

The concurrent media campaign launched in January 1998 by Assets for Colorado 

Youth may have affected survey responses. A second factor also may have 

influenced the impact of the Media Campaign in the Denver community. Since 

the so-called "Summer of Violence" in 1993, the city of Denver has 

institutionalized prevention programs within its government structure. The Safe 

City Office, the District Attorney's Office, the Denver Juvenile Justice Integrated 

Treatment Network, and the Denver Housing Authority all operate primary or 

secondary prevention programs. The Safe City Office coordinates the SafeNite 

Curfew Program, administers the Mayor's Summer Youth Program, and sponsors 

the annual Safe City Youth Summit, conducted by the Colorado office of Youth 

Power (formerly Just Say No). The Safe City Office also administers $1 million in 

grants to other prevention programs in Denver. The most recent prevention effort 

in Denver not directly related to the Media Campaign was the formation of the 

Commission to Develop a Drug Control Strategy in the spring of 1998. The 

Commission includes representatives from the mayor's office, the district 

attorney's office, law enforcement agencies, and prevention and treatment 

providers. The Denver Drug Control Strategy is to be modeled on ONDCP's 

annual National Drug Control Strategy. 

Notwithstanding that level of established prevention programs, the impact of the 

Media Campaign on the community can be measured by responses to the ads, as 

monitored by the two local sponsors. The Colorado Prevention Resource Center 

generally received calls the same day an anti-drug ad appeared in the newspaper. 

The Power of a Grandmother reportedly has drawn the most response, with 

several calls asking if it is available as a poster. The Connecting Colorado 

Prevention Coalition also received calls, some of which were protests from those 

who are pro-marijuana. The project director for Connecting Colorado reported 

that additional local drug prevention activity was expected during Phase III of the 

Media Campaign. 

5.4.4 Summary of Findings 

Survey data from Denver and its two comparison sites show increases in 

awareness of the anti-drug message on television across all three age groups in 

Denver (youth, teen, and parents) following Phase I of the Media Campaign. In 

fact, the percentage of youth that reported seeing messages that "drugs are bad" 

increased in Denver from 85 percent at baseline to 95 percent of those surveyed at 

followup. In addition, teens in Denver that "learned a lot" about the risks of drugs 

from TV commercials increased from 15 percent to 23 percent. And parents that 

5-30 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Denver 

reported seeing or hearing TV ads telling them about the risks of drugs increased 

from baseline to followup from 21 percent to 38 percent. 

Moreover, survey data show statistically significant increases in youth, teen, and 

parent awareness of specific paid Campaign ads. For example, the data indicate 

increased youth awareness in Denver of the one paid Campaign ad directed 

towards youth, Long Way Home. Survey data also show statistically significant 

differences in teen awareness of all five paid Campaign ads directed at teens-- 

Frying Pan, Alex Straight A ' s, 911, Rite of Passage, and Layla. Lastly, survey 

data indicate a statistically significant increase in Denver parents' awareness in 

two of the three paid Campaign ads directed toward them--Girl Interview and 

Burbs. These findings strongly suggest that the frequency and placement of antidrug advertising heighten awareness of the anti-drug message. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-31 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.5 HARTFORD 

Hartford is the capital of Connecticut and is located in the central part of the State. 

It is a medium-sized city of 1,123,678 residents. In the metropolitan area, 

86.3 percent of residents are white, 8.4 percent are African American, and 

6.6 percent are Hispanic. Hispanics compose the largest ethnic group of center 

city residents, at 23 percent. Rural and non-center city communities that surround 

Hartford are characterized by strong economic, social, and educational 

institutions, while economic opportunity within the center city is declining. 

Hartford's annual crime rate is 482 per 100,000 residents and the unemployment 

rate is 4.8 percent. The percentage of the population between the ages of 5 and 17 

is 15.7 percent, with 11.4 percent of Children under 18 living below the poverty 

level. 

Youth drug use is a significant problem in the greater Hartford area, as indicated 

by the increasing rate of juvenile drug-related crime and associated gang activity. 

Arrests for drug offenses for people under age 21 have increased since the early 

1990s. More youth are selling drugs, including hard drugs such as heroin and 

crack. Temporary correctional facilities are insufficient for the number of juvenile 

arrests; in response, Hartford has imposed a curfew of 9:00 p.m. in an effort to 

keep youth off the streets. The most commonly used substances in Hartford are 

alcohol and marijuana. A 1997 Connecticut Department of Mental Health and 

Addiction Services study found that 45 percent of 7th-12th graders in the greater 

Hartford area admitted using alcohol and 28 percent admitted having used 

marijuana. 

In 1981, Connecticut legitimized the medical use of marijuana for patients with 

glaucoma and as a treatment for nausea and other side effects of chemotherapy. 

5.5.1 Intervention 

The ONDCP Director kicked off Phase I of the Media Campaign in Hartford on 

January 26, 1998. Phase I used existing ads available through the Partnership for a 

Drug-Free America (PDFA), including television and radio spots, newspaper ads, 

and billboards. A comprehensive listing of all Phase I advertisements is presented 

in Appendix A. Hartford received several paid television Campaign ads and 

PSAs. Youth, teens, and parents were surveyed about their awareness on a subset 

of these ads. Exhibit 5-5 presents those paid Campaign ads and PSAs for Hartford 

that were included in the survey instruments. 

The subset of paid Campaign ads for Hartford focused on the following drugs: 

inhalants (40.4%), drugs in general (29.9%), marijuana (13.9%), crack (8.0%), 

and heroin (7.7%). The paid advertisements directed at youth included Girlfriend, 

Long Way Home, Drowning, and Noses, the latter two airing in both English and 

Spanish. Alex Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, Layla, and Rite of Passage were the paid 

ads directed at teens, with Rite of Passage broadcast in both English and Spanish. 

Deal, Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose were the paid ads directed 

at parents, with Under Your Nose airing in both English and Spanish. PSA ads 

5-32 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Hartford 

included 911 and Free Ride for teens, and Burbs for parents. These 12 paid ads 

collectively were shown an average of 212.2 times a month in Hartford during 

Phase 1. 

Exhibit 5-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads in Hartford/Nashville I 

Campaign Survey Data 

Paid ads Drowning 

Girlfriend 

Long Way Home 

Noses 

Paid ads Alex Straight A's 

Frying Pan 

Layla 

Rite of Passage 

PSAs 911 

Free Ride 

Paid ads Deal 

Girl Interview 

O'Connor 

Under Your Nose 

PSAs Burbs 

Hartford 

(Target) 

Baseline Followup % 

% I % l O!~'PrenP?... 

20 67 47* 

22 42 20* 

46 62 16* 

30 56 26* 

Nashville/Harrisburg 

(Comparison) 

Baseline I Followup I % 

, % ] % I Difference 

25 29 4 

29 32 3 

62 52 , -10"* 

35 40 5 

~ ~,~:,~ii~,~!~..,,.~ ~' ~: .: ~;.;~ .~ ~. ~ii~:l~i 

8 36 28* 

16 66 50* 

13 20 7 

11 20 9* 

10 3 -7** 

10 5 -5** 

7 6 -1 

18 15 -3 

10 11 1 

8 7 -1 

6 9 3 

5 6 1 

19 22 3 

4 14 10" 

24 36 12* 

2 9 7* 

12 19 7** 

16 16 0 

4 6 2 

16 11 -5 

4 6 2 

11 25 14" 

Overall % 

Difference 

43" 

17" 

26" 

21 ° 

29* 

53* 

6 

10"* 

-10"* 

-6 

3 

8" 

17" 

5 

-7 

Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level. 

'Nashville replaces the comparison site of Hardsburg for youth and teen data; Harrisburg serves as the comparison site for parents 

because parent surveys were completed in that site (see Chapter 2). 

Note: Additional paid ads aired via cable and Channel One. 

5.5.2 Survey Findings 

Survey data show statistically significant increases from baseline to followup 

in the percentage of Hartford youth, compared to Nashville youth, that 

reported "often" seeing all four paid Campaign ads directed at youth-- 

Drowning, Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases from baseline to followup 

in the percentage of Hartford teens, compared to Nashville teens, that reported 

"often" seeing three of the four paid Campaign ads directed at teens---Alex 

Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, and Rite of Passage. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases from baseline to followup 

in the percentage of Hartford parents, compared to Nashville parents, that 

reported "often" seeing two of the four paid Campaign ads directed at 

parents--Girl Interview and O'Connor. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-33 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.5.2.1 

Survey data show statistically significant increases from baseline to followup 

in Hartford parents' awareness of three of the four paid Campaign ads directed 

at them--Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose. 

The comparison site selected for Hartford was Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where 

telephone surveys were conducted with a sample of parents. Because not enough 

schools were available for conducting surveys of youth and teens, Nashville, 

Tennessee was selected as a substitute comparison site for those age groups. 

The data presented in this section focus on findings reported by youth, teens, and 

parents surveyed in the Hartford target community as well as in the Nashville and 

Harrisburg comparison communities (Nashville for youth and teen surveys and 

Harrisburg for parent surveys and site visit results). The findings presented below 

are those for which there are statistically significant differences between the two 

communities. Data collected from media monitoring and data obtained from focus 

groups and community respondent interviews conducted during site visits are 

presented to support reliable interpretation of the survey data. 

Youth 

Survey data indicate that recognition all four paid Campaign TV ads increased 

significantly from baseline to followup among Hartford youth when compared to 

Nashville youth. Percent changes ~n youth recognition of the ads in Hartford and 

Nashville are as follows: Noses (Hartford: 30% to 56%, Nashville 35% to 40%); 

Long Way Home (Hartford: 46% to 62%, Nashville: 62% to 52%); Drowning 

(Hartford: 20% to 67%; Nashville: 25% to 29%), and Girlfriend (Hartford: 22% 

to 42%, Nashville: 29% to 32%). 

Media monitoring data indicate that the four paid Campaign ads directed at youth 

aired much more frequently over time in Hartford compared to Nashville. At 

baseline, the four ads were not shown at all as a PSA in Hartford and were shown 

between an average of 0 and 8.7 times monthly in Nashville. During the 

intervention, however, the average monthly number of times the ads aired 

increased substantially in the target site (e.g., Drowning: 0 to 51.4; Girlfriend: 0 

to 8.2; Long Way Home: 0 to 14.8; and Noses: 0 to 27.2). By contrast, the same 

ads either did not air or the number of times they aired remained relatively 

constant during the intervention in the comparison site (e.g., Drowning: 0 to 0; 

Girlfriend: 1 to 1.2; Long Way Home: 8.7 to 11.0; and Noses: 0 to 0). 

Media monitoring data further support survey findings when analyzing the times 

of day during which the paid Campaign ads aired. Over a third (35.6%) of the 

paid ads aired during hours when youth were most likely to be watching TV 

(prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; weekend 

daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). The media buy data indicate these ads were 

scheduled to air more than 150 times for a total of 776 GRPs, not including the 

purchases for cable. 

Survey data also indicate attitudes toward inhalants changed significantly over 

time among Hartford youth when compared to Nashville youth. Between the 

5-34 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Hartford 

baseline and followup periods, the percentage of youth in Hartford that said that 

they agreed "a lot" with the statement, "using inhalants can kill you" increased 

significantly (56% to 72%). By contrast, recall remained steady among Nashville 

youth (69% to 70%). Media monitoring data support this finding. Of the total 

number paid Campaign ads included in the survey that aired, 40.4 percent focused 

on inhalants (Drowning, Noses and Under Your Nose). What is more, from the 

baseline to intervention period, average monthly broadcasts of the two antiinhalant ads directed at youth increased sharply in the target site (Drowning: 0 to 

51.4; Noses: 0 to 27.2). Furthermore, during the same period, these ads did not air 

at all in the comparison site. 

Increased awareness among youth concerning the dangers of inhalant use also 

may be attributed to the anti-inhalant ad Under Your Nose, which was targeted to 

Hartford parents. From the baseline to intervention periods, broadcasts of Under 

Your Nose increased from a monthly average of 0 to 7.2. In all, Hartford 

television viewing households were exposed to three different paid Campaign ads 

that focused specifically on inhalant use. These ads aired an average total of 85.8 

times a month or nearly 3 times a day during the intervention period. Discussions 

with focus group youth further support these findings. Youth reported that they 

learn about the risks and dangers of drug use from television as well as from their 

parents and from school. 

In addition to an increase in inhalant-specific ads, community-based prevention 

programs may have had some impact on changes in youth attitudes about 

inhalants. Concurrent with the Media Campaign, the Capitol Area Substance 

Abuse Council (CASAC) provided inhalant abuse prevention and awareness 

training for DARE officers, PTAs, churches, prevention specialists, drug 

counselors, and youth groups. Additionally, CASAC and Drugs Don't Work 

provided inhalant information packages to schools, physicians, and legislators. 

5.5.2.2 Teens 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in awareness of three of the 

four paid Campaign ads targeted at teens--Alex Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, and 

Rite of Passagemamong Hartford teens when compared to Nashville teens. The 

increase in Hartford teens' recall of ads from baseline to followup included: Alex 

StraightA's, from 8 percent to 36 percent; Frying Pan, from 16 percent to 

66 percent; and Rite of Passage, from 11 percent to 20 percent. In Nashville, on 

the other hand, the percentage of teens recognizing these same ads actually 

decreased from baseline to followup: Alex Straight A 's, 7 percent to 6 percent; 

Frying Pan, 18 percent to 15 percent; and Rite of Passage, 8 percent to 7 percent. 

Media monitoring data support these findings. The ads Alex Straight A's, Frying 

Pan, and Rite of Passage aired with increasing frequency in Hartford from 

baseline to intervention (Alex Straight A's, monthly average: 0 to 23.8; Frying 

Pan: 0 to 16.4; and Rite of Passage: 0.3 to 10.0). However, in Nashville Alex 

Straight A ' s and Frying Pan did not air in either period; and Rite of Passage only 

aired once at baseline, with less than one broadcast per month. Media buy 

estimates indicate that Layla aired fewer times as a paid ad in Hartford and 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-35 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

achieved less GRPs than any of these four ads. Alex Straight A's aired as a paid ad 

the most frequently at 104 times, for a total of 429 GRPs, followed by Frying 

Pan, which aired 78 times and achieved an estimated 325 GRPs. 

Media monitoring data suggest the time of day the three paid Campaign ads aired 

contributed to the significant difference in ad recognition between Hartford teens 

and Nashville teens. In the target site, 69.7 percent of Alex Straight A's ads aired 

during hours when teens were most likely to be watching television (prime access: 

7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; weekend daytime: 6:00 

a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). Similarly, Frying Pan and Rite of Passage aired during these 

prime teen viewing periods 61.0 percent and 46.2 percent of the time, 

respectively. 

Two anti-drug PSAs on the teen survey included 911 and Free Ride. Not 

surprisingly, teen recognition of the PSAs either decreased or remained relatively 

stable from baseline to intervention in all sites. The percentage of teens that 

recalled seeing 911 decreased from 10 percent at baseline to 3 percent at followup 

in Hartford and increased only slightly from 6 percent to 9 percent in Nashville. 

Changes in teen recognition of Free Ride followed a similar pattern: 10 percent to 

5 percent in Hartford; and 5 percent to 6 percent in Nashville. 

5.5.2.3 Parents 

In Hartford, parental awareness of anti-drug ads increased in several ways. There 

was a significantly greater change in the percentage of parents that reported 

seeing or hearing ads frequently in Hartford. The ads informed them of the risks 

of drugs either "almost every day or more often" (20% at baseline to 35% at 

followup). During the same period, the change among parents surveyed in 

Harrisburg decreased from 19 percent to 14 percent. Media monitoring data 

indicate similar findings. Indeed, from the baseline to the intervention period the 

monthly average number of all anti-drug ads that aired increased sharply in 

Hartford (from 259 to 499.2), while remaining relatively stable in the Harrisburg 

(from 216 to 245). 

Focus group discussions with both the center city and non-center city Hartford 

parents revealed that they had seen anti-drug ads. These parents agreed that the 

anti-drug TV ads are aired frequently and reported that they view two or three 

different ads daily. Non-center city parents reported they see anti-drug TV ads 

approximately three times per week. In addition, 18 of the 20 community 

informants who were interviewed recalled having seen or heard anti-drug ads, and 

16 of these informants recalled ads by name. 

Survey data show statistically significant differences in awareness of two of the 

four paid Campaign ads included in the survey--Girl Interview and O'Connor-- 

between Hartford parents and Harrisburg parents. (Media buy data indicate that a 

total of 5 ads targeting adults were purchased in Hartford, compared to 13 ads for 

youth and teens.) From the baseline to followup period, parent recall of Girl 

Interview rose from 4 percent to 14 percent in the target site, while increasing 

only marginally from 4 percent to 6 percent in the comparison site. Recall was 

5-36 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Hartford 

potentially affected by the fact that this was the newest of the PDFA ads used in 

the Campaign to target adults. Recognition of the ad O'Connor increased from 24 

percent to 36 percent in Hartford, but fell from 16 percent to 11 percent in 

Harrisburg. In addition, recognition of one of the two remaining paid ads directed 

at parents--Under Your Nose-- increased significantly from baseline to followup 

(2% to 9%) within Hartford. 

Media monitoring data help explain Hartford parents' increased awareness of Girl 

Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose. In Hartford, the frequency with 

which Girl Interview aired increased dramatically (monthly average: 0.7 to 8.6) 

and even more dramatically for O'Connor (monthly average: 6 to 32.6) from the 

baseline to intervention period. By contrast, the airings of these ads actually 

decreased over the same period in Harrisburg, from 1.7 to 1.6 for Girl Interview, 

and 2.0 and 1.8 for O'Connor. With respect to the ad Under YourNose, media 

monitoring data reveal that average monthly broadcasts of the ad rose from 0 at 

baseline to 7.2 during the intervention in Hartford. 

Media monitoring data also explain why awareness of the parent-targeted ad, 

Deal, did not increase significantly in Hartford. While the paid Campaign ad Deal 

aired more frequently from the baseline to intervention period (monthly average: 

6.7 to 8.8), it increased at a lower rate than any of the other three ads targeted at 

Hartford parents. The media buy data indicate this ad was only purchased to air 8 

times compared to O'Connor and Under Your Nose, which were purchased to air 

21 and 22 times, respectively. 

When parents were surveyed about their perception of the effectiveness of the ads 

shown during the intervention period, a greater percentage of Hartford parents 

reported that the ads had made them aware of the risks of drugs compared to 

parents in Harrisburg. From baseline to followup, the percentage of the Hartford 

parents who "agreed a lot" that they had become aware of the risks of drugs 

increased significantly from 43 percent to 58 percent, compared with a decrease 

from 46 percent to 42 percent of the Harrisburg parents. Focus group discussions 

among the Hartford parents support these findings. Most of the center city parents 

agreed that the anti-drug ads have given them "the opportunity to start a 

conversation." These parents, most of whom were Hispanic, reported having the 

ads in Spanish and English raises the awareness of parents who speak only one of 

the two languages. Furthermore, non-center city Hartford parents and most of the 

key community informants recalled ads that portrayed the risk of drugs, such as 

Frying Pan, along with their messages about the risks of using drugs, such as 

"doing drugs destroys everything." 

Hartford parents also thought the anti-drug ads were effective because they 

provide new information about drugs. The percentage of parents holding this view 

increased significantly from 20 percent to 31 percent over time, compared to a 

decrease from 28 percent to 23 percent in Harrisburg. The center city focus group 

parents in Harrisburg generally agreed that anti-drug ads could be effective in 

shaping or modifying individual views regarding the dangers associated with drug 

use. Some of the parents also said that the ads offered an opportunity to present 

and explain new information to their children about drugs. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-37 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.5.3 Community Impact 

The Connecticut Coalition to Reduce Underage Drinking was formed in response 

to the Media Campaign. It is composed of local community coalitions and focuses 

on creating broad-based strategies to improve preexisting school programs and 

enforcement in addition to other prevention efforts regarding alcohol abuse. Both 

parents and youth are targeted in this effort. Specific strategies will vary from 

community to community. 

5.5.4 Summary of Findings 

After approximately 5 months of exposure to the Media Campaign, all three age 

groups in Hartford (youth, teens, and parents) reported increased awareness of 

paid Campaign ads. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in awareness of all four paid 

Campaign ads directed at Hartford youth: Drowning, Girlfriend, Long Way Home, 

and Noses. Media monitoring data indicate these four ads were broadcast with 

increasing frequency in Hartford from the baseline to the intervention periods. In 

addition, survey data show attitudes toward inhalants changed significantly 

among Hartford youth. An increased percentage of them agreed "a lot" with the 

statement that "using inhalants can kill you" (56% to 72%). Media monitoring 

data strongly support this finding. The data indicate an increased frequency of 

airing of two inhalant ads in Hartford directed towards youthmNoses and 

Drowning--as well as a substantial increase in the total number of Campaign 

survey ads that focused on inhalants (monthly average: 0 to 85.8). In addition, 

community-based inhalant prevention and awareness training programs may have 

contributed to changed attitudes because they occurred concurrently with the 

Media Campaign. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percentage of Hartford 

teens when compared to Nashville teens that reported "often" seeing three of the 

four paid Campaign ads directed at teens--Alex Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, and 

Rite of Passage--from baseline to followup. Media monitoring data suggest that 

the increases in awareness correlate with the high percentage of paid ads aired in 

prime teen TV viewing hours. 

During the Media Campaign, Hartford parents reported seeing anti-drug ads 

almost every day or more often about the risks of using drugs. Survey data show 

statistically significant cross-site increases in awareness of two of the four paid 

Campaign ads directed at parents--Girl Interview and O'Connor. In addition, 

survey data show within-site statistically significant increases in Hartford parents' 

awareness of three of the four paid Campaign adsmGirl Interview, O'Connor, 

and Under Your Nose. These ads were broadcast substantially more after the 

Media Campaign began in Hartford than prior to its inception. Parents indicated 

that viewing anti-drug ads made them aware of the risks of using drugs. The ads 

also provided new information about the drug problem. Discussions with focus 

group parents in Hartford supported these perceptions. 

5-38 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Hartford 

Youth, teens, and parents are clearly aware of the television ads included in the 

paid Media Campaign sponsored by ONDCP and as a result, appear to be much 

more aware of the dangers of illegal drug use. An outcome of the Media 

Campaign is the formation of The Connecticut Coalition to Reduce Underage 

Drinking. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-39 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.6 HOUSTON 

Located in southeastern Texas near the Gulf of Mexico, Houston is the fourth 

largest city in the Nation and the largest city in Texas, with a population of 

3,322,025. In the Houston metropolitan area, 66 percent of residents are white, 

21 percent are Hispanic, and 18.4 percent are African American. 2 Due to its 

immense size and lack of zoning regulations, Houston's MSA has many small 

cities within "the city." The city of Houston is divided into wards. African 

Americans are the primary residents of the third and fifth wards, while Hispanics 

heavily populate the fourth ward and whites predominate in the non-center city 

areas. The city's annual crime rate is 856 per 100,000 residents, and 20.2 percent 

of children under age 18 live below the poverty level. The city's unemployment 

rate is 6.7 percent, and children between ages 5 and 17 represent 20.9 percent of 

the population. 

Houston is one of the largest seaports in the United States, which makes it a major 

destination for drug trafficking. Houston's shipping ports, airports, railroad lines, 

and major interstate highways make it a transshipment point for all types of 

heroin from around the world. Houston's proximity to Mexico also makes it a 

dominant transshipment point for Mexican and Colombian cocaine. The Houston 

international airport is a major port for distribution of drugs into and out of the 

city. Traffickers transport illicit substances across the U.S.-Mexican border and 

along the gulf coast into Texas. 

The Houston area has a widespread drug use and abuse problem among youth. 

Substance abuse and experimentation cross ethnic and demographic boundaries. 

The most common drugs youth use are alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and inhalants. 

Of these, alcohol is the most widely used, but marijuana is easily available and its 

use is increasing. 

5.6.1 Intervention 

The ONDCP Director kicked off Phase I of the Media Campaign in Houston 

during the third week of January 1998. Phase I used existing ads available through 

the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA), including television and radio 

spots, newspaper ads, and billboards. A comprehensive listing of all Phase I 

advertisements is presented in Appendix A. Houston received several paid 

television Campaign ads and PSAs. Youth, teens, and parents were surveyed 

about their awareness on a subset of these ads. Exhibit 5-6 presents those paid 

Campaign ads and PSAs for Houston that were included in the survey 

instruments. 

The subset of paid Campaign ads for Houston focused on the following drugs: 

inhalants (30.9%), illegal drugs in general (27.1%), crack (20.2%), marijuana 

(13.8%), and heroin (8.0%). The paid advertisements directed at youth included 

Drowning, Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. Alex Straight A ' s, Frying 

2 Total is more than 100 percent because some Hispanics are counted in more than one category. 

5-40 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Houston 

Pan, Layla, and Rite of Passage were the paid ads directed at teens, and Deal, 

Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose were the paid ads directed at 

parents. These 12 ads collectively aired an average of 157.8 times per month 

according to media monitoring data. 

Exhibit 5-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads in Houston/Dallas 

Campaign Survey Data 

Paid ads Drowning 

Girlfriend 

Long Way Home 

Noses 

Paid ads Alex Straight A's 

Frying Pan 

Layla 

Rite of Passage 

PSAs 911 

Free Ride 

Paid ads Deal 

Girl Interview 

O'Connor 

Under Your Nose 

PSAs Burbs 

Houston 

{Target) 

Baseline Followup % 

% I % Difference 

49 58 9 

45 55 10 

72 77 5 

51 55 4 

Dallas 

(Comparison) 

Baseline Followup % 

% % I Difference 

37 38 1 

37 37 0 

37 42 5 

42 44 2 

17 16 -1 

35 52 17" 

17 17 0 

16 22 6 

4 4 0 

7 8 1 

11 9 -2 

14 14 0 

19 18 -1 

10 10 0 

9 12 3 

9 10 1 

9 27 18" 

3 7 4 

16 23 7 

6 11 5 

10 20 10" 

11 17 6 

4 5 1 

13 20 7** 

6 9 3 

9 14 5 

Overall % 

Difference 

8 

10 

0 

2 

1 

17" 

1 

6 

-3 

0 

12" 

3 

0 

2 

* Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level. 

Note: Additional paid ads aired via cable and Channel One. 

5.6.2 Survey Findings 

Survey data show increases in youth recognition all four paid Campaign ads 

from baseline to followup---Noses, Long Way Home, Drowning, and 

Girlfriend--in Houston. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases from baseline to followup 

among Houston teens that reported "often" seeing the paid Campaign ad, 

Frying Pan. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases from baseline to followup 

among Houston parents that reported "often" seeing the paid Campaign ad, 

Deal. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percentage of Houston 

parents that perceived "great risk" in using cocaine/crack, methamphetamines, 

and marijuana regularly. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-41 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percentage of Houston 

parents that perceived "great risk" in experimenting with methamphetamines and 

heroin. 

Survey data indicate a statistically significant increase in the percentage of 

Houston parents that "agreed a lot" that anti-drug ads made them aware of the 

risks of using drugs. 

The data presented in this section focus on findings reported by youth, teens, and 

parents surveyed in the Houston metropolitan area and the Dallas comparison 

community. The findings presented below are those for which there are 

statistically significant differences between the two communities. Data collected 

from media monitoring and data obtained from focus groups and community 

respondent interviews conducted during site visits are presented to support 

reliable interpretation of the survey data. 

5.6.2.1 Youth 

Following Phase I of the paid Media Campaign, recognition increased among 

Houston youth for all four paid Campaign ads targeted at them--Noses, Long 

Way Home, Drowning, and Girlfriend. The increases in recall from baseline to 

followup among Houston youth were: Drowning, 49 percent to 58 percent; 

Girlfriend, 45 percent to 55 percent; Long Way Home, 72 percent to 77 percent; 

and Noses, 51 percent to 55 percent. The media buy data indicate that Girlfriend 

and Drowning aired the most frequently and had the greatest reach of this group 

of paid ads. Girlfriend was purchased to air 42 times and Drowning 31 times. 

Although recognition of all four paid Campaign ads did not increase to a 

statistically significant degree between the target and comparison sites, survey 

data indicate a high level of awareness among youth in Houston at baseline. For 

example, a substantial percentage of youth reported seeing the ads "often" or "a 

few times" (Drowning, 49%; Girlfriend, 45%; Long Way Home, 72%; and Noses, 

51%). Arguably, cross-site significant increases in awareness of the paid ads was 

mitigated by the fact that nearly half to three-quarters of Houston youth exposed 

to the four ads prior to the Media Campaign. Thus, it is not surprising that the 

increases in awareness at followup were not statistically significant. Moreover, 

high baseline levels of awareness of the paid Campaign ads can be attributed to 

the fact that the majority of Houston youth baseline surveys were administered 

after the Media Campaign had begun. 

5.6.2.2 Teens 

Survey data show that increased recognition of Frying Pan among Houston teens 

was statistically significant when compared with the change in recognition of the 

same ad among teens in Dallas. The change in recognition from baseline to 

followup is as follows: Houston, 35 percent to 52 percent; and Dallas, 14 percent 

5-42 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Houston 

5.6.2.3 

to 14 percent. Media monitoring and media buy data support this finding. The 

data indicate that the average monthly number of times Frying Pan aired in 

Houston increased from 0 at baseline to 12.6 intervention and that the ad was 

scheduled to air 42 times as a paid ad. By contrast, the ad was not shown in 

Dallas. 

Survey data show greater percent increases in teen recall of Alex Straight A's, Rite 

of Passage, and Layla when teens report seeing the ads "often" or "a few times". 

For example, the percent of teens that recalled Alex Straight A's increased 10 

percentage points from 43 percent to 53 percent; likewise Rite of Passage 

increased by 9 percentage points from 38 percent to 47 percent, while remaining 

constant at 38 percent in Dallas. Layla increased only slightly from 45 percent to 

46 percent, but decreased in Dallas from 58 percent to 52 percent. Moreover, the 

remaining ads targeted at Houston teens--Alex Straight A ' s, Layla, and Rite of 

Passagewaired during hours that teens were most likely to be watching TV 

(prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; and 

weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.) during the intervention: Alex Straight 

A 's, 51 percent; Layla, 50 percent; and Rite of Passage, 41 percent. 

Parents 

Survey findings show that the increased recognition of the paid ad Deal among 

Houston parents was statistically significant when compared with the change in 

recognition of this ad among Dallas parents. The change in parental recall of Deal 

from baseline to followup is as follows: Houston, 9 percent to 27 percent; and 

Dallas, 11 percent to 17 percent. This finding is explained partly by the fact that 

Deal aired more than any other ad mentioned on the parent survey. The frequency 

of broadcasts of this ad in Houston increased greatly from baseline to followup 

(monthly average: from 0.6 to 23.8) compared with Dallas (monthly average: 

from 0.3 to 12). Deal was also purchased to air more often and with greater reach 

than the other ads targeting adults. Deal isCstimated to air 10 times as a paid ad 

and to achieve 44 GRPs. 

In addition, survey findings show within-site increases in recognition among 

Houston parents who reported having seen ads "often" or "a few times" for three of 

the four paid Campaign ads targeted at them. The statistically significant increases in 

recognition of these ads are as follows: Deal, 50 percent to 63 percent; Girl 

Interview, 18 percent to 31 percent; and Under YourNose, 30 percent to 47 percent. 

It should be noted that Under Your Nose was scheduled to air later in the evening so 

that youth would be less likely to be exposed to the ad, the content of which 

educated adults about inhalants. 

When parents were surveyed about their perception of the overall risk in using 

specific drugs regularly, a significantly higher percentage of Houston parents 

perceived "great risk" in using cocaine/crack, methamphetamines, and marijuana, 

compared to parents in Dallas. The changes in parents' perception of these drugs 

from baseline to followup are as follows: cocaine/crack (87 % to 92% in Houston, 

93% to 88% in Dallas); methamphetamines (84% to 90% in Houston, 92% to 87% 

in Dallas); and marijuana (81% to 84% in Houston, 87% to 79% in Dallas). 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-43 
/ 

Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Media monitoring data suggest a correlation between the broadcast frequency of 

cocaine/crack and marijuana ads and parental perceptions of great risk involved in 

regular use of these drugs. When examining ads from all sources, ads focusing on 

cocaine/crack increased at a higher rate in Houston from baseline to intervention 

(monthly average: from 5 to 56) than in Dallas (monthly average: from 1 to 14.2). 

In Houston, this translates to nearly two cocaine/crack ads per day. In addition, 

the increase in Campaign cocaine/crack ads (Girlfriend and Deal) that aired from 

baseline through intervention was much higher in Houston (from .7 to 31.8) than 

in Dallas (from .3 to 12). 

Media monitoring data also support survey findings pertaining to marijuana. A 

higher number of anti-marijuana ads from all sources aired at baseline and during 

the intervention in the comparison site than in the target site. During the 

intervention, however, Houston experienced a higher increase in the frequency of 

these ads (482.8%) than did Dallas (142.2%). 

Parents also were asked a question about their perception of the overall risk in trying 

drugs just once or twice. Houston parents perceived "great risk" in experimenting 

with two illegal substances. The change in the percentage of Houston parents 

indicating "great risk" increased significantly from baseline to followup when 

compared with the change among Dallas parents: methamphetamines (78% to 86% 

in Houston, 87% to 84% in Dallas); and heroin (86% to 90% in Houston, 93% to 

87% in Dallas). 

Media monitoring data suggest why the percentage of Houston parents that 

perceived great risk in trying heroin once or twice increased slightly during the 

Media Campaign. At baseline the average monthly number of television ads (from 

all sources) focusing on heroin was 2.3 in Houston and 4.7 in Dallas. However, 

during the intervention period, the frequency of heroin-focused ads increased 

markedly in Houston. Heroin ads aired 21.6 times a month, and half of these 

broadcasts were Frying Pan ads. In Dallas only 8.6 anti-heroin ads aired during the 

same period. 

Finally, when asked about the effectiveness of anti-drug ads, Houston parents 

who "agreed a lot" that the ads had made them aware of the risks of using drugs 

increased from 45 percent of those surveyed at baseline to 54 percent at followup. 

This is a statistically significant increase when compared with the decrease, from 

49 percent to 44 percent, among Dallas parents. 

5.6.3 Community Impact 

Houston Crackdown is a division of the Mayor's Office that coordinates and 

supports projects in the areas of substance abuse prevention, substance abuse 

treatment, and law enforcement. Houston Crackdown coordinated the Phase I 

Media Campaign in Houston. Schools figured prominently in the kick-off event, 

with students taking part in a general discussion about drugs. The Houston 

Independent School District videotaped the event for broadcast on community 

access television and on the school district's closed-circuit television system. 

5-44 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Houston 

One of the by-products of the Media Campaign was the heightened role of 

Houston Crackdown in the anti-drug movement. Community informants 

recognized the Media Campaign as a project of Houston Crackdown and/or 

ONDCP. Copies of the Houston Crackdown newsletter featured details about the 

Media Campaign. Officials of this organization reported they observed parents 

talking more among themselves and with their children about drug issues as a 

result of the Media Campaign. 

Several nonprofit community-based provider organizations that specifically focus 

on drugs and alcohol were very cognizant of the Phase I Media Campaign. One of 

these organizations provided youth participants for the Media Campaign kick-off. 

Another was asked to preview some of the ads. In addition, a conference called 

Peace Talks was held in May 1998 in the Gulfton area. At this conference youth 

were exposed to a series of drug abuse prevention messages. All the Phase I 

Media Campaign ads were shown at this conference. 

5.6.4 Summary of Findings 

After approximately 5 months of exposure to the Media Campaign in Houston, 

teen recognition of the paid Campaign ad Frying Pan increased significantly from 

35 percent at baseline to 52 percent at followup. Media monitoring data indicate 

the number of times the ad aired increased over time in Houston. 

In addition, survey data indicate that recognition of the paid Campaign ad 

targeting parents--Deal--increased by a statistically significant degree from 

baseline to followup among Houston parents, when compared to Dallas parents. 

Media monitoring data indicate it was shown more frequently in Houston than in 

Dallas. 

Houston parents also acquired a greater awareness of the danger involved in using 

various drugs. The percentage of parents that perceived "great risk" in using 

cocaine/crack, methamphetamines, and marijuana regularly increased 

significantly over time compared with parents in the comparison site. This finding 

appears to be related to an increased frequency of broadcasting crack/cocaine and 

marijuana ads in Houston. Furthermore, Houston parents perceived great risk in 

experimenting just once or twice with methamphetamines or heroin. The heroinrelated finding appears related to the increased frequency of anti-heroin ads. 

Finally, in assessing the effectiveness of the ads, Houston parents agreed the ads 

had made them aware of the risks of using drugs. This finding was reinforced in 

the focus group discussions with Houston parents. 

Teens and parents in Houston clearly were aware of some of the ads included in 

the ONDCP-sponsored paid Media Campaign. As a result they appeared much 

more aware of the dangers of illegal drug use. Finally, the Media Campaign 

affected the community through the efforts of the group that coordinated the 

Media Campaign in Houston, Houston Crackdown, as well as through the 

participation of other community-based organizations in Media Campaign and 

anti-drug activities. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-45 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.7 MILWAUKEE 

Located on the banks of Lake Michigan, Milwaukee is a medium-sized city with a 

population of 1,432,149, of whom 18.6 percent are between ages 5 and 17. In the 

Greater Milwaukee area, 83 percent of residents are white, 14 percent are African 

American, and 3 percent are Hispanic. The city's MSA has evolved into two 

areas: the city, where most of the region's poor and minorities live, and the more 

affluent Milwaukee County suburbs and the three surrounding counties 

(Washington, Osaukee, and Waukesha). The city of Milwaukee's annual crime 

rate is 533 per 100,000 residents, and 19.4 percent of children under age 18 live 

below the poverty level. The unemployment rate of the city is 5.4 percent. 

Milwaukee has always been known for its breweries, which were among the first 

in the Nation to use bottles and kegs. Today, this industry continues to affect the 

area. There are numerous neighborhood taverns per capita and a low tax on beer. 

In addition, beer manufacturers often provide funding for community projects. 

Beer and wine are reportedly the most commonly used substances by teens. The 

high alcohol use among teens is closely followed by use of tobacco products and 

marijuana. 

Milwaukee once was a heavy goods trade center with abundant high-paying 

manufacturing jobs. Today its economy and employment opportunities have 

shifted to lower paying service jobs. Because of its proximity to Chicago (only 

100 miles) and high population movement between the two cities, new drug 

trends, gang activity, and distribution networks spill over to Milwaukee. Recently 

Milwaukee was officially designated as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 

(HIDTA). The HIDTA operations began in early June 1998. 

Drug prevalence data for 1997 from Wisconsin's Bureau of Substance Abuse 

Services indicate that Milwaukee County has the greatest number of adult and 

youth alcohol and drug abusers among the four counties composing the 

Milwaukee metropolitan area. Narcotic and drug arrest data for adults and youth 

in the city of Milwaukee and by county indicate an increase during the past 

several years. In 1996 in the city of Milwaukee, 50 percent of the adults and 

80 percent of the juveniles arrested for possession of drugs had marijuana. In 

addition, law enforcement officials believe the majority of the serious and petty 

crimes committed in Milwaukee are connected to the drug trade. 

5.7.1 Intervention 

Representatives of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) kicked 

off Phase I of the Media Campaign in Milwaukee on January 13, 1998. Phase I 

used existing ads available through the Partnership for a Drug Free America 

(PDFA), including television and radio spots, newspaper ads, and billboards. A 

comprehensive listing of all Phase I advertisements is presented in Appendix A. 

Milwaukee received several paid TV ads and PSAs. Youth, teens, and parents 

were surveyed about their awareness of a subset of these ads. Exhibit 5-7 presents 

5-46 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Milwaukee 

those paid ads and PSAs for Milwaukee that were included in the survey 

instruments. 

The subset of paid campaign ads for Milwaukee focused on the following drugs: 

drugs in general (37.2%), crack (25.3%), heroin (11.1%), inhalants (10.1%), 

marijuana (9.0%), and methamphetamine (7.4%). Paid advertisements directed at 

youth included Drowning, Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. 911, Alex 

Straight A 's, Free Ride, and Frying Pan were the paid ads directed at teens, and 

Deal, Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose were the paid ads directed 

at parents. PSA ads included LayIa and Rite of Passage for teens, and Burbs for 

parents. 

Exhibit 5-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads in Milwaukee/Nashville 

Campaign Survey Data 

Paid ads Drowning 

Girlfriend 

Long Way Home 

Noses 

Paid ads 911 

Alex Straight A's 

Free Ride 

Frying Pan 

PSAs Layla 

Rite of Passa,q e .. 

Paid ads Deal 

Girl Interview 

O'Connor 

Under Your Nose 

PSAs Bu~s 

Milwaukee 

(Target) 

Baseline I Followup % 

% / % Difference 

....... ~ .......... o ,~,,,.. ~....~.... ....................... .. J .............~..,,~ ............ ~....I 

30 44 14" 

34 61 27* 

37 59 22* 

48 59 11 

11 27 16" 

10 13 3 

7 10 3 

33 53 20* 

6 7 1 

7 6 -1 

15 22 7** 

1 12 11" 

18 21 3 

5 13 8* 

13 20 7** 

Nashville 

(Comparison) 

Baseline Followup % 

% t % I Difference 

25 29 4 

29 32 3 

62 52 - 10"* 

35 40 5 

6 9 3 

7 6 -1 

5 6 1 

18 15 -3 

10 11 1 

8 7 -1 

24 27 3 

2 4 2 

16 23 7 

9 7 -2 

16 15 -1 

Overall % 

Difference 

10 

24* 

32* 

6 

13" 

4 

2 

23* 

0 

0 

4 

9* 

-4 

10" 

Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level. 

Note: Additional paid ads aired via cable and Channel One. 

5.7.2 Survey Findings 

• Survey data indicate a statistically significant increase in the percentage of 

youth in: Milwaukee that report seeing or hearing anti-drug messages on TV. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in youth that reported 

"often" seeing three of the four paid Campaign ads targeted Milwaukee 

youth--Long Way Home, Girlfriend, and Drowning. The percentage increase 

in awareness of the third ad, Drowning, was statistically significant within-site 

from baseline to followup. 

Survey data indicate statistically significant increases in the percentage of 

Milwaukee teens that reported "often" seeing two of the four ads directed at 

teens, Frying Pan and 911 compared to Nashville teens. The percent of 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-47 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.7.2.1 

Milwaukee youth that recalled the two other ads directed at teens--Alex 

Straight A's and Free Ride increased from baseline to intervention but not to 

a statistieally significant degree. 

Survey data show a statistically significant increase in the percent of parents 

in Milwaukee that reported seeing or hearing commercials or ads On TV about 

the risks of drugs "almost every day or more often". 

Survey data indicate statistically significant increases in awareness of three of 

the four paid Campaign ads directed toward parents-- Deal Girl Interview, 

and Under Your Nose. 

The data presented in this section focus on findings reported by youth, teens, and 

parents surveyed in the Milwaukee target community as well as in the Nashville 

comparison community. The findings presented below focus on statistically 

significant differences between the two communities. Data from media 

monitoring and data collected in focus groups and community respondent 

interviews are presented to support reliable interpretation of the survey data. 

Youth 

The paid Campaign ads included in the survey instrument targeted at Milwaukee 

youth were Drowning, Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. Over the course 

of the intervention, youth in Milwaukee became increasingly aware of particular 

anti-drug ads. In fact, survey data indicate a statistically significant increase in the 

percentage of youth in Milwaukee that reported seeing or hearing anti-drug 

messages on TV (from 85 % at baseline to 91% at followup). Likewise, Exhibit 

5-7 shows that there were statistically significant increases in youth awareness of 

three of the four paid Campaign ads targeted Milwaukee youth--Long Way 

Home, Girlfriend, and Drowning. The percent difference between the target site 

youth in Milwaukee and the comparison site youth in Nashville was statistically 

significant for two of the three paid ads, Long Way Home and Girlfriend. The 

percent increase of the third ad, Drowning, was statistically significant within-site 

from baseline to followup. 

Media monitoring data support survey findings and suggest that the average 

number of times anti-drug ads air and the times of day during which they air 

correspond to increases in youth recall of the ads. For instance, Milwaukee youth 

recall of Long Way Home increased by 22 percent from baseline to followup from 

37 percent to 59 percent, while decreasing among comparison site youth in 

Nashville from 62 percent to 52 percent. Over the same period, the average 

number of times that Long Way Home aired in the target site as both a paid ad and 

as a PSA increased from 0 to 12.2 a month (or 3 times a week). The media buy 

estimates the ad was purchased to air 31 times during prime viewing hours for 

youth. By contrast, youth recall actually decreased by 10 percent in Nashville due 

to the fact that nearly half of the times Long Way Home aired as a PSA was 

during the late fringe viewing period (11:30 p.m. - 5:59 a.m.) when youth were 

least likely be watching TV. 

5-48 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Milwaukee 

Similarly, as a PSA Girlfriend aired in the target site during the baseline period 

nearly eight times a month (or twice a week), but only 34 percent of youth 

recalled the ad. During the Campaign intervention, the number of times Girlfriend 

aired doubled to 16 times a month or 4 times a week as a paid ad and as a PSA. 

The ad was purchased to air 36 times for 184 GRPs indicating the ad aired during 

hours when youth were most likely to be watching TV (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 

7:59 p.m.; prime time 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; and weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 

5:00 p.m.). In turn, 27 percent more youth in Milwaukee recalled the paid ad 

,~ Girlfriend at followup. As exhibit 5-7 shows, the percentage of target site youth 

recalling the ad increased from 34 percent to 61 percent, while rising only slightly 

in Nashville from 29 percent to 32 percent. 

Survey findings show that Milwaukee youth recall of Drowning increased withinsite by a statistically significant degree from 30 percent at baseline to 44 percent 

at followup, while increasing only slightly in the comparison site (from 25 % to 

29 %). Media monitoring data provide some explanation of these findings. The 

average number of times that Drowning aired increased from 2 times a month as a 

PSA in the baseline period to nearly 5 times a month as a paid Campaign ad 

during the intervention period. Furthermore, about 42 percent of the time 

Drowning aired during hours when youth were most likely watching TV as 

indicated by the media buy data which estimates the ad aired 31 times as a paid ad 

and achieved 185 GRPs. Media monitoring data do not show that Drowning aired 

in either the baseline or intervention period in Nashville. 

In the intervention period, survey data show that Milwaukee youth recall of the 

fourth paid ad, Noses, increased from 48 percent to 59 percent in Milwaukee, 

while only increasing from 35 percent to 40 percent in Nashville. Media 

monitoring data provide some explanation of why this increase does not reflect a 

statistically significant increase within-site or across sites. Noses aired fewer 

times on average than other Campaign ads targeting Milwaukee youth, airing less 

than 4 times a month. According to the media buying plan, the ad was only 

scheduled to air 17 times but all during prime viewing times as the ad achieved 

177 GRPs. Nearly 53 percent of the time Noses aired during hours when youth 

were most likely to be watching TV. 

5.7.2.2 Teens 

Five paid Campaign ads were directed toward Milwaukee teens--911, Alex 

Straight A ' s, Free Ride, Frying Pan, and Layla. Rite of Passage was one of the 

PSAs also directed toward Milwaukee teens. Although scheduled as a paid ad, the 

estimated delivery from the media buy indicates Layla did not air as a paid ad, 

and therefore it is listed as a PSA. Survey data in Exhibit 5-7 show that a greater 

percentage of Milwaukee teens from baseline to followup recalled the paid 

Campaign ads targeted toward them. In fact, survey data indicate statistically 

significant increases in the percentage of Milwaukee teens that reported seeing 

two of the four ads directed at teens, Frying Pan and 911 compared to Nashville 

teens. The percentage of Milwaukee teens that recalled seeing Frying Pan 

increased from 33 percent to 53 percent, while Nashville teen recall decreased 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-49 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

from 18 percent to 15 percent. Similarly, the percentage of Milwaukee teens that 

saw 911 increased from 11 percent to 27 percent. By comparison, Nashville teen 

recall of 911 increased only slightly from 6 percent to only 9 percent. 

Media monitoring and media buying data support survey findings. Indeed, 

monitoring data show that Frying Pan and 911 did not air in the baseline period in 

either Milwaukee or Nashville. However, Frying Pan aired on average 12.4 times 

a month (or 3.1 times a week) and 911 aired on average 8.2 times a month (or 2 

times a week) during the intervention period in Milwaukee. Moreover, 

approximately 50 percent of the time Frying Pan and 911 aired during hours 

when Milwaukee teens most likely were watching TV (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 

7:59 p.m.; prime time 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; and weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 

5:00 p.m.). 

The percentage of Milwaukee teens that recalled the two other ads directed at 

teens~Alex Straight A's and Free Ride--increased from baseline to intervention 

but not to a statistically significant degree. Media monitoring data show that Alex 

Straight A's aired 9.2 times per month (or 2.3 times per week) in Milwaukee 

during intervention. However, only 24 percent of the time did the ad air during 

prime viewing hours for teens. This is supported by the media buy data which 

indicate the ad aired 46 times but only achieved GRPs of 267, a much lower reach 

than was achieved by Frying Pan, which aired 40 times but achieved GRPs of 

354. In addition, monitoring data show that Free Ride aired fewer times than Alex 

Straight A's or Frying Pan and achieved a lower reach than any other paid 

Campaign ad directed at Milwaukee teens during the intervention. Still, awareness 

of the ad increased slightly due to the fact that Free Ride aired 41.2 percent of the 

time during prime viewing hours. Lastly, as expected, survey findings indicate 

that teen awareness of the two PSAs directedtoward teens remained low and 

unchanged. 

5.7.2.3 Parents 

Four paid Campaign ads were directed toward parents in MilwaukeemDeal, Girl 

Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose. In addition, Burbs was a PSA 

directed toward parents. Survey data suggest that the Media Campaign had a 

significant impact on Milwaukee parents. For example, the data show a 

statistically significant increase in the percentage of parents in Milwaukee that 

reported seeing or hearing commercials or ads on TV "almost every day or more 

often" about the risks of drugs (increase from 22% at baseline to 32 % at 

followup). More specifically, survey data indicate statistically significant 

increases in awareness of three of the four paid Campaign ads directed toward 

parentsmUnder Your Nose, Girl Interview, and Deal. Compared to Nashville 

parents, a statistically significant percentage of Milwaukee parents from baseline 

to followup reported seeing the paid ads Under Your Nose and Girl Interview. 

Moreover, from baseline to followup a statistically significant percent of 

Milwaukee parents reported seeing the paid ad Deal. 

Media monitoring data support survey findings, suggesting that the times of day 

during which the ads aired contributed to increases in awareness of the ads. For 

5-50 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Milwaukee 

example, parent awareness of the paid Campaign ad Under Your Nose increased 

to a statistically significant degree despite the fact that the ad aired fewer times 

than any of the other paid Campaign ads directed toward parents (only 2.6 times a 

month). Media monitoring data show, however, that nearly 70 percent of the time 

Under Your Nose aired during prime viewing hours (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 

7:59 p.m.; prime time 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; and weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 

5:00 p.m.). Similarly, monitoring data explain the statistically significant increase 

in Milwaukee parent awareness of Deal. In addition to airing 12.2 times a month 

(or more than 3 times a week), Deal aired more than 60 percent of the time during 

prime viewing hours. In contrast, the media buy indicates Girl Interview only 

aired once as a paid ad, O'Connor three times, Under Your Nose seven times, and 

Deal eight times. It is possible that these ads aired with much greater frequency as 

PSAs as part of the pro bono match component, which is included in the media 

monitoring but not media buy data. 

Exhibit 5-7 shows that a lower percentage of Milwaukee parents at baseline 

recalled seeing Girl Interview "often" than any of the other ads included in the 

survey. However, at followup awareness increased to a statistically significant 

cross-site level, by 11 percent. By contrast, survey data show that Milwaukee 

parents were most familiar with the ad O'Connor at baseline. However, after 

Phase I of the intervention parent awareness increased slightly (from 18% to 

21%). Media monitoring suggest that this may be due to the fact that nearly 30 

percent of the time O'Connor aired during the late fringe viewing period 

(11:30 p.m.- 5:59 a.m.). 

Survey data indicate that from baseline to followup a statistically significant 

percentage of Milwaukee parents reported "often" seeing Burbs, which aired only 

as a PSA (increasing from 13% to 20%). Media monitoring data provide support 

for the increased awareness of the PSA. Not only did the average number of times 

the ad aired increase from 5 per month to 11.5 per month (or 2.9 per week), but 

also 40 percent of the time the ad aired during prime viewing hours. 

Non-center city Milwaukee focus group parents reported they had seen more antidrug ads during the intervention period and thought the ads were well done. One 

of these parents referred to Girl Interview, and stated that it helped her "realize 

the need to talk to children before they start using." Key community informants 

also identified Girl Interview as effective because it gave parents a message about 

the importance of talking to their children about the dangers of drugs. Some of 

these informants believed that anti-drug ads directed to parents served to change 

the timing of parental dialogue with youth, in that the dialogue took place sooner 

rather than later and helped parents to be more observant of their children. 

Similarly, some adult mentors believed that ads urging parents to talk with their 

children about drugs could be effective. In fact, one stated that these types of ads 

inspire mentors who find themselves "somewhere between a friend and a parent." 

Thus, they have the opportunity to successfully relate to youth. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-51 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.7.3 Community Iml~act 

• The Milwaukee community was very supportive of the Phase I Media Campaign, 

and a number of community organizations planned activities to complement or 

support it. For example, the Milwaukee Council on Alcoholism and Drug 

Dependence (MCADD) Substance Abuse Network formed a Media Task Force in 

response to the Bill Moyers series (aired in March) and the Media Campaign. By 

June 1998 the Task Force decided it would work on maximizing the impact of the 

Media Campaign. 

MCADD was involved in the following activities: 

• Coordinating with community prevention agencies (e.g., schools and 

churches) to use anti-drug ads; 

• Using their local Helpline number in newspaper anti-drug ads; 

• Showing and discussing the ads with youth focus groups; 

• Planning to expand the impact of the Media Campaign into the Drug-Free 

Workplace Network (a component of MCADD); and 

• Emphasizing mentoring programs with the Volunteer Center and Interfaith 

Conference. 

There is some preliminary evidence of an increase in calls to MCADD's local 

Helpline number after they incorporated the number• in the ONDCP Media 

Campaign newspaper ads. It is not certain whether the focus of all calls, placed 

from March 1998 through April 1998, was on alcohol and other drug issues. 

However, the number of Helpline calls for which the callers said they saw the 

local telephone number in newspaper ads increased during this period. In 

addition, a community informant representing a substance abuse prevention 

agency reported that the anti-drug ads on mentoring had resulted in increased 

phone calls from areas outside of the Milwaukee area (e.g., Green Bay and 

Madison). Callers asked how to set up mentoring programs. 

Outreach and prevention efforts by other community-based organizations 

included the Wisconsin Elk's Drug Awareness Committee's dissemination of 

ONDCP's anti-drug ads in February 1998 to State news media (TV and radio) in 

35 communities where their lodges were located. In return the Elks asked the 

media to report the response to the ads and amount of airtime given them. In 

addition, a youth-serving agency strategically timed its events (e.g., training of 

youth workers) to coincide with ONDCP's Media Campaign. 

In another supportive effort, a representative of the Drug-Free Workplace 

Network helped organize a component of ONDCP Director Barry McCaffrey's 

visit to Milwaukee in May 1998. That visit included a large breakfast with 

members of the Network, a visit to a local business, and discussions pertaining to 

drug-free workplace issues such as workers' compensation. 

5-52 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Milwaukee 

5.7.4 Summary of Findings 

Survey findings suggest that the Media Campaign had a positive impact on 

Milwaukee youth, teens, and parents. For example, the data indicate a statistically 

significant increase in the percentage of youth in Milwaukee that reported seeing 

or hearing anti-drug messages on TV (from 85 % at baseline to 91% at followup). 

More specifically, data show statistically significant increases in youth awareness 

of three of the four paid Campaign ads targeted at Milwaukee youth Long Way 

Home, Girlfriend, and Drowning. In addition, the percentage increase of the third 

ad, Drowning, was statistically significant within-site from baseline to followup. 

Furthermore, survey data indicate statistically significant increases in the 

percentage of Milwaukee teens that reported seeing two of the four ads directed at 

teens, Frying Pan and 911 compared to Nashville teens. Moreover, the percentage 

of Milwaukee youth that recalled the two other ads directed at teens--Alex 

Straight A's and Free Ride--increased from baseline to ' intervention but not to a 

statistically significant degree. Survey data also show a statistically significant 

increase in the percentage of parents in Milwaukee that reported seeing or hearing 

commercials or ads on TV "almost every day or more often" about the risks of 

drugs (increase from 22 % at baseline to 32 % at followup). Moreover, survey 

data indicate statistically significant increases in awareness of three of the four 

paid Campaign ads directed toward parents--Under Your Nose, Girl Interview, 

and Deal. 

Focus group discussions with Milwaukee teens and parents confirmed their 

awareness of some of the ads identified in the survey. Parents and mentors 

believed that ads targeted to them heightened their awareness of the need to 

communicate with young people about drugs. Finally, the Media Campaign had a 

direct impact on the Milwaukee community through the creation of a Media Task 

Force as well as the conduct of a variety of community-based anti-drug outreach. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-53 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.8 PORTLAND 

Portland is located in northwest Oregon at the confluence of the Willamette and 

Columbia Rivers. It is the largest city in Oregon, and its metropolitan statistical 

area (MSA) includes surrounding Multnomah County and neighboring Columbia, 

Washington, Yamhill, and Clackamas Counties, as well as the City of Vancouver 

and Clark County, Washington, across the Columbia River. The total population 

of the Portland metropolitan area is approximately 1.5 million, of which 

91 percent is white, 3 percent Hispanic, 3 percent Asian/Pacific Islander, 

2 percent African American, and 1 percent Native American. The metropolitan 

area is relatively well integrated with regard to race, ethnicity, and income, with 

no large concentration of low-income populations in the center city. In fact, much 

of the MSA is rural, spreading into the foothills of the Cascade Range to the east, 

across the Willamette Valley, and into the Coastal Range to the west. The MSA 

unemployment rate is 5.4 percent, and the crime rate is 726 per 100,000 residents 

per year. The percentage of the population between the ages of 5 and 17 is 18.4; 

12.4 percent of children under 18 live below the poverty level. 

The legal status of the use of marijuana in Oregon has been under debate 

throughout the course of this evaluation. Possession of less than one ounce of 

marijuana by an adult has been decriminalized for some time, and five initiatives 

for legalization were on the November 1998 ballot. The common perception is 

that large quantities of marijuana are grown in the extensive remote areas of the 

State and that heavy trafficking occurs between the north and south borders along 

Interstate 5. (Interstate 5 runs from Mexico through the length of California into 

Oregon, through the middle of Portland, and north through Seattle to Canada.) 

Key informants in the Portland area unanimously agreed that alcohol use is the 

most serious problem among young people, with marijuana use being a close 

second. A recent survey of schools in the MSA shows that the drug problem does 

not differ by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or urban/rural residence. The 

1996 Portland Public School Survey shows that since 1990, past-month use of 

marijuana has tripled among 8th graders and increased 68 percent among 1 lth 

graders. 

5.8.1 Intervention 

The ONDCP Director kicked off Phase I of the Media Campaign in Portland on 

January 22, 1998. Phase I used existing ads available through the Partnership for a 

Drug-Free America (PDFA), including television and radio spots, newspaper ads, 

and billboards. A comprehensive listing of all Phase I advertisements is presented 

in Appendix A. Portland received several paid television Campaign ads and 

PSAs. Youth, teens, and parents were surveyed about their awareness on a subset 

of these ads. Exhibit 5-8 presents those paid Campaign ads and PSAs for Portland 

that were included in the survey instruments. 

The subset of paid Campaign ads for Portland focused on the following drugs: 

drugs in general (55.7%), heroin (18.5%), and marijuana (25.8%).The paid 

5-54 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Portland 

advertisements directed at youth included Drowning and Long Way Home. Alex 

Straight A's, Everclear, Frying Pan, Lauryn Hill and Sublime were the paid ads 

directed at teens, and Burbs, Girl Interview, and O'Connor were the paid ads 

directed at parents. These ads collectively were shown an average of 162.2 times 

a month in Portland during Phase 1. 

Exhibit 5-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads in Portland/Eugene' 

Campaign Survey Data 

Paid ads Drowning 

Long Way Home 

PSAs Girlfriend 

Noses 

Paid ads Alex Straight A's 

Frying Pan 

Everciear 

Lauryn Hill 

Sublime 

PSAs 911 

Paid ads Burbs 

Girl interview 

0 'Conner 

PSAs Deal 

Under Your Nose 

Portland 

(Target) 

Baseline I Followup % 

% / % I Difference 

27 31 4 

40 65 25* 

20 28 8* 

33 35 2 

Eugene/Spokane 

(Comparison) 

Baseline Followup I % 

% % | Difference 

24 25 1 

34 37 3 

26 20 -6* 

30 33 3 

9 20 11" 

30 34 4 

10 26 16" 

7 15 8* 

12 27 15" 

5 5 0 

6 5 -1 

9 21 12 

NA NA NA 

NA NA NA 

NA NA NA 

5 5 0 

~~:~~~~I: ~ ' ~ "~ '~ i~'~ ~t.~l. "~ ~!~ ~. ~1 "" ~ 

13 26 13" 

5 13 8* 

10 20 10" 

15 15 0 

1 9 8* 

13 14 1 

5 2 -3 

18 17 -1 

10 14 4 

4 4 0 

Overall % 

Difference 

iliiii~iii!!iiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiliiiliiiiii!!iiiiiil 

3 

22* 

14" 

-1 

12" 

-8 

NA 

NA 

NA 

0 

12" 

11" 

11" 

-4 

8* 

Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level. 

~Eugene replaces the comparison site of Spokane for youth and teen data; Spokane serves as the comparison site for parents because 

parent surveys were completed in that site (see Chapter 2). 

Note: A) Portland was the only site where Everciear, Lauryn Hill, and Sublime were aired as paid ads during the intervention; 

Portland teens were the only students surveyed about these ads, so only the change within the target site is reported. 

B) The questions pertaining to Everclear, Lauryn Hill, and Sublime replaced recognition questions for Portland teens on Free 

Ride, L.ayia, and Rite of Passage. 

C) Additional paid ads aired via cable and Channel One. 

5.8.2 Survey Findings 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percentage of 

Portland youth that reported "often" seeing one of the two paid Campaign ads 

directed at youth--Long Way Home----compared to Eugene youth from 

baseline to followup. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percentage of 

Portland teens that reported "often" seeing one of the paid Campaign ads-- 

Alex Straight A's---compared to Eugene teens from baseline to followup. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in teen awareness of all 

three paid Campaign ads only shown in Portland--Everclear, Lauryn Hill, 

and Sublime--from baseline to followup. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-55 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.8.2.1 

From baseline to followup, survey data show statistically significant increases 

in Portland parents' awareness of three of the four paid Campaign ads-- 

Burbs, Girl Interview, and O'Connor--compared to parents in Spokane. 

The comparison site for Portland was Spokane, Washington, where telephone 

surveys were conducted with a sample of parents. Due to a shortage of available 

schools in Spokane at which to conduct the youth and teen surveys, a substitution 

for those surveys was made, Eugene, Oregon, as the comparison site for those two 

groups. Both Spokane and Eugene are comparable to Portland in demographic 

and community characteristics. 

Surveys were administered to youth, teens, and parents before and near the end of 

the Phase I Media Campaign in Portland and in the two comparison sites. This 

section compares survey results from Portland and Eugene for youth and teens 

and from Portland and Spokane for parents. The comparison focuses on 

differences between communities that are statistically significant. Data from 

media monitoring and parent focus groups in Spokane and Portland are presented 

to support reliable interpretation of the parent survey data. Because media 

monitoring data are not available for Eugene, information to help explain survey 

results for youth and teens is limited to focus group data. 

Portland teens were asked how often they had seen five paid Campaign adsmAlex 

Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, Everclear, Lauryn Hill, and Sublime. Of these five ads, 

the last three--Everclear, Lauryn Hill, and Sublime--were described on a special 

survey administered only in Portland; thus, responses for those ads are not 

available from Eugene for comparison. 

Survey findings in Portland and Eugene may have been affected by two other 

media efforts. First, a Statewide anti-tobacco campaign also was underway, which 

included TV and radio spots along with ads on billboards and buses. Second, 

PDFA ads have been distributed to media organizations throughout the State since 

1996 by Portland's Regional Drug Initiative (RDI), the State affiliate with PDFA 

for the Partnership for a Drug-Free Oregon. Thus, youth and teens in Portland and 

Eugene were being exposed to anti-tobacco advertising at the same time they 

were exposed to anti-drug advertising, and they may well have seen some of the 

anti-drug ads prior to the Media Campaign. 

Youth 

Media monitoring data are only available for the target site Portland. Although no 

comparisons can be made to Eugene, media monitoring may still provide valuable 

insight on changes in awareness within the target site. Survey data indicate that 

increased recognition of two Campaign ads (Long Way Home which aired as a 

paid ad and Girlfriend which aired as a PSA) by youth in Portland was 

statistically significant when compared with the change in recognition of the same 

two ads by youth in Eugene. From baseline to followup, changes in youth 

recognition of the ads in Portland and Eugene are as follows: Girlfriend (Portland: 

20% to 28%; Eugene: 26% to 20%) and Long Way Home (Portland: 40% to 65%; 

Eugene 34% to 37%). 

5-56 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Portland 

Media monitoring and media buy data help explain the statistically significant 

increase in youth recognition of the ad Long Way Home. In Portland, Long Way 

Home was shown an average of less than once a month at baseline but increased 

substantially to 14.8 during the intervention. The ad was scheduled to air 44 times 

and to achieve 232 GRPs. Although Girlfriend was not scheduled as a purchased 

ad, it may have aired frequently as a PSA under the pro bono match component,. 

contributing to increases in awareness. Furthermore, Long Way Home aired nine 

times more often during hours when youth were most likely to be watching 

television (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 

p.m.; weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.) during the intervention period than 

in the baseline period. 

Responses to the second survey question also suggest that television anti-drug ads 

had an effect on Portland youth. The survey asked youth how dangerous they 

think several drugs are. The increase in the percentage of youth in Portland that 

responded heroin is "very dangerous" was statistically significant (59% at 

baseline to 72% at followup in Portland, compared with a decrease from 62% to 

60% in Eugene). Although none of the ads about which youth were asked in the 

survey dealt specifically with heroin, media monitoring data show that two antiheroin ads targeted at teens--Frying Pan and Sublime--aired in Portland an 

average total of 30 times per month or once a day during the intervention. Frying 

Pan aired 87 times with GRPs totaling 431. In addition, participants in Portland 

focus groups reported seeing two other anti-heroin ads that were part of the Media 

Campaign but were not included in the evaluation surveysnJohnny Street and 

Teeth. Therefore, youth may have been exposed to a number of anti-heroin ads 

during the Campaign, which would have increased their awareness of the danger 

of using heroin. 

5.8.2.2 Teens 

Survey data indicate increased awareness of anti-drug ads on television among 

teens in Portland. Survey data also show statistically significant differences in 

awareness of the ad Alex Straight A's between target site teens in Portland and the 

comparison site teens in Eugene when teens were asked if they had seen the ads 

"often". The percentage of Portland teens that reported seeing Alex Straight A's 

"often" increased from 9 percent at baseline to 20 percent at followup compared 

with a slight decrease among Eugene teens from 6 percent to 5 percent. The three 

ads shown only in PortlandnEverclear, Lauryn Hill, and Sublime--all showed 

statistically significant increases within site. The change in "often" responses for 

Sublime increased from 12 percent to 27 percent; for Everclear, 10 percent to 

26 percent; and for Lauryn Hill, 7 percent to 15 percent. 

Media monitoring data indicate why four of the paid Campaign ads directed at 

Portland teens showed significant changes in awareness. None of the four ads was 

detected by media monitoring during the baseline period. During the Media 

Campaign, Alex Straight A's ai~d a monthly average of 14.2 times, Everclear 

aired 26.4 times, Lauryn Hill aired 22.4 times, and Sublime aired 20.6 times. The 

ads Everclear, Sublime, and Lauryn Hill aired 254 times and achieved more than 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-57 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

1,100 total GRPs. The four ads combined were shown a total of 83.6 times per 

month or nearly3 times per day. Moreover, 37.6 percent of the four ads aired 

during hours when teens were most likely to be watching television (prime access: 

7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; weekend daytime: 6:00 

a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). 

Teen recognition of the remaining paid Campaign ad--Frying Pan---did not 

increase by a statistically significant degree across sites. However, survey data 

indicate a markedly high awareness among teens in Portland that reported seeing 

the ad "often" or "a few times" at baseline (71%). With almost three-quarters of 

Portland teens exposed to the ad prior to the Media Campaign, it is not surprising 

that the increase in awareness at followup was not statistically significant. 

Moreover, high baseline awareness of the ad Frying Pan can be attributed to the 

fact that the majority of Portland teen baseline surveys were administered after the 

Media Campaign had begun. 

5.8.2.3 Parents 

Parents were asked how often they had seen ads about the risks of drugs. The 

percentage of parents responding "almost every day or more often" was similar in 

the two sites at baseline--24 percent in Portland and 23 percent in Spokane. At 

followup, however, the percentage increased to 41 in Portland, and remained 

unchanged in Spokane (23%). 

Media monitoring data reflect the increase in awareness. The data show that three 

of the four paid ads targeted at parents in Portland-- Deal, Girl Interview, and 

O'Connor--were shown in both sites both prior to and during the period of the 

Media Campaign. The three ads together were shown a monthly average of 36.6 

times during the intervention in Portland, which is more than eight times the 

monthly average for the baseline period (4.4). By contrast, in Spokane, broadcasts 

of the three ads remained consistently low--from 2.6 at baseline to 3.6 during 

intervention. Clearly, parents in Portland were exposed to more ads during the 

Media Campaign. Indeed, if they watched television with their children, they 

could have seen as many as 6 anti-drug ads per day. 

Survey data show statistically significant differences in awareness of two of the 

three paid Campaign ads--Girl Interview and O'Connor--between target site 

parents in Portland and the comparison site parents in Spokane when parents were 

asked if they had seen the ads "often". From baseline to followup, parents who 

responded "often" for O'Connor increased from 10 percent to 20 percent in 

Portland but decreased slightly from 18 percent to 17 percent in Spokane. 

Significant change was also found with respect to Girl Interview. Five percent of 

parents in both sites reported "often" seeing the ad at baseline. At followup, 

however, "often" responses increased to 13 percent in Portland but decreased to 

2 percent in Spokane. Lastly, parent recognition of the ad Under Your Nose, 

which aired as a PSA, increased significantly from 1 percent at baseline to 9 

percent at followup in Portland but remained constant over time at 4 percent in 

Spokane. This may be due in part to the ad airing frequently as a PSA as part of 

the pro bono requirement, 

5-58 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Portland 

Media monitoring and buy data again help explain the changes. The ad O'Connor 

aired an average of 2.7 times per month during the baseline period in Portland and 

increased to 14.4 times per month during the intervention. In Spokane, O'Connor 

was shown 2 times per month during baseline and slightly less frequently (1.6 

times per month) during the intervention period. Girl Interview aired an average 

of 2 times per month during baseline in Portland and then increased to an average 

monthly showing of 13 during the Media Campaign. Media buy data indicate the 

ad was scheduled to air six times as a paid ad during prime viewing times for 

adults. Media monitoring data show that, in Spokane, the ad aired an average of 

1.7 times during baseline and 1.2 times during the intervention. 

Anti-drug advertising had an effect on parents in Portland, as measured by their 

responses to a three-part survey question. Changes in responses for two of the 

parts were statistically significant across sites. Parents were asked how much they 

agreed that ads had made them aware of the risks of drugs. Of parents surveyed in 

Portland, 32 percent "agreed a lot" at baseline increasing to 46 percent at 

followup. In Spokane, the percentage at baseline was 33, but it decreased slightly 

to 31 at followup. Parents also were asked how much they agreed that the ads had 

given them new information or told them things they didn't know about drugs. In 

Portland, responses of parents who "agreed a lot" rose from 14 percent at baseline 

to 24 percent at followup. In Spokane, "agreed a lot" responses fell from 21 to 

17 percent. 

Focus group data for parents provide additional information on parent awareness 

of ads. During the intermediate and followup site visits, both center city and noncenter city focus group parents commented about the value of the anti-drug ads in 

"breaking the ice" for starting discussions with their children about drugs and 

drug use. It was also noted during focus groups that the ads provide an 

opportunity for children to ask their parents about drugs. 

5.8.3 Community Impact • 

The Media Campaign also had an effect on the Portland community as a whole. 

The local coordinator of the Media Campaign, RDI, reported a larger-thananticipated number of requests for information in response to various-ads. 

Especially popular were the grandparent ads in the newspaper. RDI sent out 

information to youth, teens, parents, and grandparents in Portland and the 

surrounding area. In addition, a private business requested permission to use 

newspaper ads from the Media Campaign in its company newspaper. RDI 

sponsored a press conference in April to address the five proposed measures 

concerning marijuana legalization. Participants cited the Media Campaign as an 

important and exemplary message to counteract these proposals. Local teens 

participated in the press conference, citing media messages they believed are 

effective with their peers. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-59 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.8.4 Summary of Findings 

Survey data show that awareness of anti-drug messages on television increased 

over the course of the Media Campaign among all three age groups surveyed in 

Portland. Increases in recognition were statistically significant across sites for two 

paid Campaign ads described in the youth survey (Girlfriend and Long Way 

Home). Additionally, the increase in recognition was statistically significant 

across sites for one paid Campaign ad targeted at teens (Alex Straight A's), and 

the three ads targeted only at Portland teens (Everclear, Lauryn Hill, and 

Sublime). All of these ads showed statistically significant increases within site. 

Finally, awareness of three paid Campaign ads targeted at Portland parents--Girl 

Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose--showed a statistically significant 

increase from baseline to followup. 

A number of other indicators suggest that Media Campaign ads had an effect on 

parents. Increases between the target and comparison sites are statistically 

significant for responses to two additional questions: Portland parents reported 

both an increase in the frequency with which they had seen ads describing the 

risks of drugs, and an increased awareness in the effect the ads had on them. 

The Media Campaign also had an impact on the Portland community. RDI, the 

local coordinator, received a large number of requests for additional information 

about drugs. At a press conference in April, RDI used the message of the Media 

Campaign to counteract arguments for legalization of marijuana in Oregon. 

Assessment. 

5-60 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: San Diego 

5.9 SAN DIEGO 

San Diego is located in the southern tip of California and is just across the border 

from Tijuana, Mexico. It has a population of approximately 2.5 million and a 

crime rateof 794 per 100,000 residents per year. The San Diego metropolitan area 

is 90 percent urban, and the racial/ethnic breakdown is 75 percent white, 

19 percent Hispanic, and 6 percent African American. San Diego has the largest 

concentration of U.S. Navy bases on the West Coast, employing thousands of 

young men and women; the unemployment rate for the city is 6.1 percent. About 

16 percent of the population is between ages 5 and 17, and 16.2 percent of all 

children in San Diego under the age of 18 are living below the poverty level. The 

city has both a large student population and a laid-back "beach culture," which 

makes it a popular vacation destination. 

San Diego's proximity to the Mexican border creates two special problems 

regarding teen drug use. In Mexico, it is easy to obtain illegal drugs in small 

quantities at relatively low cost, and the underage drinking culture there lures 

American teens across the border. On weekend evenings, thousands of teens cross 

the border to attend clubs and other outlets that cater to young people. The legal 

drinking age in Mexico is 18, but under-age drinking laws reportedly are not 

strictly enforced, which has resulted in an increased number of injuries and 

fatalities from automobile accidents. San Diego has been designated a High 

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) and is working to stem the flow of 

narcotics across the border from Mexico. 

San Diego has several serious drug problems. Marijuana is readily available and is 

the preferred drug among teens. San Diego is among the leaders in the country in 

the production and consumption of methamphetamine. Drug Use Forecasting 

(DUF) data indicate that after a slight drop in the number of arrestees testing 

positive for methamphetamine in 1995, use rose again in 1996, particularly among 

women and juveniles. Drug experimentation and use are not unique to high-risk 

neighborhoods but are found in neighborhoods across the socioeconomic spectrum 

in San Diego. 

5.9.1 Intervention 

Representatives of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) kicked 

off Phase I of the Media Campaign in San Diego on January 9, 1998. Phase I used 

existing ads available through the Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA), 

including television and radio spots, newspaper ads, and billboards. A 

comprehensive listing of all Phase I advertisements is presented in Appendix A. 

San Diego received several paid TV ads and PSAs. Youth, teens, and parents 

were surveyed about their awareness of a subset of these ads. Exhibit 5-9 presents 

those paid ads and PSAs for San Diego that were included in the survey 

instruments. 

The subset of paid campaign ads for San Diego focused on the following drugs: 

drugs in general (42.1%), inhalants (16.9%), methamphetamine (12.0%), 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-61 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

marijuana (10.9%), heroin (10.9%), and crack (7.1%). Paid advertisements 

directed at youth included Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. 911, Alex 

Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, and Rite of Passage were the paid ads directed at teens. 

Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose were the paid ads directed at 

parents. PSA ads included Drowning for youth, Free Ride and Layla for teens, 

and Burbs and Deal for parents. 

Exhibit 5-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads in San Diego/Phoenix 

Campaign Survey Data 

Paid ads Girlfriend 

Long Way Home 

Noses 

PSAs Drowning! 

i i~::~i '" i"" :i; " :~:: ' ~:~i~i~i~:i:;:~!:~ ~:ii~!~::~::~:~i~ i:: ~:: "~~i:i:i:!:~ ~::~:~ :::: ::~ i~i 

Paid ads 911 

Alex Straight A's 

Frying Pan 

Rite of Passage 

PSAs Free Ride 

La)/la 

Paid ads Girl Interview 

O'Connor 

Under Your Nose 

PSAs Burbs 

Deal 

San Diego 

(Target) 

Baseline I Followup I % 

% % Difference 

21 54 33* 

38 62 24* 

47 61 14" 

31 35 4 

9 34 25* 

6 14 8* 

13 43 30* 

7 20 13" 

4 7 3 

10 9 -1 

2 11 9* 

13 17 4 

5 13 8* 

13 19 6 

14 16 2 

Phoenix 

(Comparison) 

Baseline I F°ll°wup I % 

% % Difference 

29 28 -1 

35 40 5 

39 42 3 

38 35 -3 

8 14 6* 

5 7 2 

18 21 3 

5 12 7* 

8 12 4 

8 13 5 

3 3 0 

17 14 -3 

3 7 4** 

16 13 -3 

13 18 5 

Overall % 

Difference 

34" 

19" 

11"* 

7 

19" 

6"* 

27* 

6 

-1 

-6 

~i!iiiiii;ii~i~i;;iii;ii;iii~ii;ii 

9* 

7 

4 

9 

-3 

* Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level. 

Note: Additional paid ads aired via cable and Channel One. 

5.9.2 Survey Findings 

Survey data indicate statistically significant increases in the percentage of 

target site youth that reported learning from TV commercials that drugs are 

bad for them. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases from baseline to followup 

in the percentage of San Diego youth that reported "often" seeing all three 

paid Campaign ads directed at youth--Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and 

Noses. 

From baseline to followup, a significantly greater percentage of teens in 

San Diego, compared to teens in Phoenix, reported that they learned "a lot" 

about the risks of drug use from anti-drug ads on TV. 

• From baseline to followup, a significantly greater percentage of teens in 

San Diego, compared to teens in Phoenix, reported "often" seeing three of the 

5-62 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: San Diego 

four paid Campaign ads directed at teens--911, Alex Straight A 's, and Frying 

Pan. 

Survey data show a statistically significant increase in the percentage of 

parents that reported seeing or hearing TV commercials "almost every day or 

more often" that educated them about the risks of drugs. 

From baseline to followup, survey data show that a statistically greater 

percentage of San Diego parents recalled two of the paid ads directed toward 

them--Girl Interview and Under Your Nose. 

This section focuses on survey findings of youth, teens, and parents in both the 

San Diego target community and the Phoenix comparison community. Media 

monitoring, media buy data, and focus group and community respondent 

interview data also are presented to support reliable interpretation of the survey 

data. 

5.9.2.1 Youth 

Three paid Campaign ads included in the survey were directed at San Diego 

youth---Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. Survey data show that youth in 

San Diego were positively affected by the paid Media Campaign. In fact, survey 

data indicate statistically significant increases in the percentage of youth that learn 

from TV commercials that drugs are bad for them (increasing in San Diego from 

51% to 65% and decreasing in Phoenix from 58% to 41%). 

NOt surprisingly, all three paid Campaign ads directed toward San Diego youth-- 

Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses---demonstrated statistically significant 

increases from baseline to followup, compared to awareness over the same period 

in the comparison site, Phoenix. Media monitoring and media buy data suggest 

that the increases in awareness are due to increases in the average number of 

times the paid ads aired in the target sites, and the times of day during which these 

ads aired. 

For example, awareness of the paid Campaign ad, Girlfriend, increased to a 

statistically significant degree (from 21% to 54%) in San Diego, while remaining 

relatively constant in Phoenix (from 29% to 28%). Media monitoring and media 

buy data support these findings. From the baseline to the intervention period the 

average number of times Girlfriend aired in San Diego increased from 0 to 6.4 

times per month (or 1.6 times a week during the intervention). Media buy data 

show that the ad was scheduled to air 35 times for a total of 166 GRPs. Over the 

same time period, Girlfriend did not air in Phoenix. 

In addition, the percentage of San Diego youth that reported seeing Long Way 

Home increased to a statistically significant degree between the target and 

comparison sites (from 38% to 62% in San Diego; and from 35% to 40%) in 

Phoenix. Media monitoring and media buy data support these findings. The 

average number of times that Long Way Home aired increased from 0 to 10.4 

times per month (2.6 times per week), 34.6 percent of which aired during prime 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-63 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

viewing hours for youth (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 

p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; and weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). According to the 

media buy data, the ad aired 47 times as a paid ad and achieved 227 GRPs, 

indicating the ad reached a significant percentage of the target audience. 

By sharp contrast, although the average number of times Long Way Home aired 

during the intervention period increased substantially in Phoenix, the percent of 

Phoenix teens that recalled the ad did not increase to a statistically significant 

degree. Not surprisingly, media monitoring data show that 90 percent of Long 

Way Home ads aired as a PSA during the late fringe period (11:30 p.m. - 5:59 

a.m.) in Phoenix, when youth were unlikely to be watching TV. 

Moreover, the percentage of San Diego youth that recalled "often" seeing Noses 

increased to a statistically significant degree from baseline to followup (from 47% 

to 61%), compared to a smaller increase over the same time period in Phoenix 

(from 39% to 42%). Media monitoring data indicate that the average number of 

times that Noses aired increased from 0 to 10 times per month (2.5 times per 

week), 56 percent of which occurred during prime viewing hours for youth. In 

addition, Noses did not air in the comparison site, Phoenix. 

As expected, the percent of San Diego youth that recalled Drowning, which aired 

as a PSA, did not increase to a statistically significant degree in the target or 

comparison site (increasing from 31% to 35% in San Diego but decreasing from 

38% to 35% in Phoenix). Media buy data indicate that Drowning aired 49 times 

as a paid ad in San Diego and was shown during prime viewing hours for the 

target audience, as indicated by the fact that the ad achieved 271 GRPs. 

Focus group discussions further confirm that, following Phase I of the Media 

Campaign, youth are more aware of the risks and dangers associated with drug 

use. Both center city and non-center city elementary school students in San Diego 

were able to identify the major illegal drugs and spoke about drugs in general as 

dangerous. And center city students said, "It stinks," "It can ruin your life 

forever," "You can get one of your lungs taken out," and "You can die." 

5.9.2.2 Teens 

Survey data suggest that target site teens learned "a lot" about the risks of drugs 

from TV commercials. In fact, from the baseline to the followup period, a 

significantly greater percentage of teens in San Diego (31% at baseline to 51% at 

followup), compared with those in Phoenix (21% to 32%) reported that they 

learned "a lot" about the risks of drug use from TV anti-drug ads. 

The four specific paid ads directed at San Diego teens included 911, Alex Straight 

A 's, Frying Pan, and Rite of Passage. In addition, Free Ride and Layla aired as 

PSAs. San Diego youth awareness of all four ads increased by a statistically 

significant degree. In fact, from baseline to foUowup the percent of teens that 

reported "often" seeing three of the four paid ads directed at teens--911, Alex 

Straight A 's, and Frying Pan--was statistically significant when compared to 

5-64 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: San Diego 

recognition in Phoenix. In addition, the percent of San Diego teens that recalled 

seeing the fourth ad, Rite of Passage, increased significantly within site. 

What is more, survey data show even greater statistical significance with regard to 

the percent of teens that reported seeing the paid ads "often or "a few times". For 

example, the percentage of teens that recalled seeing Frying Pan increased from 

44 percent to 70 percent in San Diego, compared to a smaller increase in Phoenix 

from 43 percent to 51 percent. Media monitoring data show that in San Diego the 

average number of times Frying Pan aired increased from 0 to nearly 10 times per 

month (or 2.5 times per week). Media buy data indicate that the ad was purchased 

to air 40 times and to achieve 253 GRPs. Furthermore, 65.3 percent of the time 

Frying Pan aired during prime TV viewing hours for teens. 

Similarly, the percentage of target site teens that recalled seeing 911 increased 

from 32 percent to 64 percent in San Diego, while~increasing to a lesser degree in 

Phoenix (from 27% to 33%). Media monitoring data show that the average 

monthly number of times 911 aired increased from 0 at 10.6 (or 2.7 times per 

week) times per month in San Diego, 39.6 percent of which occurred in prime 

viewing hours for teens. As a paid ad, 911 aired 35 times. Over the same period, 

911 did not air in Phoenix. 

Likewise, survey data show that the percentage of target site teens that recognized 

Alex Straight A's increased from 34 percent at baseline to 56 percent during the 

intervention, compared to a smaller increase in Phoenix (from 30% to 34%). The 

average monthly number of times that Alex Straight A's aired increased in San 

Diego from 0 to 9.8 times per month (2.5 times per week), 79.6 percent of which 

occurred during prime viewing hours for teens (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 

p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 

p.m.). Alex Straight A's aired the most frequently of the ads (66 times) and 

achieved GRPs similar to Frying Pan at 268 GRPs. In addition, Alex Straight A's 

did not air in Phoenix during either the baseline or intervention periods. 

Moreover, San Diego teen recall of Rite of Passage increased significantly withinsite from 31 percent at baseline to 48 percent at followup, while increasing at a 

slower rate in Phoenix (from 28% to 33%). Media monitoring data indicate that 

the average number of times Rite of Passage aired in San Diego increased from 0 

to an average of 8.6 times per month (or 2.2 times per week) during the 

intervention period. Rite of Passage aired a total of 54 times as a paid ad with 

GRPs comparable to Alex Straight A's and Frying Pan, indicating the ads reached 

almost the same proportion of the teen audience. In addition, nearly half (48.8%) 

of the airings occurred during prime TV viewing hours for teens. Finally, as 

expected teen recall of Free Ride and Layla, which aired as PSAs, remained 

constant and low. 

Focus group discussions among San Diego middle school students support the 

finding that television anti-drug ads are important as a source of information on 

drugs. Both center city and non-center city teens reported that they watch TV 

extensively, and reported detailed descriptions of the anti-drug and anti-smoking 

ads they saw. Non-center city teens said the anti-drug ads were trying to show 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-65 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

how dangerous drugs are. In addition, the majority of middle school students 

stated that the ads made them think about the dangers of drugs. Some center city 

teens believed that anti-drug ads could make people change their minds about 

using drugs. 

5.9.2.3 Parents 

Three paid Campaign ads included in the survey were directed toward San Diego 

parents--Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose. Over the course of 

Phase I of the Media Campaign, survey data show a statistically significant 

increase in the percentage of parents that reported seeing or hearing TV 

commercials "almost every day or more often" that helped educate them about the 

risks of drugs. In fact, from the baseline to intervention period the percentage of 

parents that agreed with this statement increased in San Diego from 20 percent to 

45 percent, while remaining constant at 34 percent in Phoenix. 

With respect to specific ads targeted toward San Diego parents, survey data show 

that the percentage of San Diego parents that recalled two of the ads, Girl 

Interview and Under Your Nose, increased to statistically significant levels. The 

percentage of San Diego parents that recalled the third paid Campaign ad, 

O'Connor, increased from baseline to followup in the target site but not by a 

statistically significant degree even though it aired more frequently than the other 

two ads. As expected, San Diego parent recall of Deal and Burbs, which aired as 

PSAs, did not increase significantly. 

Moreover, survey data show that the percentage of San Diego parents that 

reported "often" seeing Girl Interview significantly increased from baseline to 

follow up, compared to parent recall of the same ad in Phoenix. In addition, when 

parents were asked if they had seen all three paid ads directed toward parents 

"often" or "a few times", survey data show that parent recall in San Diego 

increased even more. This result could be due in part to the fact that parents were 

more likely to see youth and teen ads than adult ads, because TV was not used as 

heavily to reach the adult audience. 

For example, with regard to the paid ad Girl Interview parent recognition 

increased significantly from 15 percent at baseline to 35 percent during the 

intervention in San Diego, while remaining constant at about 15 percent in the 

comparison site. Media monitoring data indicate that the average number of times 

Girl Interview aired increased from about once per month at baseline to 11 times 

per month (or 2.8 times per week including paid and unpaid) during the 

intervention in San Diego. Moreover, 47.2 percent of the airings occurred during 

prime TV viewing hours for parents (prime access: 7:00 p.m.-7:59 p.m.; prime 

time: 8:00 p.m.-10:59 p.m.; and weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.). 

In addition, target site parent recall of Under Your Nose increased significantly 

within San Diego from 26 percent to 36 percent, but also increased in Phoenix 

from 27 percent to 34 percent. Media monitoring data show that the average 

number of times Under Your Nose aired in San Diego increased from 0 to 5 times 

per month from baseline to intervention, 73 percent of which were during prime 

5-66 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: San Diego 

TV viewing hours for parents. The ad was only purchased to air 8 times, 

indicating that the ad was widely used as a PSA. In addition, over the same time 

period, Under Your Nose did not air in Phoenix. 

Lastly, media monitoring data explain why San Diego parent recall of O'Connor 

did not increase significantly. At baseline, the ad aired 18 times a month (or 4.5 

times a week) in the comparison site, 40 percent of which aired during prime 

viewing hours for parents. This helps to explain why such a large percentage of 

comparison site parents recalled O'Connor at baseline. In the target site at 

baseline, O'Connor aired only twice a month but increased during the 

intervention to 7.8 times per month (or twice per week). In turn, awareness of the 

ad increased from 59 percent to 63 percent. 

Awareness of the risks of using marijuana regularly also increased significantly 

among San Diego parents from 76 percent at baseline to 82 percent at followup. 

Focus group data support this finding. For example, center city parents in 

San Diego focus groups discussed children's marijuana use, both in terms of ads 

they recalled and the issues presented by the ads. They recalled an anti-marijuana 

ad that was not part of the ONDCP Media Campaign that portrayed a train 

accident caused by an engineer who was smoking marijuana. Several mothers 

stated that children's use of marijuana is a major issue in the community, 

especially children around the age of 14. 

In addition, discussions with key community informants in San Diego indicate 

increases in parents' awareness of the Campaign survey ads. A local prevention 

program representative who was involved with the Media Campaign reported that 

her agency had received many calls from parents and other adults. The callers 

usually referred to the Media Campaign and said that they wanted to discuss the 

drug issue with their own children or others with whom they worked. She noted, 

"People have been crying for help and guidance on how to talk about this issue. 

Parents really lack the resources to do that, and the Campaign has really opened 

the door." 

5.9.3 Community Impact 

Communities Against Substance Abuse (CASA) formalized its relationship with 

Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA) and created an alliance called 

Partnership for a Drug-Free San Diego. This alliance helped organize the kickoff 

for Phase I of the Media Campaign. Its primary role was to encourage pro bono 

support for the Media Campaign via newspaper, radio, and TV ads. CASA 

worked with schools to provide educational materials and presentations on the 

dangers of drugs; CASA also planned to show anti-drug ads in classrooms to 

reach more students. CASA added its local phone number to Media Campaign 

newspaper ads so that callers could contact referral and support services. 

According to CASA, many calls (more than 100 phone calls in 2 weeks) were 

received in response to the Media Campaign ads--most of them from parents. 

They also reported sending out all the printed information they had--about 300 

booklets--to parents and school educators. They have had to supplement their 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-67 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

store of informational materials with other items from local resources. 

Community informants also reported that since the Media Campaign began, they 

have succeeded in convincing the Union-Tribune (newspaper) to provide one pro 

bono ad for each paid Media Campaign ad---something that they were unable to 

do before the Media Campaign was launched. 

5.9.4 Summary of Findings 

Survey data from the target site San Diego and the comparison site Phoenix 

indicate significant increases in youth, teen, and parent awareness of the Media 

Campaign. For example, survey data indicate statistically significant increases in 

the percentage of youth that learn from TV commercials that drugs are bad for 

them. Likewise, from baseline to foUowup, a significantly greater percentage of 

teens in San Diego, compared with teens in Phoenix, reported that they learned a 

lot about the risks of drug use from anti-drug ads on TV. Moreover, survey data 

indicate a statistically significant increase in the percentage of parents that 

reported seeing or hearing TV commercials educating them about the risks of 

drugs "almost every day or more often". 

With respect to specific paid Campaign ads, all three of these ads directed toward 

San Diego youth---Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses--demonstrated 

statistically significant increases in awareness from baseline to followup. In 

addition, from baseline to followup, a significantly greater percentage of teens in 

San Diego reported seeing three of the four paid ads "often"--911, Alex Straight 

A 's, and Frying Pan----compared to the recognition in Phoenix. And lastly, from 

baseline to followup, survey data show that a statistically greater percentage of 

San Diego parents recalled two of the paid ads directed toward parents--Girl 

Interview and Under Your Nose. 

After the Phase I intervention, parents, youth, and teens were more aware of the 

ads included in the paid ONDCP Media Campaign. They also appeared to be 

much more aware of the dangers of illegal drugs after watching these ads. Finally, 

the Media Campaign had an impact on the community, resulting from the work of 

the Partnership for a Drug-Free San Diego, outreach efforts by community 

organizations in the schools, and phone calls received in response to the ads. 

5-68 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Sioux City 

5.10 SIOUX CITY 

Sioux City is located in northwest Iowa on the Missouri River at the juncture of 

Iowa, South Dakota, and Nebraska, an area referred to locally as "Siouxland." In 

addition to Sioux City, the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) includes 

surrounding Woodbury County and, across the Missouri River, Dakota County, 

Nebraska. The population of the MSA is approximately 115,000, of which 

92 percent is white, 3 percent Hispanic, 2 percent African American, 2 percent 

Native American, and 2 percent Asian/Pacific Islander. Children between the ages 

of 5 and 17 compose 19 percent of the total population, and 17.8 percent of 

children under age 18 live below the poverty level. The unemployment rate in the 

MSA is 4.9 percent, while the crime rate is 1,271 per 100,000 residents per year. 

The meat packing industry is one of the major employers in the area and 

reportedly recruits labor from the States along the Mexican border. The growing 

Hispanic population is reflected in the Sioux City public school system, where 

minorities--primarily Hispanic--made up approximately 25 percent of the 

student body in 1997. 

Woodbury County, Iowa, and Dakota County, Nebraska, along with five 

neighboring counties in South Dakota, comprise the Midwest High Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Area (HIDTA). The highways that pass through the area combine 

with the Missouri River and its tributaries to create a network of routes for 

transporting illegal drugs. The three-state juncture complicates law enforcement 

greatly because of conflicting State laws, which are often manipulated by 

criminals who cross State lines. Local officials are working to develop tri-state 

policies to facilitate cooperation across jurisdictions. Methamphetamine 

manufacture and use is a high-visibility problem in the Sioux City area. Key 

informants reported that the drugs of choice among young people are tobacco, 

alcohol, marijuana, methamphetamine, and inhalants. The informants generally 

agreed that any differences in drug use are a function of economic status rather 

than of race, ethnicity, or specific neighborhood in the city. 

5.10.1 Intervention 

The ONDCP Director kicked off Phase I of the Media Campaign in Sioux City on 

January 15, 1998. Phase I used existing ads available through the Partnership for a 

Drug-Free America (PDFA), including television and radio spots, newspaper ads, 

and billboards. A comprehensive listing of all Phase I advertisements is presented 

in Appendix A. Sioux City received several paid television Campaign ads and 

PSAs. Youth, teens, and parents were surveyed about their awareness on a subset 

of these ads. Exhibit 5-10 presents those paid Campaign ads and PSAs for Sioux 

City that were included in the survey instruments. 

The subset of paid Campaign ads for Sioux City focused on the following drugs: 

inhalants, marijuana, heroin, methamphetamine, crack and drugs in general. The 

paid advertisements directed at youth included Long Way Home, Drowning, and 

Noses, the latter two in both English and Spanish. Alex Straight A 's, Frying Pan, 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-69 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

911, and Layla were the paid ads directed at teens. For parents, paid television ads 

included Burbs, Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose, with Under 

Your Nose broadcast in both English and Spanish. PSA ads included Free Ride 

and Rite of Passage for teens, and Deal for parents. 

Exhibit 5-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads in Sioux City/Duluth 

Sioux City Duluth 

(Target) (Comparison) Overall % 

Campaign Survey Data Baseline [ Followup % Baseline I Followup I % Difference 

% J % Difference % % I Difference 

i~t~(~~~i~!i~i ~i~I!~i~'¥~iii~'~=~ '~ ~ ~ ~~'~'~'~ ~,~,~ 

Paid ads Drowning 24 68 44* 25 23 -2 46* 

Long Way Home 

Noses 

PSAs Girlfriend 

Paid ads 911 

Alex Straight A's 

Frying Pan 

Layla 

PSAs Free Ride 

Rite of Passage 

Paid ads Burbs 

Girl Interview 

0 'Conner 

Under Your Nose 

PSAs Deal 

39 66 27* 

38 72 34* 

23 30 7* 

i~%~%ii~ii~~i~ii~ ~ 

36 62 26* 

4 38 34* 

19 42 23* 

9 15 6* 

3 4 1 

7 8 1 

23 39 16" 

22 39 17" 

30 36 6 

6 12 6** 

42 44 2 

31 29 -2 

30 31 1 

5 5 0 

6 3 -3** 

16 11 -5** 

9 6 -3** 

6 4 -2 

9 4 -5* 

14 21 7** 

2 5 3 

13 19 6 

1 5 4** 

28 19 -9** 15 13 -2 

Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level. 

Note: Additional paid ads aired via cable and Channel One. 

25* 

36* 

6 

26* 

37* 

28* 

9* 

3 

6** 

9 

14" 

0 

2 

-7 

5.10.2 Survey Findings 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percentage of Sioux 

City youth, compared to Duluth youth, that reported "often" seeing all three 

paid Campaign ads directed at youth--Drowning, Long Way Home, and 

Noses--from baseline to followup. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percentage of Sioux 

City teens, compared to Duluth teens, that reported "often" seeing all four 

paid Campaign ads directed at teens--911, Alex Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, and 

Layla--frombaseline to followup. 

Survey data show a statistically significant increase in the percentage of Sioux 

City parents, compared to Duluth parents, that reported "often" seeing one of 

the paid Campaign ads directed at parents--Girl lnterviewufrom baseline to 

followup. 

• Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percentage of Sioux 

City parents that reported "often" seeing three of the four paid Campaign ads 

5-70 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Sioux City 

directed at parents--Burbs, Girl Interview, and Under Your Nose--from 

baseline to followup. 

Surveys were administered to youth, teens, and parents before and near the end of 

the Media Campaign in both Sioux City and its comparison site, Duluth, 

Minnesota. This section compares survey results from Sioux City and Duluth, 

focusing on differences between the communities that are statistically significant. 

Media monitoring data are not available for the two cities, but data from focus 

groups with youth, teens, and parents are presented to help explain survey results. 

5.10.2.1 Youth 

Survey data indicate statistically significant increases in the percentage of Sioux 

City youth that reported "often" seeing all three paid Campaign ads--Drowning, 

Long Way Home, and Noses---compared to Duluth youth from baseline to 

followup. In Sioux City, 24 percent of youth surveyed reported seeing Drowning 

at baseline, with an increase to 68 percent at followup; the percentage of positive 

responses in Duluth was nearly the same at baseline (25%) but declined slightly to 

23 percent at followup. Youth recognition of the ad Noses increased from 38 

percent to 72 percent in Sioux City compared with a decrease in Duluth from 32 

percent to 29 percent. The percentage of youth in Sioux City that reported seeing 

Long Way Home increased from 39 at baseline to 66 at followup, whereas recall 

among Duluth youth increased only slightly from 42 percent to 44 percent. 

Drowning and Noses each aired a total of 40 times as paid ads, while Long Way 

Home was only purchased to air 10 times. In addition, participants in youth focus 

groups in Sioux City reported seeing the three ads daily and sometimes several 

times a day during the intermediate and foUowup site visits. 

A second survey question asked youth how much they learn from various sources 

that drugs are bad for them. There was a statistically significant difference 

between the target and comparison sites in the percentage of youth that responded 

that they learned "a lot" about the risks of drugs from "TV commercials." Youth 

who responded that they learned "a lot" increased in Sioux City from 45 percent 

at baseline to 50 percent at followup, while in Duluth, youth responding "a lot" to 

"TV commercials" decreased from 38 percent to 35 percent. Survey data also 

indicate a statistically significant differences in the percentage of youth that 

reported having ever seen anti-drug messages on TV. The percentage of Sioux 

City youth that reported seeing anti-drug messages increased from 85 percent at 

baseline to 90 percent at followup, while youth recall in Duluth remained constant 

at 86 percent. 

Focus group data from the baseline site visit confirm the importance of television 

as a source of information for youth. Sioux City youth described watching 

television as one of their common free-time activities, and they recalled seeing 

anti-drug ads on television. 

Survey data also show the percentage of youth that changed their attitudes toward 

inhalants increased significantly from baseline to followup. One survey question 

asked youth the extent to which they agreed with the following statement: "Using 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-71 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

inhalants can kill you." At baseline, 58 percent of youth in Sioux City responded 

"agree a lot," a number that increased to 72 percent at followup. The percentage 

increased less in Duluth, from 66 percent to 70 percent. Another survey question 

asked youth how dangerous they think inhalants are. The percentage of target site 

youth that reported "very dangerous" increased significantly from 54 percent at 

baseline to 71 percent at followup, while the increase in the comparison site was 

only moderate, from 63 percent to 68 percent. The increases in Sioux City youth 

who recognized that inhalants can be dangerous or fatal correspond with the 

72 percent of survey respondents who reported having seen Noses and the 

68 percent that reported seeing Drowning, both of which address the dangers of 

inhalants. 

5.10.2.2 Teens 

Survey data indicate a statistically significant change across sites in the 

percentage of Sioux City teens, compared to Duluth teens, that reported learning 

"a lot" about the risks of drugs from TV ads from baseline to followup. In Sioux 

City, the percentage of teens that said they learned "a lot" increased significantly 

from 19 percent at baseline to 31 percent at followup, while in Duluth the 

percentage fell from 17 percent to 12 percent. 

Survey data also show statistically significant increases in teen awareness of all 

four of the paid Campaign ads--911, Alex Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, and Layla-- 

between the target site teens in Sioux City and the comparison site teens in 

Duluth. Of all the teen targeted ads, recognition was highest for 911. At baseline, 

36 percent of Sioux City teens reported they had seen 911 "often", and at 

followup awareness rose to 62 percent. Correspondingly, media buy data indicate 

that 911 aired more frequently than the other paid ads and achieved the highest 

number of GRPs, airing 56 times for 261 GRPs. In Duluth there was no change in 

teen awareness, remaining at 5 percent. 

In addition to seeing the ad 911, participants in teen focus groups during the 

intermediate and followup site visits reported seeing Frying Pan. Frying Pan was 

seen "often" by 19 percent of teens in Sioux City at baseline and increased to 

42 percent at followup. By contrast, in the comparison site recognition of Frying 

Pan decreased from 16 percent at baseline to 11 percent at followup. Media buy 

data indicate Frying Pan aired fewer times and achieved the lowest number of 

GRPs of all teen targeted Campaign ads in Sioux City. However, the ad may 

have aired more often as a PSA as part of the pro bono match requirement. 

Recognition of Alex Straight A's rose appreciably in Sioux City from 4 percent at 

baseline to 38 percent at followup but dropped from 6 percent to 3 percent in 

Duluth. Teen recall of the ad Layla increased from 9 percent to 15 percent in the 

target site, compared to a decrease from 9 percent to 6 percent in the comparison 

site. 

5-72 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Sioux City 

5.10.2.3 Parents 

Survey results include several indicators of increased parent awareness in Sioux 

City. One survey question asked parents how often they have seen or heard 

advertisements telling them about the risks of drugs. The increase in the 

percentage of Sioux City parents responding "almost every day or more often" to 

this question was statistically significant. In Sioux City, 33 percent of parents 

surveyed at baseline reported they had seen or heard such ads almost every day or 

more often, and this figure rose to 55 percent at followup. In contrast, the 

percentage of Duluth parents responding almost every day or more often fell from 

26 at baseline to 24 at followup. 

The four paid ads directed at Sioux City parents were Burbs, Girl Interview, 

O'Connor, and Under Your Nose. Survey data indicate that the percentage of 

Sioux City parents that reported "often" seeing Girl Interview--significantly 

increased from baseline to followup, compared to parent recall of the same ad in 

Duluth. Girl Interview was seen "often" by 22 percent of parents in Sioux City at 

baseline and by 39 percent at followup, compared with much lower numbers in 

Duluth, where the percentage rose from 2 to 5 percent. Girl Interview also was the 

newest of the ads and may have aired frequently as a PSA. 

Survey data also show statistically significant increases in awareness among 

Sioux City parents with respect to three of the four paid Campaign ads targeted at 

them--Burbs, Girl Interview, and Under Your Nose--from baseline to followup. 

The increases in parent awareness of these ads are as follows: 23 percent to 29 

percent for Burbs, 22 percent to 39 percent for Girl Interview, and 6 percent to 12 

percent for Under Your Nose. Media buy data indicate that Burbs and Girl 

Interview both aired 10 times as paid ads while Under Your Nose aired 5 times. 

Clearly, the ads seen by parents during the Media Campaign in Sioux City had 

some effect, as indicated by responses to another survey question that showed a 

statistically significant change. Parents were asked how much they agreed that 

anti-drug ads had given them new information about drugs. In Sioux City, parents 

who agreed "a lot" increased significantly from 29 percent at baseline to 

43 percent at followup, compared with a decrease from 27 percent to 22 percent 

in Duluth. 

Parents' perception of the risk of using or trying drugs also changed over time. 

Parents were asked how much overall risk they think is associated with five 

different drugs, either in trying them once or twice or in using them regularly. The 

five drugs were heroin, cocaine/crack-cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and 

inhalants. The change in the percentage of parents that reported "great risk" was 

statistically significant for regular use of cocaine/crack-cocaine, inhalants, and 

methamphetamine and for experimental use of inhalants. The percentage changes 

of parents that reported "great risk" for regular use of specific drugs are as 

follows: cocaine/crack-cocaine (93% at baseline to 95% at followup in Sioux 

City; 93% to 86% in Duluth), inhalants (92% to 94% in Sioux City; 92% to 84% 

in Duluth), and methamphetamines (90% to 94% in Sioux City; 92% to 84% in 

Duluth). In addition, the perception of the risk of experimental use of inhalants 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-73 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.10.3 

5.10.4 

was the same in both communities at baseline, with 85 percent of parents saying 

there was "great risk". At followup, 88 percent of parents in Sioux City perceived 

"great risk", while in Duluth, the percentage fell to 77 percent. 

Community Impact 

Stakeholders within the Sioux City community were supportive of the Media 

Campaign exhibited through their numerous contributions. The Waitt Family 

Foundation (the Waitt family owns the Gateway 2000 computer company) and 

United Parcel Service (UPS) provided matching funds for the Media Campaign in 

Sioux City. From the outset in January, some of the local television and radio 

stations aired the Media Campaign ads during the slots paid for by the Campaign 

but did so as a public service. The stations then donated the money from paid ads 

to local community-based prevention programs. At followup, a local treatment 

facility reported an increase in the number of parents seeking information about 

drug abuse, which was attributed to the Media Campaign. 

Summary of Findings 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in youth recognition of all 

three paid Campaign ads targeted at Sioux City youth--Drowning, Noses, and 

Long Way Home. Increases in awareness of these ads also were statistically 

significant within the target site. In addition, a significantly greater percentage of 

Sioux City teens, compared to Duluth teens, reported "often" seeing all four paid 

campaign ads targeting teens--911, Alex Straight A ' s, Frying Pan, and Laylaw 

from baseline to followup. Survey data also indicate a statistically significant 

increase in awareness among Sioux City parents, compared to Duluth parents, of 

one paid Campaign ad--Girl Interview. Moreover, the increase in parent recall of 

three paid Campaign ads--Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose-- 

from baseline to followup was statistically significant within Sioux City. 

The percentage of youth that reported seeing messages describing the dangers of 

drugs on television increased significantly from baseline to followup in Sioux 

City while remaining the same in Duluth. Similarly, the percentage of youth who 

learned "a lot" from television commercials describing the risks of drugs 

increased significantly during the Media Campaign in Sioux City but decreased in 

Duluth. One survey question for teens revealed significant changes on attitudes 

toward drugs. Asked how much they learned about the risks of drugs from various 

sources, the percentage of teens who learned "a lot" changed significantly across 

sites for TV ads. 

Changes were also significant for several indicators of increased parent awareness 

in Sioux City. The percentage of parents surveyed that reported seeing or hearing 

anti-drug ads almost every day or more often increased from 33 to 55. The change 

was also statistically significant for the percentage of Sioux City parents that 

"agreed a lot" that anti-drug ads had given them new information or told them 

things they didn'tknow about drugs. In addition, the change in percentage of 

parents that reported "great risk" was statistically significant for regular use of 

5-74 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Sioux City 

cocaine/crack-cocaine, inhalants, and methamphetamines, and for experimental 

use of inhalants. 

The Media Campaign also had an impact on the Sioux City community. Two 

local sources provided matching funds for the Campaign, some television and 

radio stations aired the paid ads as a public service and donated the money to 

local prevention programs. Lastly, one local treatment facility reported an 

increase in parents seeking information about drug abuse. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-75 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.11 TUCSON 

Tucson is located in Pima County, Arizona, 64 miles north of Nogales, Mexico. It 

is a medium-sized city of more than 660,000 residents, most of whom (579,000) 

live in the center city. In the metropolitan area, 78 percent of the residents are 

white, 24 percent are Hispanic, 3 percent are African American, and 3 percent are 

Native American. These groups tend to reside in specific areas: Native Americans 

live primarily on one of several reservations outside the city; Hispanic families 

reside primarily in the Westside and West Central Park neighborhoods of Tucson 

and in the city of South Tucson. White families live in the Foothills, East Tucson, 

and Northwest neighborhoods of Tucson. Tucson's annual crime rate is 877 per 

100,000 residents, and its unemployment rate is 7.5 percent. Children ages 5 

through 17 compose 16 percent of the population, and more than 23 percent of 

children under age 18 live below the poverty level. 

c_ 

Tucson experiences a constant influx of illegal immigrants, and serves as the first 

contact point and distribution hub for illegal drugs passing from Nogales, Mexico, 

to Pima County. Investigations by needs assessment and evaluation task forces in 

border counties and by the University of Arizona Rural Health Office revealed 

that border youth are more likely than non-border youth to use alcohol and 

tobacco, to try illegal drugs such as marijuana and cocaine, and to begin using all 

of these drugs before age 13. In addition, a disproportionately high percentage of 

people ages 15 to 24 visit border emergency rooms for reasons related to 

substance abuse. One out of every seven people arrested for substance abuserelated offenses in the border counties of Yuma, Cochise, and Santa Cruz in 1991 

were juveniles. In 1995, out of a group of 842 high school students interviewed in 

Nogales, 90 percent reported that alcohol was easy to obtain and a slightly higher 

percentage stated that marijuana was easy to obtain. 

The drug situation in Tucson includes several other important features. Tucson 

has been designated a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) and is 

characterized by a high prevalence of methamphetamine production and use. 

Furthermore, in November 1996, Proposition 200, which legalized marijuana for 

medicinal purposes, was passed in Arizona, and Arizona voters reaffirmed their 

approval of this measure in November 1998. 

5.1i.1 Intervention 

Representatives of the Office of National Drag Control Policy (ONDCP) kicked 

off Phase I of the Media Campaign in Tucson in January 1998 at an event 

attended by local community leaders and others with an interest in drug abuse 

prevention. Phase I used existing ads available through the Partnership for a Drug 

Free America (PDFA), including television and radio spots, newspaper ads, and 

billboards. A comprehensive listing of all Phase I advertisements is presented in 

Appendix A. Tucson received several paid TV ads and PSAs. Youth, teens, and 

parents were surveyed about their awareness of a subset of these ads. Exhibit 5-11 

presents those paid ads and PSAs for Tucson that were included in the survey 

instruments. 

5-76 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Tucson 

The subset of paid campaign ads for Tucson focused on the following drugs: 

drugs in general, methamphetamine, marijuana, and heroin. Paid advertisements 

directed at youth included Long Way Home. 911, Alex Straight A's, Frying Pan, 

and Rite of Passage were the paid ads directed at teens, and Girl Interview and 

O'Connor were the paid ads directed at parents. PSA ads included Drowning, 

Girlfriend, and Noses for youth, Free Ride and Layla for teens, and Burbs, Deal, 

and Under Your Nose for parents. 

Exhibit 5-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads in Tucson/Austin 

Campaign Survey Data 

Paid ads Long Way Home 

PSAs Drowning 

Girl#fend 

Noses 

Paid ads 911 

Alex Straight A's 

Frying Pan 

Rite of Passage 

PSAs Free Ride 

Layla 

: j 

Paid ads Girl Interview 

O'Connor 

PSAs Burbs 

Deal 

Under Your Nose 

Tucson (suburbs) 

(Target) 

Baseline Followup I % 

% J % I Difference 

30 68 38* 

23 17 -6 

14 28 14" 

32 25 -7** 

4 45 41 * 

4 25 21" 

12 35 23* 

9 15 6 

4 6 2 

8 9 1 

4 12 8* 

10 18 8* 

15 22 7** 

15 13 -2 

4 6 2 

Austin (suburbs) 

. (Comparison) 

Baseline J Followup % 

% % Difference 

25 22 -3 

24 25 1 

18 15 -3 

27 28 1 

5 5 0 

6 4 -2 

11 11 0 

5 4 -1 

5 4 -1 

8 1 -7 

2 4 2 

12 17 5 

11 17 6 

11 11 0 

5 5 0 

Overall % 

Difference 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiii:iiii 

41" 

-7 

17" 

-8 

:::':: ii '~ :::: 

41" 

23" 

23" 

7 

3 

8 

iiEiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 

6* 

3 

1 

-2 

2 

* Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level. 

Note: A) Data reported above for youth and teens were collected from the non-center city area only (see Chapter 2). Data presented 

for parents include both center city and non-center city. 

B) Additional paid ads aired via cable and Channel One. 

5.11.2 Survey Findings 

The percentage of Tucson youth that recalled "often" seeing the one paid 

Campaign ad directed toward Tucson youth, Long Way Home, increased 

significantly. 

After Phase I of the Media Campaign, the percent of Tucson youth that 

reported that methamphetamine and heroin were dangerous increased 

significantly. 

From baseline to followup, the percentage increase in Tucson teens that 

reported "often" seeing the ads 911, Alex Straight A ' s, and Rite of Passage 

was significant when compared to recognition of the ads among Austin teens. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-77 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Survey data show that a statistically significant percentage of Tucson parents 

recalled seeing Girl Interview "often", compared to Eugene parents. In 

addition, the percentage of parents that reported "often" seeing O'Connor 

increased significantly from baseline to followup in Tucson. 

The data presented in this section focus on findings reported by youth, teens, and 

parents surveyed in the Tucson target community and the Austin comparison 

community. Findings are presented for survey questions where significant 

differences between the two communities were identified. Data from media 

monitoring (available only for Austin) and data collected in focus groups and 

community respondent interviews are presented to support reliable interpretation 

of the survey data. 

5.11.2.1 Youth 

Over the course of the intervention, youth became increasingly aware of anti-drug 

messages on the TV. For example, from baseline to followup, the percentage of 

Tucson youth that reported seeing or hearing TV commercials about the negative 

effects of drugs increased significantly (from 87% to 94%), when compared with 

a smaller increase among youth in Austin (84% to 86%). 

In addition, youth awareness of the dangers of two drugs, heroin and 

methamphetamine, increased among youth in Tucson from baseline to followup. 

Tucson youth increasingly reported that heroin and methamphetamines were very 

dangerous (from 45% to 76% and from 36% to 64%, respectively). By 

comparison, Austin youth's awareness of the risk of these drugs decreased (from 

59% to 49% and from 31% to 30%). Moreover, the difference between Tucson 

and Austin was statistically significant. 

One paid Campaign ad was directed at youth--Long Way Home. The remaining 

three ads included in the youth survey--Drowning, Girlfriend, and Nosesmaired 

as PSAs in Tucson. Survey data indicate an increase in the percentage of Tucson 

youth that reported "often" seeing the paid Campaign ad Long Way Home. In 

fact, the increase from baseline to followup was statistically significant, rising 

from 30 percent to 68 percent in Tucson, compared to a decrease from 25 percent 

to 22 percent in Austin youth. As expected, the percent of Tucson youth that 

recalled seeing the two PSAs, Drowning and Noses, decreased. Interestingly, 

Tucson youth recall of the third PSA, Girlfriend, increased from 14 percent to 

28 percent, while Austin youth recognition of that ad decreased from 18 percent 

to 15 percent. 

Focus group discussions among Tucson youth support the above findings in two 

ways. First, both center city and non-center city youth recalled specific TV ads 

pertaining to methamphetamine. Second, and more generally, all elementary 

school children in the youth focus groups expressed the belief that drug use was 

bad and dangerous. The non-center city students stated that "drugs can hurt you" 

and that "they can get people in trouble." They also reported the anti-drug ads 

they saw on TV conveyed these messages. In addition, most of the community 

informants that were interviewed believed there was an increased awareness 

5-78 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Tucson 

5.11.2.2 

among youth about the dangers of drug use, and they attributed this to the Media 

Campaign. 

Teens 

Survey data indicate statistically significant increases in the percent of teens that 

reported that they "learned a lot" about the risks of drugs from TV Commercials 

in Tucson (from 20% to 24%), compared to a decrease in Austin (from 20% to 

11%). Likewise, the percent of teens that repoi'ted that they see or hear 

commercials or ads telling about the risks of drugs "almost every day or more 

often" increased significantly from baseline to followup in Tucson (from 37% to 

57%). This increase also was found to be statistically significant when compared 

to the decrease from 29 percent to 21 percent in Austin. Moreover, focus group 

youth in Tucson supported these findings, indicating they learned a lot about 

drugs from TV. 

Four paid Campaign ads were directed toward Tucson teens--911, Alex Straight 

A 's, Frying Pan, and Rite of Passage. The two PSAs directed at Tucson teens 

included Free Ride and LayIa. Survey data clearly show increases in recognition 

of three of the four paid ads. Increases from baseline to followup in the 

percentage of Tucson teens that reported "often" seeing the ads 911, Alex Straight 

A 's, and Frying Pan were statistically significant when compared with 

recognition of the ads among Austin teens. In addition, the percentage of Tucson 

teens that recalled "often" seeing 911, Alex Straight A's, and Frying Pan 

increased to a statistically significant degree in Tucson from baseline to followup. 

Survey data show that the percentage of teens that recalled the three 

aforementioned paid Campaign ads was substantially greater when teens were 

asked if they had seen the ads "often" or "a few times". The percentage of teens 

that reported seeing 911 increased from 31 percent to 73 percent in Tucson, while 

decreasing from 24 percent to 21 percent in Austin. Media buy data indicate that 

911 aired more than the other four ads, appearing 95 times and achieving more 

than 400 GRPs. 

Likewise, teen recall of Frying Pan increased from 39 percent to 72 percent in 

Tucson, while decreasing from 35 percent to 31 percent in Austin. Frying Pan 

also aired frequently and achieved a high reach, appearing 53 times and totaling 

426 GRPs--higher than those achieved by 911. Teen recollection of Alex Straight 

A's increased from 31 percent to 61 percent in Tucson, while only increasing 

slightly from 32 percent to 34 percent in Austin. Teen recall of Rite of Passage, 

the fourth paid Campaign ad directed at teens, increased from 28 percent to 37 

percent in Tucson, while dropping from 24 percent to 18 percent in Austin. Media 

buy data indicate that Rite of Passage aired 11 times as a paid ad for a total of 26 

GRPs. Not surprisingly, awareness of the two remaining ads directed at teens-- 

Free Ride and Layla--which aired only as PSAs in Tucson, dropped from 24 

percent to 21 and from 41 percent to 35 percent, respectively. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-79 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.11.2.3 Parents 

Two paid Campaign ads included in the survey, were directed toward parents in 

Tucson--Girl Interview and O'Connor. The three PSAs directed at parents 

included Burbs, Deal and Under Your Nose. Parents were asked how often they 

had seen or heard ads telling them about the risks of drugs. From baseline to 

followup, the percent of Tucson parents that reported they had seen or heard ads 

on TV "almost every day or "more often" increased from 31 percent to 

47 percent. This percent change was statistically significant when compared to the 

slight increase among Austin parents, from 20 percent to 22 percent. 

Survey data show a statistically significant increase in the percent of Tucson 

parents that recalled "often" seeing Girl Interview, compared to Austin parents. 

From baseline to followup the percentage of Tucson parents that saw Girl 

Interview "often" increased greatly from 4 percent to 12 percent compared with a 

much smaller increase from 2 percent to 4 percent among Austin parents. Media 

buy data indicate the ad aired 4 times for a total of 12 GRPs in Tucson. 

Moreover, the percent of parents that reported seeing Girl Interview "often" or "a 

few times" increased from 12 percent to 44 percent in Tucson. Again, this 

increase was found to be statistically significant when compared to the slight 

increase in Austin from 11 percent to 13 percent. The percent of parents that 

reported seeing O'Connor increased to a significant degree within-site in Tucson 

from 58 percent to 66 percent while dropping in Austin from 64 percent to 60 

percent. Media buy data indicate that O'Connor aired 5 times as a paid ad in 

Tucson. 

Not surprisingly, Tucson parent awareness of the PSAs, Deal and Under Your 

Nose, did not increase significantly from baseline to followup. In fact, the percent 

of parents that recognized Deal decreased from 51 percent at baseline to 40 

percent at followup in Tucson, while only slightly increasing from 46 percent to 

49 percent in Austin. The percentage of parents that recognized Under Your Nose 

increased only slightly in Tucson (from 26% to 29%), while remaining unchanged 

at 24 percent in Austin. 

Further evidence that the Media Campaign positively affected Tucson parents is 

found in the significant increasedawareness of the risks of using or trying two 

specific drugs. From baseline to followup, Tucson parents perceived greater risk 

involved in "sniffing things like glue to get high regularly" (from 88% to 96%) 

and in "trying methamphetamine once or twice" (from 81% to 92%). 

The increase in the percentage of Tucson parents that perceived great risk in 

methamphetamine use was significant when compared with the decrease in the 

percentage of Austin parents that held these perceptions (from 89% at baseline to 

88% at followup and from 83% at baseline to 77% at followup, respectively). 

Although media monitoring data are unavailable for Tucson, arguably, this 

finding may be due in part to the fact that the paid Campaign ad 911 which aired 

during the intervention focuses on methamphetamine usel However, another 

factor that must be taken into consideration is that a separate anti5-80 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Tucson 

methamphetamine campaign was launched in the early spring of 1998 by the 

Arizona National Guard. 

Furthermore, survey data show that Tucson parents perceived that the anti-drug 

ads they saw on TV were effective in two important ways. A greater percentage 

of Tucson parents than Austin parents agreed that the ads they saw during the 

Media Campaign made them aware of the risks of drugs, and that America' s drug 

problem is something all families should be concerned about. Specifically, from 

baseline to followup, the percent of Tucson parents that agreed that the Campaign 

ads apprised them of the risks of drugs increased from 43 percent to 48 percent, 

compared with a decrease among Austin parents from 44 percent to 33 percent. In 

addition, from baseline to followup, a slightly greater percent of Tucson parents 

(from 65% to 67%) reported that the ads made them aware that all families should 

be concerned about the drug problem in America, compared with a substantial 

decrease among Austin parents (from 70% to 56%). 

Furthermore, focus group data show that center city and non-center city parents in 

Tucson see a wide variety of ads regularly on major television networks, 

including Spanish-speaking stations, as well as on billboards, posters, and on the 

radio. They report that the messages conveyed to youth by the ads were that drugs 

are dangerous, they can ruin your life, and they can kill you. Youth influencers 

(mentors) also reported seeing anti-drug messages several times per day on 

television. 

In addition, focus group discussions with Tucson parents supported the finding 

that exposure to the Media Campaign ads resulted in increased awareness of the 

risks of drugs. Parents reported that the ads provided them with a natural lead-in 

for discussing drug use with their children. This was particularly true when 

parents and their children had watched an anti-drug ad on television together. 

Center city parents reported that ads educate parents about how to talk with their 

children and stay away from drugs. In addition, several community informants 

reported an increase over the past 6 months in the number of parents calling for 

either information on drugs or treatment options. 

5.11.3 Community Impact 

One local coalition, Pima Prevention Partnership, has been involved in ongoing 

activities to support the Media Campaign. These activities include talking with 

project partners, sending out supplemental information on alcohol and other 

drugs, coordinating with the Pima County Office of Health Care, submitting 

newspaper articles, speaking publicly at local schools, and coordinating with the 

local teen court program. Coalition representatives reported that the community 

has responded favorably to the Media Campaign. Coalition representatives have 

noticed more community members talking about the Media Campaign ads and 

making phone calls requesting information and asking for referrals. They 

particularly noted numerous calls from concerned grandparents who wanted help 

to prevent their grandchildren from using drugs. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-81 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.11.4 Summary of Findings 

Following approximately 5 months of exposure to the Media Campaign, Tucson 

youth increasingly believed that heroin and methamphetamine are very dangerous 

(from 45% to 76% and from 36% to 64%, from baseline to followup, 

respectively). Tucson youth showed significant increases in awareness of the one 

youth-targeted paid Campaign ad: Long Way Home (from 30% to 68%). Focus 

group interviews with youth and discussions with community informants 

supported these findings. 

The most important sources of anti-drug information for Tucson teens were radio, 

TV, movies, and news. Focus group discussions with the Tucson teens indicated 

that anti-drug ads were particularly influential in showing teens the various effects 

of drugs. Awareness of the paid Campaign ads directed at teens--911, Alex 

Straight A ' s, and Frying Pan--increased at statistically significant levels in 

Tucson from baseline to followup when compared to teens in Austin. 

Tucson parents' awareness increased in several ways. Over the course of the 

Media Campaign, parents reported they had seen or heard anti-drug ads that told 

them about the risks of drugs almost every day or more often. Discussions with 

focus group parents, community informants, and key influencers all supported the 

fact that a wide array of anti-drug ads were seen and heard frequently. Awareness 

of the paid Campaign ads directed at parents--Girl Interview and O'Connor-- 

increased at statistically significant levels from baseline to followup in Tucson. 

The increase in awareness of Girl Interview also was found to be statistically 

significant when compared to the increase in awareness of parents in Austin. 

It is likely that the Tucson parents' increased awareness influenced their 

perceptions of the effectiveness of the Media Campaign ads. They believed the 

ads made them aware of the risks of drugs and that the Nation's drug problem 

must be a concern for all families. Lastly, discussions with focus group parents, 

community informants, and key influencers in Tucson all revealed a keen 

awareness of the nature of the drug problem in their community. 

5-82 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Washington, D.C. 

5.12 WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Washington, D.C., the Nation's capital, is encircled by major suburban 

communities in Maryland and Northern Virginia. Centrally located in the MidAtlantic region, the MSA has a population of 3,923,574. Socioeconomic 

stratification and demographic dispersion characterize this large and diverse 

metropolitan area, which is linked by a thorough transportation system connecting 

non-center city and center city areas. In the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, 

65 percent of residents are white, 26 percent are African American, 5 percent are 

Hispanic, and 4 percent are other (Native American, Asian, or other). The 

percentages of African Americans and whites are reversed in center city 

Washington, D.C.; African Americans make up two-thirds of the population and 

whites nearly one-third. The unemployment rate in the MSA is 3.7 percent, and 

the annual crime rate is 716 per 100,000 residents. Sixteen percent of the 

population is between ages 5 and 17, and 7.9 percent of children under age 18 live 

below the poverty level. 

Washington, D.C., is a major hub on the north-south drug trafficking route 

following Interstate 95 north to Boston and south to Florida, and has been 

designated a High Density Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA). Drug use is not 

confined to high-risk center city environments or to particular racial or ethnic 

groups. It is widespread in such relatively affluent non-center city communities as 

Fairfax County, Virginia, and Prince George's, Howard, and Montgomery 

Counties in Maryland. The diversity of languages spoken in the area (English, 

Spanish, Nigerian, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Russian, among others) 

presents a special challenge for law enforcement officials involved in drug 

interdiction, because traffickers often Jencode communication through their native 

language (Washington/Baltimore HIDTA, 1997). 

5.12.1 Intervention 

Representatives of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) kicked 

off Phase I of the Media Campaign in Washington, D.C. in December 1997. 

Phase I used existing ads available through the Partnership for a Drug Free 

America (PDFA), including television and radio spots, newspaper ads, and 

billboards. A comprehensive listing of all Phase I advertisements is presented in 

Appendix A. Washington, D.C. received several paid TV ads and PSAs. Youth, 

teens, and parents were surveyed about their awareness of a subset of these ads. 

Exhibit 5-12 presents those paid ads and PSAs for Washington, D.C. that were 

included in the survey instruments. 

The subset of paid campaign ads for Washington, D.C. focused on the following 

drugs: drugs in general (32.6%), crack (22.5%), inhalants (18.1%), marijuana 

(16.9%), and heroin (9.9%). Paid advertisements directed at youth included 

Drowning, Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. Alex Straight A ' s, Free Ride, 

Frying Pan, Layla, and Rite of Passage were the paid ads directed at teens, and 

Deal, Girl Interview, O'Connor, and Under Your Nose were the paid ads directed 

at parents. PSA ads included 911 for teens, and Burbs for parents. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-83 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Exhibit 5-1 

Awareness of Campaign Ads in Washington, DC/Birmingham 

Campaign Survey Data 

Paid ads Drowning 

Girlfriend 

Long Way Home 

Noses 

Paid ads Alex Straight A's 

. Free Ride 

Frying Pan 

Lay/a 

PSAs 911 

Rite of Passable 

~!:..:;:~E~!i p i~n~~i~:::: ~i:~: ~: ~: ~i~: ~::: ~::~:: ~~:~: ~:~:: ~:::~i~iii :: ':~ ~ : ~::: ~::: ~ ~i ~i~ :: i~ 

Paid ads Deal 

Girl/nterview 

0 'Conner 

Under Your Nose 

PSAs Burbs 

Washington, DC 

(Target) 

Baseline I Followup I % 

% I % I Difference 

23 44 21 * 

29 52 23* 

39 60 21 * 

35 56 21" 

16 26 10" 

11 19 8* 

34 58 24* 

17 24 7** 

10 9 -1 

11 10 -1 

14 31 17" 

4 18 14" 

19 26 7 

4 12 8* 

12 15 3 

Birmingham 

(Comparison) 

Baseline ] Followup I % 

% I % Difference 

~,~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i~.~ ~ ~w 

15 17 2 

20 19 -1 

33 28 -5 

22 23 1 

9 7 -2 

12 12 0 

20 21 1 

14 16 2 

10 8 -2 

12 13 1 

18 17 -1 

1 4 3 

23 24 1 

6 6 0 

13 14 1 

Significant difference at the 95% confidence level. 

** Significant difference at the 90% confidence level, 

Note: Additional paid ads aired via cable and Channel One. 

Overall % 

Difference 

19" 

24* 

26* 

20* 

12"* 

8 

23* 

5 

1 

-2 

18" 

11" 

6 

8* 

2 

5.12.2 Survey Findings 

From baseline to followup a statistically significant increase in the percentage 

of D.C. youth reported that TV ads or commercials made them aware of how 

dangerous drugs were, while this figure decreased in the comparison site, 

Birmingham. 

Survey data show statistically significant increase in the percentage of youth 

that reported "often" seeing all four paid Campaign ads directed at them-- 

Long Way Home, Drowning, Girlfriend, and Noses. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in awareness of four of the 

five paid Campaign ads directed at D.C. teens--Frying Pan, Alex Straight 

A 's, Free Ride, and Layla. 

From baseline to followup, the percentage of D.C. parents that responded they 

had seen or heard such ads "almost every day" or "more often" increased 

significantly when compared to responses from Birmingham parents. 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percentage of D.C. 

parents that reported seeing three of the four paid Campaign ads "often" and 

all four ads "often" or "a few times"--Deal, Girl Interview, and Under Your 

Nose. 

5-84 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Washington, D.C. 

5.12.2.1 

The comparison site for Washington, D.C., was Birmingham, Alabama. The data 

presented in this section focus on findings reported by youth, teens, and parents 

surveyed in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area and in Birmingham. The 

findings presented below are those for which there are statistically significant 

differences between the two communities. Data collected from media monitoring, 

focus groups, and community respondent interviews conducted during site visits 

are presented to support reliable interpretation of the survey data. 

Youth 

Four paid Campaign ads were directed toward youth in Washington, D.C.-- 

Drowning, Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and Noses. Followup survey data show 

statistically significant differences in the percentage of Washington, D.C. youth 

compared to Birmingham youth, that reported seeing effective anti-drug ads on 

TV. In fact, from baseline to followup a statistically significant increase occurred 

in the percentage of D.C. youth that reported TV ads or commercials made them 

aware of how dangerous drugs were (from 72% at baseline to 81% at followup), 

while decreasing from 80 percent to 77 percent in the comparison site, 

Birmingham. In addition, a significantly greater percentage of Washington, D.C. 

youth from baseline to followup reported seeing or hearing messages on TV that 

drugs are bad for them (from 81% to 86%). 

Not surprisingly, when youth were asked if they had "often" seen the four paid 

Campaign ads directed at themmDrowning, Girlfriend, Long Way Home, and 

Noses--survey data show statistically significant increases in awareness of all 

four ads in Washington, D.C. Media monitoring and media buy data support 

survey findings, showing a substantial increase in the average number of times 

that the paid Campaign ads aired in the target site, and the number of times the 

paid ads aired during prime TV viewing hours. 

Of the four paid ads directed at D.C. youth, survey data show that awareness of 

Long Way Home increased most substantially. In fact, D.C. youth recall of Long 

Way Home increased from 39 percent at baseline to 60 percent at followup, while 

dropping from 33 percent to 28 percent in Birmingham. Media monitoring and 

buy data help explain these findings. In fact, Long Way Home aired more often 

than any other of the four paid Campaign ads in D.C. directed at youth. From the 

baseline to the intervention period, the average number of times Long Way Home 

aired increased from 0 to 20.8 times per month (or 4.2 times per week). Media 

buy data also indicate the ad aired frequently and achieved the second highest 

reach of the four ads, airing 56 times for 296 GRPs. By sharp contrast, Long Way 

Home did not air in the comparison site during the baseline or intervention 

periods. 

Similarly, D.C. youth recollection of the paid Campaign ad Girlfriend increased 

significantly from 29 percent at baseline to 52 percent at followup, while 

decreasing from 20 percent to 19 percent in Birmingham. Media monitoring and 

buy data support these findings. In Washington, D.C., from baseline to 

intervention the average number of times Girlfriend aired increased from 0 to 

14.6 times per month (or 3.7 times per week). Media buy data indicate the ad 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-85 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

aired the most frequently and achieved the highest number of GRPs of the four 

ads, appearing 65 times and achieving 328 GRPs. By comparison, Girlfriend did 

not air in the comparison site during the baseline or intervention periods. 

Survey and media monitoring data explain further the statistically significant 

increases in D.C. youth recall of the paid Campaign ads, Noses and Drowning. 

Recall of Noses increased from 35 percent at baseline to 56 percent at followup in 

Washington, D.C, while increasing only slightly from 22 percent to 23 percent in 

Birmingham. Monitoring data show that from baseline to intervention the average 

number of times Noses aired increased in Washington, D.C. from 0 to 9.8 times a 

month (or 2.5 times a week). What is more, 61.2 percent of the time Noses aired 

during viewing hours when D.C. youth were most likely to be watching TV 

(prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; weekend 

daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). By contrast, Noses did not air in the comparison 

site during the baseline or intervention periods 

In addition, from baseline to followup Washington, D.C. youth recall of 

Drowning increased by 21 percent (from 23 % at baseline to 44 % at followup), 

compared to only a slight increase in Birmingham (from 15 % to 17 %). Over the 

same period, the average number of times Drowning aired increased in 

Washington, D.C. from 1.2 times a month to 14.6 times a month (or 3.7 times a 

week). Furthermore, 56 percent of the time Drowning aired during viewing hours 

when D.C. youth were most likely to be watching TV. Over the same period, 

Drowning did not air in the comparison site, Birmingham. 

It is also worth noting that Noses and Drowning focused on educating youth about 

the dangers of using inhalants. Interestingly, both ads experienced significant 

increases in the percentage of D.C. youth that recognized the ads at followup. 

Noses and Drowning aired 44 and 46 times respectively, achieving GRPs of 397 

and 188. Therefore, it is not surprising that from baseline to followup a 

statistically significant percentage of D.C. youth reported that they thought 

inhalant use could kill them (an increase from 55 % to 71%), compared to only a 

slight decrease in Birmingham youth, from 65 percent to 64 percent. Focus group 

discussions with D.C. youth included comments such as "the brain goes crazy on 

drugs", "we don't want to end up like that", and "when you watch commercials 

and see them talk about drugs and violence, you see how they can mess up the 

future and your dreams." 

5.12.2.2 Teens 

Four paid Campaign ads included in the survey were directed toward teens in 

Washington, D.C.--Alex Straight A ' s, Free Ride, Frying Pan, and Layla. Survey 

data show statistically significant increases in awareness for all four of the paid 

Campaign ads. Media monitoring and media buy data support survey findings, 

showing a substantial increase in the average number of times that the paid 

Campaign ads aired in the target site, and the number of times the paid ads aired 

during prime TV viewing hours. 

5-86 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Washington, D.C. 

When teens were asked if they had "often" seen the paid Campaign ads directed 

toward them, from baseline to followup survey data show s~fatistically significant 

increases in D.C. teens' awareness of the ads Frying Pan and Alex Straight A 's, 

compared to Birmingham teens over the same period. Moreover, survey data 

show that even a greater percentage of D.C. teens recalled seeing the Campaign 

ads "often" or "a few times." 

For example, at followup D.C. teen recollection of Frying Pan increased by 22 

percent (from 61% to 83 %), while remaining unchanged at 44 percent in the 

comparison site, Birmingham. Media monitoring and buy data support these 

findings~ Over the same period, the average number of times Frying Pan aired 

increased in Washington, D.C. from 0 to 19 times a month (or 4.8 times a week). 

Moreover, 65.3 percent of the time Frying Pan aired during viewing hours when 

D.C. teens were most likely to be watching TV. Frying Pan aired the most 

frequently of the four ads and achieved the highest of GRPs at 85 and 497, 

respectively. 

Correspondingly, from baseline to followup, the percentage of D.C. teens that 

recalled ever seeing the paid Campaign ad, Alex Straight A 's, increased from 50 

percent to 68 percent, compared to Birmingham teen recall which remained 

unchanged at 40 percent. Media monitoring data support these findings. Over the 

course of the Phase I intervention, the average number of times Alex Straight A's 

aired increased in Washington, D.C. from 0 at baseline to 16.2 times a month (or 

4.1 times a week). What is more, 44.4 percent of the time Alex Straight A's aired 

during viewing hours when D.C. teens were most likely to be watching TV (prime 

access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; weekend 

daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). 

In addition, survey data in Exhibit 5-12 show statistically significant within-site 

increases in D.C. teen recall of the paid Campaign ads, Free Ride and Layla. 

From baseline to followup, the percentage of D.C. teens that recalled ever seeing 

the paid Campaign ad, Free Ride, increased from 35 percent to 46 percent, but 

dropped from 30 percent to 29 percent in Birmingham. Media monitoring data 

support survey findings. Over the same period, the average number of times Free 

Ride aired increased in Washington, D.C. from 0 to 9.2 times a month (or 2.3 

times a week). Moreover, 60.9 percent of the time Free Ride aired during viewing 

hours when D.C. teens were most likely to be watching TV. 

Additionally, when D.C. teens were asked if they recalled seeing the paid 

Campaign ad, Layla, "often", recall increased to a statistically significant degree 

within site. Media monitoring and media buy data support this finding. From 

baseline to intervention, the average number of times Layla aired increased in 

Washington, D.C. from 0 to 16.2 times a month (or 4.1 times a week). Media buy 

data show that the ad Layla aired 63 times as a paid ad and achieved 331 GRPs, 

indicating the ad aired during prime viewing hours. Lastly, media monitoring data 

show that 44.4 percent of the time Layla aired during viewing hours when D.C. 

teens were most likely to be watching TV. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-87 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

5.12.2.3 Parents 

Four paid Campaign ads directed toward parents in Washington, D.C., were 

included in the survey instrument. The one PSA targeting parents was Burbs. 

Survey data suggest strongly that the Media Campaign contributed to statistically 

significant increases in the percentage of D.C. parents that reported seeing or 

hearing ads on TV informing them of the risks of drug use. In fact, from baseline 

to followup, the percentage of D.C. parents that responded they had seen or heard 

such ads "almost every day" or "more often" increased significantly (from 25% to 

34%) when compared with responses from Birmingham parents (from 20% to 

24%). 

Survey data show statistically significant increases in the percentage of D.C. 

parents that reported seeing three of the four paid Campaign ads "often"--Deal, 

Girl Interview, and Under Your Nose. When D.C. parents were asked if they had 

seen the ads "often" or "a few times," increases in awareness were significant for 

all ads, including O'Connor. Survey data show even greater statistical 

significance with respect to the percentage of parents that reported ever seeing the 

aforementioned four paid Campaign ads. Media monitoring and media buy data 

support survey findings, showing a substantial increase in the average number of 

times that the paid Campaign ads aired in the target site, and the number of times 

the paid ads aired during prime TV viewing hours. What is more, the adulttargeted ads aired in D.C. with a much greater reach and frequency than in any of 

the other target sites. 

At followup, D.C. parent recollection of Deal increased by 14 percent (from 50% 

to 64%), while decreasing by 6 percent in the comparison site, Birmingham (from 

50% to 44%). Media monitoring and buy data support these findings. Over the 

same period, the average number of times Deal aired increased in Washington, 

D.C. from 0 to 28.6 times a month (or 7.2 times a week). Media buy data indicate 

that Deal aired 27 times as a paid ad and achieved GRPs totaling 86. Moreover, 

60 percent of the time Deal aired during viewing hours when D.C. parents were 

most likely to be watching TV. 

Likewise, from baseline to follow up D.C. parent recollection of the paid 

Campaign ad, Girl Interview, increased significantly (from 19% to 44%), while 

decreasing in Birmingham from 18 percent to 16 percent. The average number of 

times Girl Interview aired increased from less than three times per month during 

the baseline period in Washington, D.C. to 14.8 times per month (or 3.7 times per 

week) during the intervention. Media buy data indicate that Girl Interview aired 

26 times and achieved GRPs of 104. Furthermore, 44.6 percent of the time Girl 

Interview aired during prime viewing hours (prime access: 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m.; 

prime time: 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m.; weekend daytime: 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.). By 

comparison, Girl Interview aired an average of only 1.4 times per month in 

Birmingham during the intervention period, none of which occurred during prime 

viewing hours. 

Parent recall of the paid Campaign ad Under Your Nose increased to a statistically 

significant degree in Washington, D.C. from 30 percent to 42 percent, compared 

5-88 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Site-Level Results: Washington, D.C. 

to a much smaller increase in Birmingham from 36 percent to 37 percent. Media 

monitoring and buy data support these findings. The average number of times that 

Under Your Nose aired increased from 0 at baseline to 10.4 during times per 

month (2.6 times per week) during intervention, 63.5 percent of which occurred 

during prime viewing hours for parents. Under Your Nose aired as a paid ad more 

frequently than Girl Interview but reached a smaller portion of the adult audience, 

achieving 72 GRPs. Over the same period, Under Your Nose did not air at all in 

the comparison site, Birmingham. 

Media monitoring data further support survey findings that indicate a statistically 

significant increase in the percent of D.C. parents that ever saw the paid campaign 

ad, O'Connor. In fact, parent recall increased from 58 percent to 73 percent, in 

Washington, D.C., while dropping from 71 percent to 69 percent in Birmingham. 

Media monitoring data support these findings. In Washington, D.C., the average 

number of times O'Connor aired increased from 4.3 times per month during 

baseline to 17.8 times per month (4.5 per week) during the intervention period as 

both a paid ad and as a PSA. In addition, during the baseline period, 40 percent of 

the time O'Connor aired during prime viewing hours for parents. Media buy data 

support this, indicating the ad aired 35 times as a paid ad and achieved 95 GRPs 

among the adult audience. Lastly, O'Connor aired on average only 1.6 times a 

month during the intervention in Birmingham. 

As expected, the percentage of D.C. parents that recalled seeing the ad Burbs, 

which aired only as a PSA, showed no significant increase. Interestingly, 

however, media monitoring data show that Burbs aired in the baseline period an 

average of 11 times per month and during the intervention period an average of 15 

times per month. In Birmingham, the average number of times Burbs aired as a 

PSA increased from 4.3 times a month at baseline to 12.8 times a month during 

the intervention. Similarly, the percentage of Birmingham parents that recalled 

seeing the ad "often" remained constant and low. 

5.12.3 Community Impact 

The D.C. Community Prevention Partnership was directly involved in Phase I of 

the Media Campaign. It conducted monthly conference calls with the other 11 

target sites for debriefing and produced a newsletter. Representatives from civic 

organizations attended the Media Campaign kickoff and disseminated Media 

Campaign messages to their membership. Since the inception of the Media 

Campaign, community informants representing prevention providers reported a 

30-percent increase in hotline phone calls from people searching for information 

on substance abuse prevention and treatment. 

5.12.4 Summary of Findings 

After Phase I of the Media Campaign, survey findings clearly indicate increases 

in awareness among youth, teens, and parents in Washington, D.C. As a result, 

they appear to be much more aware of the dangers of illegal drug use. For 

example, from baseline to followup D.C. youth awareness of the dangers of drug 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 5-89 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

use increased 10 percent (from 72% to 82%), while remaining constant in the 

comparison site, Birmingham. In addition, a significantly greater percentage of 

Washington, DC youth, from baseline to followup, reported seeing or hearing 

messages on TV that drugs are bad for them (increasing from 81% to 86%). 

Likewise, from baseline to followup, the percentage of D.C. parents that 

responded they had seen or heard such ads almost every day or more often 

increased significantly (from 25% to 34%) when compared with responses from 

Birmingham parents (from 20% to 24%). Additionally, survey data indicate a 

statistically significant increase in the percentage of D.C. youth that reported 

learning of the dangers of inhalant use (increased from 55% at baseline to 71% at 

followup) when compared to the percent change of Birmingham youth over the 

same period. 

With respect to specific Campaign ads targeted toward youth, the data show 

statistically significant increases in awareness of four of these ads in D.C.--Long 

Way Home, Drowning, Girlfriend, and Noses. Media monitoring data suggest that 

the rise is correlated with the increase in the average number of times and the 

hours of the day the paid Campaign ads aired. 

In addition, survey data show statistically significant increases in awareness of 

four of the five paid campaign ads directed at D.C. teens--Frying Pan, Alex 

Straight A 's, Free Ride, and Layla. Similarly, survey data show statistically 

significant increases in the percentage of D.C. parents that reported seeing three 

of the four paid Campaign ads "often" and all four ads "often" or "a few times"-- 

Deal, Girl Interview, and Under Your Nose. Lastly, data obtained through 

interviews with key local informants show that the Campaign is contributing to 

collaboration and outreach efforts of organizations such as CADCA as well as 

increasing the number of hotline phone calls received from the public about 

substance abuse prevention and treatment. 

5.13 REFERENCES 

Bureau of Substance Abuse Services. 1997. Wisconsin Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Indicators: 1995. Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Health and Family 

Services, Bureau of Substance Abuse Services. 

Washington/Baltimore HIDTA. 1997. A Multi-Indicator Analysis of the Drug 

Threat to the Washington~Baltimore Region: Washington~Baltimore HIDTA 

1997-98 Threat Assessment. Washington/Baltimore HIDTA. 

5-90 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
6. LESSONS LEARNED 

The evaluation of the Phase I National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign 

included baseline and followup surveys with youth, teens, and parents; a series of 

three site visits to the 12 target and 12 comparison sites, scheduled at the 

beginning, midpoint, and at the end of the Campaign; and ongoing monitoring of 

media activity in many of these sites. Based on analyses of these multiple data 

sets, certain themes and issues repeatedly emerged. Some of the lessons learned 

support definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of the Phase I Campaign. 

Others support the formulation of recommendations that may influence 

subsequent phases of the Campaign. 

To review, the Phase I Campaign began in January 1998, running in twelve test 

communities for six months, and has served as a "learning lab" phase in which 

paid anti-drug advertising was targeted to elementary, middle, and high school 

students, parents, and other influential adults. Phase I featured its messages 

primarily on television, radio, and newspaper print, using ads that had been 

developed by the Partnership for a Drug Free America. The objective of Phase I 

was to help youngsters, parents, and other adults to become more aware of antidrug ads being aired. Secondary expectations, although not clearly articulated 

objectives, were to heighten citizens' awareness of the risks associated with using 

drugs, and to influence the target communities to undertake collateral activities in 

support of the Media Campaign. 

Based on the preliminary findings of the evaluation of Phase I, it appears that the 

first important step, the raising of awareness of ads and risks associated with 

using drugs, has been accomplished. 

In the months to come, the national Campaign will harness a diverse media mix 

including television, video, radio, print, and Internet and other forms of new 

media to deliver anti-drug messages. Each successive Phase of the Campaign will 

be evaluated to determine whether it meets its objectives. 

Once the full-scale Media Campaign is launched, with new creative ads on a 

national basis, goals will be even more ambitious: to change youths' use of illegal 

drugs, to postpone the age when they begin to use drugs, and to convince 

occasional users of these and other drugs to stop using them. 

The major findings presented in this Chapter are organized into two major 

sections: (1) lessons learned that support clear evidence of the effectiveness of the 

Phase I Campaign; and (2) lessons learned that can serve to inform subsequent 

activities and efforts to be undertaken by the national campaign. 

Office of National Drug Control Strategy 6-1 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

6.1 LESSONS RELATING TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PHASE I 

CAMPAIGN 

6.1.1 Lesson 1: Phase I Resulted in Increased Awareness of Anti-Drug 

Advertisements 

The major objective of the Phase I Campaign, tested in 12 communities, was to 

increase awareness of anti-drug ads paid for by the Campaign. This was a critical 

concern, because unless youth, parents, and other adults targeted by the Phase I 

Campaign became more aware of these ads, there would be little justification for 

launching the Campaign nationally. 

Comparisons of baseline and follow-up surveys and media monitoring results 

clearly indicate that both young people and parents saw or heard more anti-drug 

ads in target communities. Concentrated broadcasting of anti-drug use 

advertisements in prime time slots produced a greater awareness of those antidrug ads. As expected, ad awareness measures for youth, teens and parents 

showed substantial increases from baseline to follow-up and substantial 

differences between target and comparison sites. Given this information, the 

following conclusions can be drawn about the impact of the Phase I Campaign on 

its audiences: 

• Repeated broadcasts of individual advertisements on drug use dangers raised 

viewer awareness of anti-drug ads regardless of the viewer's age; 

The use of paid television ads as a source of anti-drug information for youth 

and teens was effective in reaching these target groups (media monitoring data 

demonstrate that awareness of ads is greater when ads are broadcast 

frequently and aired in prime dayparts when more viewers are watching); 

• The content of drug-specific ads was appropriately matched with the 

audiences targeted (e.g., inhalants with youth); 

• The campaign advertisements were shown with sufficient repeated broadcasts 

to significantlyincrease viewer awareness in the target communities. 

Three recommendations are pertinent here: 

Survey questions should be expanded in the future to include other media 

formats used (e.g., print ads, radio ads) so that the Media Campaign can test 

the effectiveness of components other than television. Focus group responses 

indicate that ads presented through media formats like radio are especially 

attractive to particular groups and ages. For example, teens in Hartford said 

that they learn more about drug risks from radio than from other media; 

center-city Hartford teens recommended placing ads in all types of media, 

plus developing anti-drug school posters. Teens in Sioux City focus groups 

said they listen to radio more than they watch TV. Teens in Washington, DC 

said they learned about drug risks from the radio than through other types of 

media. 

6-2 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Lessons Learned 

6.1.2 

Other-than-English language ads should be developed in sites with 

appreciable ethnic populations; focus groups document that non-Englishspeaking groups show a preference for media messages aired in their own 

language. Further analysis of existing site-level data can produce valuable 

detail on how best to target and develop such ads. 

Media monitoring data should be collected for any subsequent Media 

Campaign efforts because these data provide critical information to help 

explain why awareness is higher for certain ads; in addition, daypart 

information is important for understanding awareness of Campaign ads when 

they are appearing in both paid spots and as PSAs. 

Lesson 2: Perceptions of the Effectiveness of Phase I Ads Varied By 

Age of the Viewer 

Survey results revealed some age group differences in perceptions of ad 

effectiveness. Parents and youth tended to perceive ads as being effective in their 

presentation, while teens found the ads to be less effective. Focus group sessions 

with teens revealed that they are influenced by their own feelings of invincibility 

as well as the impact of peer pressure. Unlike younger youth, they have had an 

opportunity for firsthand experience with drug use either by trying drugs 

themselves or by witnessing use among peers or adults. Parents and community 

informants agreed with the teens' views; they believed that ads targeting children 

were more effective than those directed to older youth or teenagers. 

These findings support the following recommendations: 

• Phase I methods of presentation of ads targeting parent and youth groups 

should be continued as the media campaign progresses; and 

• Efforts should be made to further study what aspects of ads targeting teens can 

be fine-tuned or revised to raise teens' perceptions of effectiveness. 

The finding that there was minimal change in teen awareness seems to reinforce 

the importance of intervening with prevention messages when young people are 

still at an age when they will pay attention. A recommendation is that subsequent 

Media Campaign efforts should explore whether other vehicles can be more 

effective in reaching the teenage population. This fits with teens' own 

recommendations about how ads could be improved to be more effective with 

teens: 

Develop ads with more realistic presentations of drug dangers; involve teens 

themselves in designing and producing ads; have persons well-known to teens 

(but not celebrities) as actors in the ads; and make the ads' settings as locally 

based and recognizable as possible. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 6-3 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

6.1,3 Lesson 3: Youth and Parents Did Learn Some New Facts About the 

Risks of Using Drugs 

While the major expectation of the Phase I Campaign was to increase awareness 

of the anti-drug ads shown, a secondary objective was to start the difficult road 

toward influencing Campaign target audiences' understanding of the risks 

associated with using drugs. Analyses linking survey and media findings strongly 

suggest that increases in the monthly total number of ads lead to greater 

awareness of drug problems across age groups. Findings also indicate that 

increased frequency of drug-specific ads lead to greater recognition of the drug 

risks and dangers addressed by those ads. For example, increases in the frequency 

of inhalant ads paralleled the significantly increased percentage of target site 

youth who viewed inhalants as life threatening as compared to comparison site 

youth. 

Additionally, survey findings revealed a significant increase in the percentage of 

target site youth who reported learning about the negative aspects of drugs from 

TV ads, and the percentage of target site teens who learned this information from 

the radio, contrasted with the comparison site youth and teens. 

Likewise, parents gained new knowledge about the risks of using drugs from the 

Campaign aired in the 12 target sites, compared with parents in other 

communities where the Campaign was not in place. For example, before the 

Campaign was launched, many parents did not understand how serious the 

problem was in their community. After the Campaign had been in place for 

several months, parents in target sites, compared with parents in comparison sites, 

reported a much higher level of awareness of how important it is to talk with their 

youngsters about the dangers of drug use. In addition, the consensus of parents in 

9 of the 12 target sites was that the ads shown had provided a positive 

contribution to a wider, more comprehensive effort to address youth and adult 

drug use. Survey results for parents confirm that by the end of Phase I, target site 

parents increased their perceptions of the risks posed by the use of cocaine, 

inhalants, heroin, and methamphetamines. 

Given these findings, ~he following conclusions can be made about the impact of 

the Phase I Campaign on increasing knowledge about the risks associated with 

using drugs: 

• Youth did learn some new facts about the dangers of using drugs, particularly 

the use of inhalants; and 

Parents learned more about the pervasiveness of the drug problem in this 

country; the risks associated with drug use, and the importance of 

communicating with their youngsters about the risks of using drugs. 

These data also suggest the following recommendation: 

• Future evaluations should consider research designs that enable parent and 

child data to be linked in order to examine how parents' responses correlate 

6-4 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Lessons Learned 

6.1.4 

with their child's and the extent to which family members' perceptions of 

drugs and media messages are disparate or congruent. 

Lesson 4: The Media Campaign Changed Some Attitudes Towards 

Drug Use 

We know from other health promotion and education campaigns and prevention 

research, that it takes up to two years to change people's attitudes and behavior 

(Monitoring the Future). It is first necessary to educate citizens about risky 

behavior, increase their awareness of messages about these risks, and influence 

their attitudes about this behavior. Only then can a real impact be made on 

changing their behavior, in this case, the use of drugs. Given the link between 

changing awareness, attitudes, and behavior, and the normally anticipated timing 

of such changes, ONDCP recognized that it would be unrealistic to expect the 

Phase I Media Campaign to have any real impact on changing the attitudes and 

behavior of the youth, parents, and other adults targeted by the Campaign. 

Therefore, the goals to change people's attitudes and behavior, related to drug 

use, have been set aside as the focus of the national campaign. 

Nonetheless, Phase I resulted in some change in attitudes that were not expected 

so early. While survey results confirm that most attitudes, across all age groups of 

youth, did not change during the period of the Phase I Media Campaign, there 

were a few findings suggesting that even this short Campaign effort has made 

some inroads to changing youth and parents' attitudes toward drug use. 

The percentage of target site youth who believed that the use of inhalants was 

risky increased during the Campaign compared with comparison youth. By the 

end of the Campaign the percentage of youth who thought that "things you sniff 

or huff to get high can kill you", was significantly higher than before the 

Campaign, compared with those youth in communities where the Campaign was 

not in place. 

The Campaign has also achieved some modest success in changing parents' 

attitudes about drug use. For example, before the Campaign fewer parents thought 

that "America's drug problem is something that all families should be concerned 

about." After the Campaign, the percentage of parents holding this view increased 

significantly. Likewise, the percentage of parents who were "aware of the risks of 

using drugs" increased significantly by the end of the Phase I Campaign. 

The following conclusions are supported by these and many other findings 

presented in earlier chapters: 

• Drug-specific ads aimed at youth, used in Phase I, appear to have had the 

greatest effect on changing their attitudes about the use of drugs; and 

• More attention needs to be focused on identifying what different advertising 

approaches are most effective in changing youth, teen, and parent attitudes. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 6-5 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

6.1.5 Lesson 5: The Media Campaign Did Have an Impact on Target 

Communities 

Media campaigns have been used to prevent or reduce consumption of illegal 

drugs and smoking and risky behaviors such as driving under the influence of 

alcohol or without seat belts. For all their power to inform and persuade, the 

media alone are not likely to bring about large, sustained changes in drug use 

behavior. The Campaign will be successful only if media efforts can be 

coordinated with other initiatives in the community. While community-level 

efforts were not a stated goal of Phase I, in fact the Media Campaign did 

encourage local communities to mobilize their own anti-drug initiatives and 

education campaigns. Site visit data collected toward the end of the Campaign 

suggest that many such events have occurred in the 12 target communities since 

the Campaign began last year. Observation of these early activities suggests that it 

is important to local communities that they become involved with initiating 

activities that can support a media campaign. It appears that the launching of a 

major media campaign may be the ideal time to build on the enthusiasm and 

momentum and encourage communities to become active. 

Teachers, police officers, mayors, and local community leaders in all 12 target 

communities were asked what they thought about the Media Campaign. In almost 

all 12 communities, these citizens reported that, after the Media Campaign was 

launched, other activities were started to support the Campaign. Some of these 

anti-drug activities were school based, and others worked through local churches 

and community organizations. 

Eleven of the 12 target communities reported anti-drug activities that built on the 

Campaign's momentum and were directly attributable to it. These activities 

included, for example, an increase in local hotline calls for substance abuse 

information or referral; outreach/education activities carried out by the 

organizations coordinating the Media Campaign; involvement of staff and 

students in local schools; pro-bono support from the media; presentations about 

the Media Campaign at conferences or seminars; and provision of matching funds 

for the Campaign by the business community. 

Based on these findings, we recommend that target communities should continue 

to be encouraged to use the Media Campaign as an opportunity to increase their 

involvement in many types of anti-drug initiatives. The importance of 

community-level efforts to the success of the Campaign cannot be overestimated. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that further site-level analyses be undertaken: 

Conduct an indepth analysis of Phase I site-level survey data to identify how 

youth's, teens', and parents' responses may be influenced by local contextual 

factors in the community in addition to the Media Campaign intervention. 

This analysis will help to identify the types of community conditions where 

anti-drug media messages have a stronger impact. 

6-6 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Lessons Learned 

6.2 LESSONS THAT WILL INFORM THE NATIONAL MEDIA CAMPAIGN 

6.2.1 Lesson 6: Inconsistent Teen Views About Marijuana Affect Their 

Perceptions of Anti-Marijuana Ads 

Survey results indicated that teens awareness of the risk of marijuana either within 

or between the target and comparison sites remained unchanged throughout the 

Media Campaign. Survey results also underscored the.degree to which teens seem 

confused about the dangers of marijuana use. Results showed that many teens 

perceived health risks as being less important than social/behavioral risks. A 

relatively small proportion of teens thought that there was "great risk" in trying 

marijuana; however, many more thought there was "great risk" in using it 

regularly. Two-thirds also thought that marijuana users were at "great risk" for 

"getting hooked" or "going on to harder drugs." Approximately three quarters 

thought that marijuana users were at "great risk" for upsetting their parents. 

Focus group discussions indicated that the majority of teens view the use of 

marijuana as acceptable and as one of their drugs of choice. Teenagers, especially 

those in high school, said that they like marijuana because it is cheap, 

transportable, easy to cover up, and relaxing. Most teens disagreed with the 

statement, "I don't want to hang around anyone who uses marijuana." 

Based on this information, the following recommendations are offered: 

• Future campaign ads targeting marijuana use should be clear and precise in 

describing the effects of regular marijuana use on teens; and 

.O Media campaign ads targeting marijuana use by teens should also incorporate 

the following in their content: (1) the transition from casual marijuana use to 

chronic use; (2) the differences between popular misconceptions and facts on 

the physical, personal and psychological effects of marijuana use; and 3) the 

strong impact of peer influence on marijuana use. 

• Additional, non-TV media should be used to reach teens, especially in 

communities whose focus groups have identified those preferences. 

Further analysis of survey data should be undertaken on the relationship 

between teens' own use of marijuana and their awareness of its risks. As 

indicated in the Phase I focus groups, even teens who are highly aware of the 

risks nevertheless use the drug. One explanation, often advanced both by teens 

and by those who observe them, concerns the notion of teen "invincibility." 

Other explanations may require further analysis of existing survey data. Sitelevel analyses also would allow for the relationship between drug use and 

awareness of risk to be examined in the context of local factors (e.g., a highly 

publicized drug-related event)i 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 6-7 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

6.2.2 Lesson 7: Parents Are One of the Key Information Sources on Drug 

Use Dangers 

Survey results indicated that parents are one of the most important sources of 

information about drugs among youth. Yet, survey data show serious 

discrepancies in parents' claims about their drug-related communication with 

their children. Despite the fact that most parents agreed that my child knows 

exactly how I fe'el about him/her using drugs, at target sites far fewer at baseline 

and at follow-up said that they had spoken with their children about drugs four or 

more times in the past year. 

Parents in focus group discussions at all target and comparison sites stressed the 

importance of talking to their children about the risks and dangers of drug use and 

communicating values about avoiding drugs. These parents reported that they 

used the Media Campaign ads as starting points or icebreakers for initiating 

conversations about drugs with their children. However, many parents described 

• the reasons they did not talk to their children about drugs or had difficulties doing 

so effectively. These included the parents' own past or present drug use, lack of 

information about drugs, the youth drug culture, how and when to present 

information to their children, denial that the problem could affect their children, 

and acceptance of youth drug use. 

Our observations indicate that parents strongly desire to engage their children in 

discussions of drug use and its consequences, but do not know how to approach 

the subject or how to proceed effectively even when the subject is raised by their 

children. Parents in focus groups frequently praised the ads as "ice breakers," 

enabling them to raise the subject of drug use with their children. But they also 

expressed their wish for other kinds of materials designed to help them talk to 

their children more effectively about drugs. 

In light of these findings, • the following recommendations are offered: 

• Parents urgently need to know more about drugs, their risks, what they look 

like, and how young people gain access to them; 

A significant portion of national Campaign ads should be devoted to the 

improvement of communication between parents and their children on the 

subject of drug use; 

Ads on parent-child communication should point out the possible 

discrepancies between young people's knowledge and experience with drugs 

and parents' perceptions about how much their children know; and 

Ads on improving parent-child communication should move beyond stressing 

the general importance of parent-child communication and present specific 

methods to parents that can be expected to be effective in communicating 

dangers of drug use to their children. 

6-8 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Lessons Learned 

6.2.3 

Additional materials should be developed and made available to parents in 

order to give them the support and guidance they seek in talking with their 

children. Parents frequently mentioned materials could provide some 

"modeling" about how to raise the subject and could be presented in ads and 

in coordinated, supplemental, written materials. The development of videos 

for home use is a further suggestion. 

The Campaign ads should make greater use of realistic role-playing 

interactions between parents and their children. The role-playing may reflect a 

variety of scenarios according to the parent's sex, the age and sex of the child, 

and the type of drug being focused upon. This approach can be developed 

effectively for TV or radio. Given the wide latitude in artistic and 

presentational style, messages could be designed in a manner that is both 

informative and interesting. 

Future plans of the Media Campaign should examine the best times to air ads 

targeting adults. Parents did not have high-level awareness of the ads targeting 

them, but focus group data indicate that parents saw ads targeting youth and 

teens. 

Lesson 8: Anti-Drug Media Ads Can Be Improved 

There was considerable agreement among focus group participants across center 

city and non-center city neighborhoods and community representatives from all 

sites about how to improve ads. It is noteworthy that one ad, Frying Pan, was 

frequently identified by large numbers of focus group participants in all age 

categories. This ad features a white woman who demolishes an egg and most of 

the contents of a kitchen with a frying pan to illustrate the damaging effect of 

heroin on the user, the user's friends, and ultimately the user's life. 

There was considerable agreement across sites and among communities, 

community representatives, youth, and parents about how to improve ads. Focus 

group participants, community individuals who were interviewed and youth and 

parents who were surveyed agreed that ads need to be realistic, present the facts, 

and use local contact numbers for referrals. Other suggestions include the 

following: 

• Ads should demonstrate the physical effects of drug use, including negative 

changes in physical appearance; 

• Ads should show recognizable local (or at least regional) settings; 

• Celebrities used in the ads Should be local personalities; 

• There should be more first-person testimonials, especially by youth peers. 

• There should be more advice on how to improve parent-child communication 

about drugs. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 6-9 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

• Ads should be age-appropriate, with younger and older children targeted with 

specific ads; 

• Ads should be customized toward specific ethnic and income groups; and 

• In addition to targeting young children with certain ads, the Media Campaign 

should involve more young children. 

These suggestions were made regularly by youth, parents, and community 

representatives living in both cities and suburbs. 

6.2.4 Lesson 9: Surveying Students in School Settings Is Problematic 

The research design for gathering survey data from youth and teens involved 

sampling public schools and administering the survey to respondents during the 

school day. However, in this effort many barriers were encountered. The inschool surveys could not take place if the school or school district refused entry. 

Some districts were participating in other national surveys, experienced difficulty 

obtaining signed parent consent forms, or did not gain approval from their 

Institutional Review Board in time for the survey. Also, in a number of sites, 

unrelated legal issues resulted in last minute refusals to participate. 

Student survey data were gathered in all 12 target sites and in 8 of the 12 

comparison sites. The implications of not getting into schools in some comparison 

sites meant that there was not a unique comparison site for every target site. Thus, 

some comparison sites were used more than once as replacements. Although this 

• did not affect the aggregate analyses, some comparisons such as those looking at 

center city and non-center city differences, were not able to be made at the market 

level. Thus, the following recommendation is made: 

Future on-site research should not rely on in-school surveys. The issue of 

gaining parental consent is only one of the problems encountered in 

conducting school-based research. The methodological issues regarding 

parental consent in school-based research have been the subject of a number 

of recent reviews (e.g., Anderman et al., 1995; Dent et al., 1993). These two 

studies concur on several findings of relevance to this Report: that students 

with and without active parental consent have different demographic 

characteristics (including SES and ethnicity), thus leading to potential sample 

bias; that teenagers without active parental consent are higher in risk-taking 

and in marijuana use, thus reducing the generalizability of the results; and that 

teenagers with active consent are more likely to have seen information on 

alcohol, tobacco, and drug use--again with implications for valid 

interpretations of survey findings. 

It is important to note that the Phase I Media Campaign results were not adversely 

affected by the problems reported above because adequate data were available: 

appropriate substitute schools were selected when school access was denied, and 

survey findings were cross-checked againstdata from focus groups, key 

6-10 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Lessons Learned 

informant interviews, and media monitoring to ensure reliability and validity of 

findings. 

6.3 SUMMARY 

Youth and teen survey responses clearly indicate that television, and especially 

television anti-drug ads, became a common source of information about the risks 

of drugs in the 12 target communities during the Phase I Media Campaign. 

Parents, likewise, were very aware of the ads aired during the Campaign. Youth 

and parents in these communities reported that they learned new information 

about the risks of using drugs. Further, many local community efforts were 

undertaken over the course of the campaign to build on the Phase I Campaign 

efforts. 

6.4 REFERENCES 

Anderman, C., Cheadle, A., Curry, S., Diehr, P., Shultz, L., and Wagner, E. 

1995. "Selection Bias Related to Parental Consent in School-Based Survey 

Research." Evaluation Review 19:663-74. 

Burtun, D., Flay, B., Dent, C., Galaif, J., Stacy, A., and Sussman, S. 1993. 

"Demographic, Psychosocial and Behavioral Differences in Samples of 

Actively and Passively Consented Adolescents." Addictive Behaviors 18:51- 

56. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 6-11 

APPENDIX A 

TELEVISION MEDIA MONITORING DATA 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. TELEVISION DATA USER GUIDE ............................................................................................... i 

1.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF TV ADS BY SPONSOR: TARGET SITES VS. COMPARISON 

SITES 

1.1.1 Aggregate Data: 

1.1.2 Site Specific Data: 

1.1.3 Site Specific Data: 

1.1.4 Site Specific Data: 

1.1.5 Site Specific Data: 

1.1.6 Site Specific Data: 

1.1.7 Site Specific Data: 

1.1.8 Site Specific Data: 

1.1.9 Site Specific Data: 

Target Sites vs. Comparison Sites ................................................ A-1 

Atlanta vs. Memphis ................................................................. A-3 

Baltimore vs. Richmond ........................................................... A-4 

Denver vs. Albuquerque ........................................................... A-5 

Hartford vs. Harrisburg ............................................................. A-6 

Houston vs. Dallas .................................................................... A-7 

Milwaukee vs. Nashville .......................................................... A-8 

Portland, OR vs. Spokane ......................................................... A-9 

San Diego vs. Phoenix ............................................................ A-10 

1.1.10 Site Specific Data: Washington, DC vs. Birmingham ......................................... A-11 

1.2 TOTAL NUMBER OF CAMPAIGN/PDFA AND PDFA TV ADS BY TYPE OF DRUG: 

TARGET SITES VS. COMPARISON SITES 

1.2.1 Aggregate Data: Target Sites vs. Comparison Sites .............................................. A-12 

1.2.2 Site Specific Data: Atlanta vs. Memphis ............................................................... A-13 

1.2.3 Site Specific Data: Baltimore vs. Richmond ......................................................... A-14 

1.2.4 Site Specific Data: Denver vs. Albuquerque .......................................................... A-15 

1.2.5 Site Specific Data: Hartford vs. Harrisburg ........................................................... A-16 

1.2.6 Site Specific Data: Houston vs. Dallas .................................................................. A-17 

1.2.7 Site Specific Data: Milwaukee vs. Nashville ........................................................ A-18 

1.2.8 Site Specific Data: Portland, OR vs. Spokane ....................................................... A-19 

1.2.9 Site Specific Data: San Diego vs. Phoer~ix ............................................................ A-20 

1.2.10 Site Specific Data: Washington, DC vs. Birmingham ......................................... A-21 

1.3 TOTAL NUMBER OF CAMPAIGN/PDFA AND PDFA TV ADS BY DAYPART: 

TARGET SITES VS. COMPARISON SITES 

1.3.1 Aggregate Data: Target Sites vs. Comparison Sites ............................................... A-22 

1.3.2 Site Specific Data: Atlanta vs. Memphis ............................................................... A-23 

1.3.3 Site Specific Data: Baltimore vs. Richmond ......................................................... A-24 

1.3.4 Site Specific Data: Denver vs. Albuquerque ......................................................... A-25 

1.3.5 Site Specific Data: Hartford vs. Harrisburg ........................................ ................... A-26 

1.3.6 Site Specific Data: Houston vs. Dallas .................................................................. A-27 

1.3.7 Site Specific Data: Milwaukee vs. Nashville ........................................................ A-28 

1.3.8 Site Specific Data: Portland, OR vs. Spokane ....................................................... A-29 

1.3.9 Site Specific Data: San Diego vs. Phoenix ............................................................ A-30 

1.3.10 Site Specific Data: Washington, DC vs. Birmingham ......................................... A-31 

1.4 TOTAL NUMBER OF OTHER ANTI-DRUG TV ADS BY DAYPART: TARGET SITES 

VS. COMPARISON SITES 

1.4.1 Aggregate Data: Target Sites vs. Comparison Sites ............................................. A-32 

1.4.2 Site Specific Data: Atlanta vs. Memphis ............................................................... A-33 

1.4.3 Site Specific Data: Baltimore vs. Richmond ......................................................... A-34 

1.4.4 Site Specific Data: Denver vs. Albuquerque ......................................................... A-35 

1.4.5 Site Specific Data: Hartford vs. Harrisburg ........................................................... A-36 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Table of Contents 

.... 1.4.6 Site Specific Data: Houston vs. Dallas .................................................................. A-37 

1.4.7 Site Specific Data: Milwaukee vs. Nashville ........................................................ A-38 

1.4.8 Site Specific Data: Portland vs. Spokane .............................................................. A-39 

1.4.9 Site Specific Data: San Diego vs. Phoenix ............................................................ A-40 

1.4.10 Site Specific Data: Washington, DC vs. Birmingham ......................................... A-41 

1.5 TOTAL NUMBER OF OTHER SOCIAL ISSUE TV ADS BY DAYPART: TARGET 

SITES VS. COMPARISON SITES 

1.5.1 Aggregate Data: Target Sites vs. Comparison Sites ........................................ A-42 

1.5.2 Site Specific Data: Atlanta vs. Memphis ............................................................... A-43 

1.5.3 Site Specific Data: Baltimore vs. Richmond ......................................................... A-44 

1.5.4 Specific Denver vs. Albuquerque ......................................................... A-45 

1.5.5 Specific Hartford vs. Harrisburg ........................................................... A-46 

1.5.6 Specific Houston vs. Dallas .................................................................. A-47 

1.5.7 Milwaukee vs. Nashville ........................................................ A-48 

1.5.8 Portland vs. Spokane .............................................................. A-49 

San Diego vs. Phoenix ............................................................ A-50 

1.5.10 Site Specific Data: Washington, DC vs. Birmingham ......................................... A-51 

2. PHASE I MEDIA CAMPAIGN INTERVENTION: TELEVISION, RADIO, NEWSPAPER, 

CHANNEL ONE, AND OUTDOOR ........................................................................................ A-52 

Site Data: 

Site Data: 

Site Data: 

Site Specific Data: 

Site Specific Data: 

1.5.9 Site Specific Data: 

3. DEFINITIONS OF MEDIA TERMS ........................................................................................ A-54 

Office of National Drug Control Policy , 
TELEVISION DATA USER GUIDE 

Anti-drug ads that aired on affiliates of the three major national television 

networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC), national cable WBN (Time-Warner cable), 

FOX, Univision, TBS, UPN, IND, and Telemundo (Spanish-language cable) were 

tracked in the target and comparison sites by a television monitoring service.1 

Data were not collected on ads airing on several local cable stations (e.g., MTV 

and Nickelodeon) and in-school Channel One, which were used to target the 

youth/teen audiences. Televised anti-drug ads in three target communities (Boise, 

Sioux City, and Tucson) and two comparison communities (Duluth and Eugene) 

were also not electronically monitored. Media monitoring is possible only in the 

75 largest television markets nationally; of the 24 evaluation sites, only 19 are in 

that group. For the five sites where media monitoring is not possible, attempts to 

collect advertising information from the stations manually through monthly 

telephone interviews did not yield reliable or complete data and, therefore, are not 

included in this report. Television stations were monitored from 6:00 a.m. to 

1:59 a.m., for a total of 20 hours per day. 

Appendix A comprises three sets of graphs. 

SET 1: The first set includes data with regard to the total number of TV Ads, 

which includes (1) Campaign/PDFA Ads, (2) Other Anti-Drug Ads, and 

(3) Other Social Issue Ads. Page A-1 presents aggregate data--all target sites 

vs. all comparison sites. Note that the shaded region refers to the intervention 

period (the upper graph), and the non-shaded region refers to the baseline 

period. Note further that all target sites appear on the upper half of the page, 

and comparison sites on the lower. For the comparison site, the baseline and 

intervention periods are both non-shaded (they did not receive the 

intervention). Pages A-2-A-10 present site-level data in exactly the same 

manner as in the aggregate. 

SET 2: The second set also includes data with regard to the total number of 

TV Ads (Campaign/PDFA Ads and Other Anti-Drug Ads). However, this set 

divides the anti-drug ads according to the specific type of drugs upon which 

the ads focus (e.g., crack, inhalants, drugs in general, heroin, and 

methamphetamine). Page 11 presents aggregate datamall target sites vs. all 

comparison sites. Again, note that the shaded region refers to the intervention 

period (the upper graph), and the non-shaded region refers to the baseline 

period. Pages A-12-A-20 present site-level data. 

SET 3: The third set includes three subsets of data on the parts of day when 

(1) CampaigrdPDFA Ads and PDFA Ads air, (2) Other Anti-Drug Ads air and 

(3) Other Social Issue Ads air (e.g., early morning, daytime, kids, early fringe, 

early news, prime access, prime time, late news, late fringe, weekend 

daytime). Page 21 presents aggregate daypart data--ail target sites vs. all 

comparison sites--for Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads. Pages A-22- 

A-30 present site specific daypart data for Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA 

1 The television monitoring service used to track ads was National Media Inc. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy i 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Ads. Note that the shaded region refers to the intervention period (the upper 

• graph), and the non-shaded region refers to the baseline period. The second 

and third subset are presented in the same fashion, dealing Other Anti-Drug 

Ads and Other Social Issue Ads, respectively. 

The Phase I Media Campaign Intervention matrix appears on page A-52. 

ii Office of National Drug Control Policy 
APPENDIX A 

TELEVISION MEDIA MONITORING DATA 

Total Number of TV Ads by Sponsor 

Target vs. Comparison 

All Target Sites 

4500 

3600 

"O 

2700 

E 1800 

Z 

900 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

--O--Campaign/PDFAAds --I---Other Anti-Drug Ads ~ Other Social Issue Ads ] 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

All Comparison Sites 

4500 

"0 

0 

E 

Z 

3600 

2700 

1800 

900 

v v 

,&.._ 

m ID m 

m . ~ -- m m m 

m 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb • Mar Apr May 

Note: Phoenix, an outlier, is not included in the aggregate data for comparison sites. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-1 
Total Number of "IV Ads by Sponsor 

Target vs. Comparison 

All Target Sites 

4500 

3600 

2700 

"6 

E 1800 

z 

900 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A p r May 

I ~41,--Campaign/PDFA Ads ~Other Anti-Drug Ads --A---Other Social Issue Ads I 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

All Comparison Sites 

4500 

3600 

2700 "6 

E 1800 

Z 

9o0 

m m 

m -- n n 

m ~~ m m m m 

m 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-2 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total Number of TV Ads by Sponsor 

Target vs. Comparison 

I/} 

O 

i._ 

.Q 

E 

z 

700 

560 

420 

280 

140 

Atlanta 

(Target Site) 

i 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

I ~Campaign/PDFA Ads -I--Other Anti-Drug Ads --~--Other Social Issue Ads I 

Note: In the baseline period, CampaignlPDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

700 

Memphis 

(Comparison Site) 

O 

i_ 

.Q 

E 

z 

560 

420 

280 

140 • • _ 

II i i i 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-3 
Total Number of TV Ads by Sponsor 

Target vs. Comparison 

600 

Baltimore 

(Target Site) 

Soo 

"O- 400 

< 

"6 

,- 300 

E 

200 

Z 

100 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

I .--O---Campaign/PDFA Ads Other Anti-Drug Ads --~--Other Social Issue Ads I 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

600 

Richmond 

(Comparison Site) 

500 

"b 

400 

"6 

.~ 300 

E 

200 Z 

100 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

.A-4 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
-Total Number of TV Ads by Sponsor 

Target vs. Comparison 

500 

Denver 

(Target Site) 

400 

-8 

300 

E 200 "-! 

Z 

IO0 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 

I --4,--Campaign/PDFA Ads --I--Other Anti-Drug Ads 

Mar Apr May 

--i--Other Social Issue Ads I 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

500 

Albuquerque 

(Comparison Site) 

400 

w '• 

300 

E 200 

Z 

100 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 

I I 

m i 

Mar Apr 

! 

May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-5 
Total Number of TV Ads by Sponsor 

Target vs. Comparison 

700 

600 

v} 500 

'~ 400 

.~ 300 E ..! 

Z 200 

100 

Hartford 

(Target Site) 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

I -'~--Campaign/PDFA Ads -I--Other Anti-Drug Ads --k-Other Social Issue Ads I 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

700 

Harrisburg 

(Comparison Site) 

600 

500 

400 

.~1 300 E 

Z 200 

100 

0 m II 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-6 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total Number of TV Ads by Sponsor 

Target vs. Comparison 

600 

Houston 

(Target Site) 

500 

"O 400 

,- 300 

e~ 

E 200 

Z 

100 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 

I --e--Campaign/PDFA Ads --m--Other Anti-Drug Ads 

Mar Apr May 

--Jr--Other Social Issue Ads 1 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

600 

Dallas 

(Comparison Site) 

500 

400 

"6 

.~ 300 

E 200 

Z 

100 

i i 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-7 
Total Number of TV Ads by Sponsor 

Target vs. Comparison 

500 

Milwaukee 

(Target Site) 

400 

"O 

'¢~ 300 14-- - 

O 

L_ 

E 200 

Z 

100 

uct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

I --O--Campaign/PDFA Ads Other Anti-Drug Ads ~Other Social Issue Ads I 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

500 

Nashville 

(Comparison Site) 

400 

'• 

300 

E 200- 

Z 

100 

i -- m -- i__ 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 

A 

..,. _,~ ~__ 

Mar Apr May 

A-8 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total Number of TV Ads by Sponsor 

Target vs. Comparison 

500 

400 

300 "6 

E 200 

:3 

Z 

100 

Portland, OR 

(Target Site) 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

I .--e,--Campaign/PDFA Ads --I--Other Anti-Drug Ads ~Other Social Issue Ads I 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

500 

Spokane 

(Comparison Site) 

400 

300 "6 

~2oo 

Z 

100 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-9 
Total Number of TV Ads by Sponsor 

Target vs. Comparison 

600 

San Diego 

(Target Site) 

500 

,oo 

~1 300 

E 

: 200 

Z 

100 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

--~--Campaign/PDFA Ads ~Other Anti-Drug Ads ~Other Social Issue Ads I 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

600 

Phoenix 

(Comparison Site) 

500 

400 

"6 

.~. 300 

E 

200 

Z 

100 

Oct Nov 

r 1 

Dec Jan 

"-I 1 -i" 'I 

Feb Mar Apr May 

A-10 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total Number of TV Ads by Sponsor 

Target vs. Comparison 

600 

Washington, DC 

(Target Site) 

500 

"t~ 400 

.~ 300 

E 200 

Z 

I00 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

I ~Campaign/PDFA Ads --m--Other Anti-Drug Ads --~lk--Other Social Issue Ads I 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

600 

Birmingham 

(Comparison Site) 

500 

400 

"6 

.~ 300 

E 200 

Z 

100 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A pr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-11 
Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Type of Drug 

All Target Sites 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

1800 

1500 

"~ 1200 

N,,= 

O 

'- 900 

E 

'~ 600 

Z 

300 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 

• --4.-- crack ~ general ~ heroin 

,---X---inhalants --,)K-- marijuana ~ meth 

May 

I 

• Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

All Comparison Sites 

PDFA Ads 

1800 

1500 

"• 1200 

.~ 900 

E :3 600 

Z 

300 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-12 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total Number of TV Ads: CampaignlPDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Type of Drug 

300 

Atlanta 

(Target Site) 

CampaignlPDFA Ads 

240 

180 

E 120 

Z 

6O 

Oct 

I 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

--~I-- crack -I.--general ~ heroin 

inhalants ----)I(---marijuana --e-- meth 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

300 

Memphis 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

240 

i 180 

120 

60 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A p r May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-13 
Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Type of Drug 

250 

Baltimore 

(Target Site) 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

"10 

N,- 

O 

t., 

E 

Z 

200 

150 

100 

50 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

c rack --B-- general ~ heroin 

inhalants ---)K--- mariiuana .-8-- meth 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

250 

Richmond 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

200 

150 

E 1oo 

Z 

50 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-14 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Type of Drug 

250 

Denver 

(Target Site) 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

200 

"10 

"~ 150 

I]) 

.12 E loo 

z 

50 

Oct 

I 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 

crack ~ general ~ heroin I 

inhalants ~ marijuana ~ meth I 

-May 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

250 

Albuquerque 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

200 

150 "6 

E loo 

Z 

5O 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-15 
Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Type of Drug 

300 

Hartford 

(Target Site) 

CampaignlPDFA Ads 

240 

"O 

< 18o 

L_ 

,I~ 120 E 

Z 

80 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 

crack ~ general ~ heroin 

inhalants ~ mari!uarl~ --e-- m~th 

May 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

300 

Harrisburg 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

240 

180 

E 120 

z 

6O 

' , -- , , , v , , " 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-16 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Type of Drug 

250 

Houston 

(Target Site) 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

200 

150 

E loo 

~3 

Z 

5O 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A pr May 

--~-- crack --I.- general ~ heroin 

---X--- inhalants --)le- marijuana ~ meth 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

250 

Dallas 

(Comparison Site) 

• PDFA Ads 

200 

150 

E loo 

,-I 

Z 

5O 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-17 
Total Number of TV Ads: CampaignlPDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Type 0fDrug 

250 

Milwaukee 

(Target Site) 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

2OO 

'ID 

15o 

o 

L_ 

J~ E lOO 

-.,1 

Z 

5o 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

C rack ~ general --dr-- heroin I 

inhalants ---)1(-- mariiuana ~ meth I 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

250 

Nashville 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

200 

t~ 

150 

100 

Z 

50 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-18 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total Number of TV Ads: CampaignlPDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Targetvs, Comparison by Type of Drug 

300 

240 

'• 

180 

"6 

E 12o 

z 

6O 

Oct 

-[ 

Portland,-OR 

(Target Site) 

CampaignlPDFA Ads 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 

Crack ~general ~heroin 

)( inhi~lants ,~'~ mariiuana_ -~ meth 

Apr 

% ...... 

May 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

300 

Spokane 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

240 

180 "6 

E 120 

Z 

6O 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May . 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-19 
Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Type of Drug 

350 

San Diego 

(Target Site) 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

280 

210 "6 

E 140 

".I 

z 

70 

Oct 

I 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 

crack ~ general ~ heroin 

inhalants ---)I(--- marijuana --e-- meth 

May 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

350 

Phoenix 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

280 

-8 

210 

E 140 

z 

70 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-20 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs, Comparison by Type of Drug 

250 

200 

i 150 

100 

Z 

50 

Washington, DC 

(Target Site) 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

• --e--- crack --~-- general ~ heroin 

--X'--inhalaqts --)K--rnan!uana --e-- meth 

Note: In the baseline period, CampaignlPDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

250 

Birmingham 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

200 

150 

E 1oo 

Z 

50 

m 

~v 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A p r May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-21 
Total Number of TV Ads: CampaignlPDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

1250 

All Target Sites 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

1000 

750 

E 500 

Z 

250 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

---e--- Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Earlv Frina~ 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime "13me 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

Weekeno r Day time 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

f 

11:00 PM - 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

1250 

All Comparison Sites 

PDFA Ads 

1000 

750 

E 500 

Z 

250 

UCT Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-22 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total 

200 

Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Atlanta 

(Target Site) 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

160 

U3 

'10 

'¢~ 120 

0 

~ 80 

z 

40 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

• me.--- Early Morning 

--.x--- Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

-..g--- Prime 13me 

Late New s 

--=--- Late Fringe 

Weekend- Day time 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM -5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM- 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

200 

Memphis 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

160 

U~ 

"10 

120 

L_ 

0 

E 8o 

z 

40 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-23 
riO 

L_ 

E 

Z 

Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

200 

160 

120 

80 

40 

Oct 

Baltimore 

(Target Site) 

CampaignlPDFA Ads 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

--g--- Kids 

Early Frinq~ 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime "lime 

Late New s 

• -=--- Late Fringe 

Weekend-Daytime 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

I 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

200 

Richmond 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

"0 

< 

E 

:3  ̧ 

Z 

160 

120 

80 

40 

uc[ r~ov uec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-24 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Denver 

(Target Site) 

CampaignlPDFA Ads 

150 

120 

"10 

<~ 90 

"6 

.IQ 

E 6o 

z 

30 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Day time 

• -o-- Kids 

Early FrinQe 

~ Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime Time 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

~WeekendDaytime 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:o0 PM - 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

150 

Albuquerque 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

120 

9O "6 

E 60 

:3 

Z 

30 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-25 
Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Hartford 

(Target Site) 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

150 

120 

90 "6 

E 6o 

-I 

Z 

30 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

I ~_Early Morning 

.--K.--- Daytime 

Kids 

---e--- Early Friqgg 

Early New s 

+ Prime Access 

--=~ Prime "13me 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

Weekend- Day time 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM- 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

150 

Harrisburg 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

120 

9O 

z 

30 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-26 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Houston 

(Target Site) 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

150 

120 

"O 

'~ 9o 

"6 

L_ 

¢,j 

E 6o 

z 

30 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Dey~ime 

Kids 

Early FringQ 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

--=~ Early News 

Prime Access 

Prime "13me 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

--'~--- Weekend Day time 

Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

150 

Dallas 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

120 

9O "6 

E 60 

Z 

30 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-27 
Total Number of TV Ads: CampaignlPDFA Ads and PDFA.Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Milwaukee 

(Target Site) 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

150 

120 

90 "6 

E 6o 

z 

30 

0 

Oct 

I 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 

Early. Morning ~ Early New s .--Am- Late New s 

uayume ~ Prime Access -'-=--- Late Fringe 

Kids ~ Prime Time ~a--Weekencr Daytime 

Earlv Fringe 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

May 

I . 

11:00 PM - 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

150 

Nashville 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

"0 

"6 

L_ 

J~ 

E 

z 

120 

90 

60 

30 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-28 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Portland, OR 

(Target Site) 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

125 

100 

"O 

'~ 75 

E 5o 

z 

25 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

--.,L--- Early New s 

Prime Access 

-"g-- Prime "13me 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

Weekend Daytime 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: in the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM- 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

125 

Spokane 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

100 

'• 

75 

E 5o 

Z 

25 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-29 
Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

San Diego 

(Target Site) 

CampaignlPDFA Ads 

200 

160 

"10 

120 

L_ 

E ao 

Z 

40 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early FrinQe 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime "13me 

Late New s 

-JL--_ Late Fringe 

Weekend Day time 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

200 

Phoenix 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

"O 

< 

O 

E 

z 

160 

120 

80 

40 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-30 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
"O 

L_ 

,Q 

E 

Z 

Total Number of TV Ads: Campaign/PDFA Ads and PDFA Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

200 

160 

120 

80 

40 

Washington, DC 

(Target Site) 

Campaign/PDFA Ads 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 

~lii t 

........ ::~ 

May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids . 

E~rly Fringe 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

--g.-- Prime Time 

Late New s 

.-e--- Late Fringe 

Weekend Daytime 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM - 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM- 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

200 

Birmingham 

(Comparison Site) 

PDFA Ads 

160 

120 

E 80 

Z 

40 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A pr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-31 
Total Number of TV Ads: Other Anti-Drug Ads 

Target vs. Comparison-by Daypart 

All Target Sites 

125 

100 

75 "6 

E 50 

,-I 

Z 

25 

iiii %ii;iiii~' 

0 

Oct 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

I ~ Early Morning 

--x,--- Daytime 

,--o--- Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early New s 

---)I(---- Prime Access 

Prime "lqme 

Late New s 

Late Fringe " 

~WeekendDaytime 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 pM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

I 

11:00 PM - 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM- 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

All Comparison Sites 

125 

100 

-8 

75 "6 

E 5o 

z 

25 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-32 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
50 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Anti-Drug Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Atlanta 

(Target Site) 

40 

"O 

'~ 3o 

0 

t_ 

"Q " 20 E 

z 

10 

Oct 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar. Apr 

• -.e-- Early Morning ~ Early New s ~ Late New s 

Daytime ~ Prime Access ~ Late Fringe 

Kid's ~ Prime "13me ~ WeekendDaytirne 

--~- Early Fringe 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

May 

11:00 PM - 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM- 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

50 

Memphis 

(Comparison Site) 

40 

U) 

"10 

30 

Z 

10 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-33 
50 

Total Number of TV Ads.: Other Anti-Drug Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Baltimore 

(Target Site) 

40 

"~ 30 

L_ 

E 2o 

-1 

Z 

10 

LJ~;[ ~,~uv uuu ,JUn red ivlar ~pr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

~ KD'~dYstime . 

Early Fringe 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Early New s ~ Late New s I 

Prime Access ~ Late Frincje I Prime Time --~--- Weekend Daytime 

Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan -May 1998) 

11:00 PM- 11:29 P~ 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

50 

Richmond 

(Comparison Site) 

40 

3O "6 

E 20 

-I 

Z 

10 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma~y 

A-34 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
75 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Anti-Drug Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Denver 

(Target Site) 

60 

-8 

<{ 45 "6 

L. 

E 30 

z 

15 

Oct 

I 

,Early Morning 

Daytime 

!Kids 

Early Fringe 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 

---e-- Early Morning ~ Early New s ~ Late New s 

Daytime ~ Prime Access ~ Late Fringe 

Kids ~ Prime "13me ~-- Weekend Daytime 

Early Fringe 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

May 

1 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM- 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

75 

Albuquerque 

(Comparison Site) 

60 

,,6 4~ 

E 3o 

Z 

15 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-35 
25 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Anti-Drug Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Hartford 

(Target Site) 

20 

U) 

"O 

15 

L_ 

e~ 

E lO 

z 

5 

UCt Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 

I --e---Early Morning ~ Early News "--A-- Late News 

Daytime ~ Prime Access ~ Late FrinQe 

Kids ~ Prime Time --'~--Weekencr Daytime 

Early Fringe 

May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

• 9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM- 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

25 

Harrisburg 

(Comparison Site) 

20 

I/} 

15 "6 

E 10 

-! 

Z 

UG[ [~ov uec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-36 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
25 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Anti-Drug Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Houston 

(Target Site) 

20 

15 "6 

E 1o 

z 

5 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

--.e--- Early Morning 

Day-time 

Kids • 

E~rly Fringe 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM 

9:00 AM - 3:69 PM 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime -Iqme 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

Weekenor Day time 

Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

Prime Access 7:00 PM -7:59 PM Late Fringe 

Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM - 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

25 

Dallas 

(Comparison Site) 

20 

-8 

E lO 

.-! 

Z 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-37 
25 

Total Number of Ads: Other Anti-Drug Ads 

by Daypart 

Milwaukee 

(Target Site) 

20 

15 

E 10 

Z 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

--e--- Early Morning --=--- Early New s ~ Late New s J 

Dey~ime ~ Prime Access ~ Late Fringe ] ~, 

• -=--- Kids ~ Prime "13me ~ Weekend-Daytime 

• --e-.- Early Frinae 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 11:00 PM - 11:29 PM 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access_ 7:00 PM -7:59 PM Late Fringe 11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

25 

Nashville 

(Comparison Site) 

20 

15 

10 

0 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-38 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
25 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Anti-Drug Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Portland, OR 

(Target Site) 

20 

'¢~ 15 

6 • .. 

E 10 

z 

5 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

i 

I -=e--- Early Morning ~ Early New s ~ Late New s 

Daytime ---)K--- Prime Access .--=--- Late Fringe 

Kids ~ Prime "lqme ~Weekencr Daytime 

l Earlv Frinae 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

25 

Spokane 

(Comparison Site) 

20 

15 "6 IZ 0 '~" ~ '~" , 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-39 
50 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Anti-Drug Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

San Diego 

(Target Site) 

40 

30 "6 

E 20 

z 

10 

UCT NOV Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

-.-e--- Earlv Friqg~ 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime "[]me 

Late New s 

Late Frincle 

~ Weekencr Daytime 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM -7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM - 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

50 

Phoenix 

(Comparison Site) 

40 

30 "6 

E 20 

Z 

10 

UL;I. Nov uec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-40 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
20 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Anti-Drug Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Washington, DC 

(Target Site) 

16 

l/} 

"10 

<[ 12 

E a 

Z 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime Time 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

~ Weekencr Daytime 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM ° 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM - 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

20 

Birmingham 

(Comparison Site) 

16 

<1:12 

"6 

E 8 

Z 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-41 
Total Number of TV Ads: Other Social Issue Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

350 

All Target Sites 

280 

<~ 210 "6 

E 140 

z 

70 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar • Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids " 

--4--- Early Frinqe 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

--m--- Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime Time 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

~WeekendDaytime 

Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan -May 1998) 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM o 5:00 PM 

All Comparison Sites 

350 

280 

210 

E 14o 

Z 

70 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A pr May 

A-42 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
40 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Social Issue Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Atlanta 

(Target Site) 

50 

,~ 30 

E 2o 

z 

lO 

50 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

--e,--- _Early' Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime "lqme 

Late New s 

Late Fringe " 

Weekend-Daytime 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM -7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

I 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM- 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

40 

Memphis 

(Comparison Site) 

30 

Z 

10 

0 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-43 
75 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Social Issue Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Baltimore 

(Target Site) 

¢n 

"1o 

< 

"6 

E 

Z 

60 

45 

30 

15 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe . 

---e---Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kid's 

Early Frinae 

--=-- Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime "13rne 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

--~-- Weekend Daytime 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

75 

Richmond 

(Comparison Site) 

60 

45 "6 

E 30 

Z 

15 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-44 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
100 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Social Issue Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Denver 

(Target Site) 

8O 

60 "6 

E 40 

:3 

Z 

20 

0 

Oct 

I 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

kids 

Early Fringe 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 

Early. Morning ~ Early New s ~ Late New s 

uayume ~ Prime Access ~ Late Fringe 

Kids --g--- Prime "13me ~ Weekend Daytime 

Early Fringe 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM ~- 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

May 

11:00PM-11:29PM 

11:30 PM -5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

100 

/ 

Albuquerque 

(Comparison Site) 

80 

W 

6O "6 

E 40 

:3 

Z 

20 

Oct Nov Dec 

B 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-45 
125 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Social Issue Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Hartford 

(Target Site) 

100 

~J~ .. 

75 "6 

E 50 

z 

25 

0 

Oct NOV Dec Ja n Feb Mar A pr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Daylime 

Kids 

Earlv Frinae 

~ Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime "l]me 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

Weekend- Day time 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

125 

Harrisburg 

(Comparison Site) 

100 

75 "6 

E 5o 

Z 

25 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-46 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
75 

Total Number of TV Ads: • Other Social Issue Ads 

Target vs, Comparison by Daypart 

Houston 

(Target Site) 

60 

U) 

"O 

'¢~ 45 

"6 

E 3o 

z 

15 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A pr May 

Early Morning 

• Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

-.-e--- Early Frinae 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

• -g--- Prime Time 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

Weekend Day time 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM - 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM- 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

75 

Dallas 

(Comparison Site) 

60 

45 

E 30 

Z 

15 

0 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar A pr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-47 
50 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Social issue Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Milwaukee 

(Target Site) 

40 

30 

E 20 

z 

10 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Frinae 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

--g--- Prime 33me 

Late New s 

.--,L__ Late Fringe 

Weekend- Day time 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, CampaignlPDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM - 11:29 Pry' 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

50 

Nashville 

(Comparison Site) 

40 

30 "6 

E 20 

Z 

10 

Oct Nov Dec . Jan 

/ 

/ 

Feb Mar Apr May 

A-48 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
50 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Social Issue Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Portland, OR 

(Target Site) 

40 

"O 

.~C. 30 

E 2o 

z 

10 

Oct NOV I Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

. ---e--- Early Morning 

---x---- Day time 

• ~ Kids 

Early Frinee 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM . 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Early New s. 

Prime Access 

Prime Time 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

Weekend- Day time 

Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

1 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PIM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

50 

Spokane 

(Comparison Site) 

40 

"O 

.,~I~ 30 

E 2o 

z 

10 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-49 
175 

140 

105 

E 7o 

z 

35 

Oct 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Social Issue Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

San Diego 

(Target Site) 

® 

® 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Earlv Frinae 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime "13me 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

~Weekend Daytirne 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM Prime Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Note: In the baseline period, Campaign/PDFA Ads refe[ only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

f . 

11:00 PM- 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

175 

Phoenix 

(Comparison Site) 

140 

105 

E 7o 

z 

35 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

A-50 Office of National Drug Control Policy~ 
50 

Total Number of TV Ads: Other Social Issue Ads 

Target vs. Comparison by Daypart 

Washington, DC 

(Target Site) 

40 

3O "6 

E 20 

Z 

10 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Early Fringe 

Early Morning 

Daytime 

Kids 

Earlv Frinoe 

6:00 AM - 8:59 AM 

9:00 AM - 3:59 PM 

3:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

4:00 PM - 5:59 PM 

Early New s 

Prime Access 

Prime "13me 

Late New s 

Late Fringe 

~ Weekend- Daytime 

Early News 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM Late News 

Pdme Access 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM Late Fringe 

Prime Time 8:00 PM - 10:59 PM Weekend Daytime 

Note: In the baseline pedod, Campaign/PDFA Ads refer only to PDFA sponsored ads. 

shaded region = intervention period (Jan - May 1998) 

11:00 PM - 11:29 PM 

11:30 PM - 5:59 PM 

6:00 AM - 5:00 PM 

50 

Birmingham 

(Comparison Site) 

40 

"10 

¢{ 30 

L_ 

2o 

Z 

10 

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-51 
Phase I Media Campaign Intervention 

Television, Radio, Newspaper, Channel One, and Outdoor 

Type of Intervention 

m 

O 

911 v' v' ~ ~ v' 

v' 

Alex Straight A's ~' ~ v' ~ v' i/ v' ~ ~ V' 

Average Kid ~ ~ ~ v" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Basketball ~ ~ v' 

Battery Acid ~ ~ ~ ~ v' 

Brothers 

Burbs ~ ~ 

Deal v' 

Drowning ~ v' 

Drowning (Spanish) 

• Everclear 

v' 

Free Ride ~ ~ v' 

Frying Pan ~ v' ~ ~ ~ V' v' ~ v' ~ 

Girl Interview ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v' ~ ~/ v' 

Girlfriend I/ v' ~ V' ~ 

Johnny Street ~ v' v" ~ ~ v' 

Kid Brother (Spanish) ~ 

Kitchen ~ ~ ~ I/ ~ ~ v" ~ ~ ~ v' 

Lauryn Hill 

Layla ~ v' v" v" v' ~ v' 

Long Way Home v' ~ v' v' v' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v' 

Moment of Truth ~," v' ~ v' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v' 

Noses ~ ~ ~ v' ~ i/ v' 

Noses (Spanish) ~ ~ 

Not Your Friend (Spanish) ~ ~ v' ~ v' 

O'Connor ~ ~ v' v' ~ ~ ~ v" v" ~ v' 

Rite of Passage ~ ~ v' v' v' 

Rite of Passage (Spanish) ~ ~ ~ v' i/ 

Questions (Spanish) ~ v' ~ v' 

Sublime v' " v' ~ v' 

Teeth ~ v' v' ~ it' ~' 

. Unnatural Acts (Spanish) v' v' v' 

Under Your Nose v' ~ v' ~ ~ ~ ~ v" 

V' 

V' 

Under Your Nose (Spanish I v' v' ~ 

911 ~ ~ ~ v' ~l' v' 

Don't ~ v' v' t/ ~ v' ~ ~ 

Rob/Never Me ~ i/ i/ ~ v" ~ ~ i/ ~ ~ ~ v' 

Russell/I Did It v' ~ ~ v" ~ ~ v" ~ ~ ~ v' v' 

Russell/Kicked Out ~ ~ v" v' v' v' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

So What ~ v" I/ ~ ~ i/ ~ ~ v' 

Tisa ~ v" ~ v' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i/ v' v' 

Donuts v' ~ i/ ~ v" ~ v' v" ~ i/ ~ v' 

Copa Dude v' ~ v' ~ ~ v' ~ ~ ~ ~ v" v' 

Just Say Nah v' ~ v" ~ ~ v' v' ~ ~' ~ ~ v' 

Stupid I Said v" ~ ~ v" ~ i/ ~ ~ v' v' v" 

A-52 
Type of Intervention 

Girl Interview 

Rest Easy 

Numbers 

Not Okay 

Happy B'day 

Mom Says 

i ::~:: ............ ~~" ':"-'~" "'?':: ~i~~~{l~.}i~';~::~,<~::~ "~":" " ~i 

America's Drug Problem 

Are You Waiting... 

Ashley Myth/Reality 

Bob Payne 

Disconnect 

Grandpa 

Grandma 

Half as Uncomfortable 

How to Talk to Your Kids... 

I I I I i 

I~' I I~ I I,~ I I~' I I~ 

I ~ ~ ~ I 

I I I I 

I~ I I~ IV' I I~' I I~ 

IV" I i~' I i~ I i,~ 

Poison lvy " ~ " ~" " ~" " ~' " v' ' 

Sex Drugs 

Sniffing Inhalants , , , , , 

Unnatural Acts ~," ' ~' 

l~ii~ ~.....~::~i ~ ~::~::~::~ #~ ~4~ ~...~.~ i~ ~ ~::.~'~:+~:~-~!~.:~.~'~ "~#'i 

Alex StraightA's ; ~' ; ~' ; ~' ; ~' ; ~' , 

Basketball v' ~" ~' ~ ~' I I I I I I 

Everclear ~" ~' 'I' ~' ~/ 

Free Ride 

Frying Pan 

Girlfriend 

Lauryn Hill I I I " I I 

Layla ~ ~ ~ ~' 

Long Way Home 

Moment of Truth ~' ' ~ ' ',I ' ~' ' ~' 

Noses 

Sublime . ~' . ~' ~. ~' . v' . 

-:~ ........... •............ <-~.-4' '..~!:::~:~',[~::~:~,~®, ~:.,.'~ !~:: ~ ~'~ '~'~{~:~~ " .............. ~,:~:~'~:~'~m~~'::.,:..~:'~t'~ "~'~.. ... ":4~ ~:"" ~" ~i~ ~'~'::~:::':~"~@,~. ~ ~!~{~iig~ 

Are You Waiting... , w w , I 

Cannabis Stupida ~" , ~" ~' ~ ~" I ~ 

NOTE: Ads ai~ing on cable TV are not included in this chart. 

! 0 ' r~ 

~, i ~ ~ ~ i s,, ~ ~, i I ~ 

~' ' ~' ' ~,' ' v' ' ~' ~ ..... ~~ ............ 

i i I/ i , ~ I 

~ i~:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

~, ' ,1 ' ~ ' ~, ,I ~' ~, ' 

I/ ' ,/ ' ~' ' ~' ' ~' ~' ~' ' " 

~, ' ~, I ~, I ~, ' ~, ~, ' ~, , 

A-53 

DEFINITIONS OF MEDIA TERMS 

Daypart: Daypart refers to the specific period of the day when an advertisement 

aired. The following are specific time periods referred to in the Phase 1 Final 

Report. 

Early Morning 6:00 a.m. - 8:59 a.m. 

Daytime 9:00 a.m. - 3:59 p.m. 

Kids 3:30 p.m. - 5:59 p.m. 

Early Fringe 4:00 p.m. - 5:59 p.m. 

Early News 6:00 p.m. - 6:59 p.m. 

Prime Access 7:00 p.m. - 7:59 p.m. 

Prime Time 8:00 p.m. - 10:59 p.m. 

Late News 11:00 p.m. - 11:29 p°m. 

Late Fringe 11:30 p.m. - 5:59 a.m. 

Weekend Daytime 6:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 

N.B.: The "Kids" daypart period overlaps with "Early Fringe." Ads that aired 

between 3:30 p.m. and 5:59 p.m. during children's television programs (such as 

cartoons) are categorized under "Kids." Ads that aired between 4:00 p.m. and 

5:59 p.m. in non-children's television programs are categorized under "Early 

Fringe." The "Kids" daypart period also overlaps with "Daytime" under the same 

conditions. 

Gross Rating Point: A unit of measurement of advertising audience size, equal 

to one percent of the total potential audience universe. It is used to measure the 

exposure of one or more programs or commercials without regard to multiple 

expposure of the same advertising to individuals. GRP is the product of media 

reach times exposure frequency. 

Share of Market: Share of Market provides a general estimate of the proportion 

of airtime drug prevention ads receive relative to other major social issues. These 

other topics include heart/health, lung disease prevention, general health, tobacco 

control and prevention, gun violence, environmental protection, and drinking and 

driving prevention. The following are specific sponsors monitored as part of the 

Phase 1 Evaluation. 

American Cancer Society 

American Heart Association 

American Lung Association 

Cancer Awareness 

Century Council 

Clean Air Campaign 

Department of Public Health 

Don't Smoke 

Don't Smoke/Pregnant 

Drunk Driving Prevention 

Great American Smoke Out 

Gun Safety 

Health Awareness 

Kiwanis International 

Produce/Better Health 

Quit Smoking 

Tobacco Helping Youth 

Violence Prevention 

Sponsor: Sponsor data were separated into Campaign/PDFA Ads, Other 

Anti-Drug Ads, and Other Social Issue Ads. 

Type of Drug: Type of Drug refers to the focus of the advertisement (e.g., 

crack/cocaine, general, heroin, inhalants, marijuana, and methamphetamine.) 

Office of National Drug Control Policy A-54 

APPENDIX B 

YOUTH, TEEN, AND PARENT SURVEYS 

APPENDIX B: YOUTH, TEEN 1, AND PARENT SURVEYS 

Unless otherwise indicated by an "N," "MF," or "T," all questions appearing on 

the survey instruments were used in the national studies conducted for the 

Partnership Attitudes Tracking Study (PAT). Any questions or subquestions 

marked with N, MF, or T, indicate the following: 

N = New question or subquestion. This means a new item was added to the 

question format. 

MF = This question or subquestion, or one almost exactly like it, was asked in 

the Monitoring the Future Study. 

T = A question which was new to the Parents' Questionnaire, but had been 

asked previously in Audits and Surveys Worldwide's national teen study. 

Although descriptions of the ads called Bugs, Pothead, and What Would Make 

You were printed on the survey instruments, when the Phase I Media Campaign 

was implemented in January 1998 a decision had been made not to run Bugs and 

What Would Make You. Furthermore, Pothead was pulled shortly after the Media 

Campaign began. Hence, data are not reported for awareness of these three ads. 

1 Identical survey instruments were used in every site, both target and comparison, except for Portland. In Portland, ad 

awareness questions were tailored to reflect the different mix of ads airing in that MSA. Specifically, Portland was the 

only site scheduled to receive paid airings of Everclear, Sublime, and Lauryn Hill. Consequently, the teen survey 

instrument for Portland measured responses to these three ads. This change is explained by PDFA having selected 

Portland as a test site for ads featuring musical bands because of the city's lively music culture. In order to accommodate 

PDFA's pre-existing plan, the Media Campaign was implemented in Portland using these three "music band" ads to test 

the effectiveness of ads featuring musicians/music groups versus other types of ads used in the Media Campaign. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy B-1 

DRUG ATTITUDES STUDY 

YOUTH QUESTIONNAIRE 

GRADES 4-6 

1998 

AUDITS & SURVEYS WORLDWIDE 

New York, NY 

OMB Control No. 3201-0004 

CSR 

MARKETS-W2 

DRUG ATTITUDES STUDY 

This study is being conducted by Audits & Surveys to find out how people feel about 

the use of various drugs. 

This is not a test. We want to know what you think. Your answers are completely 

confidential. Just put an "X" next to whatever answer is right for you. If you don't 

find an answer that fits exactly, use the one which comes closest. If you are 

uncomfortable answering any question or feel you cannot answer it honestly, just 

leave it blank. 

Please do not write your name anywhere on the questionnaire. All questionnaires 

will therefore be completely anonymous, and it will be impossible to identify who 

filled out which one. Moreover, no one from your school will look at any of the 

questionnaires. When you have finished the questionnaire, put it in the box that will 

be passed around, so that it will be mixed together with all the other questionnaires. 

Your answers will be combined with those of other people from around the country. 

Thank you for participating in this important research study. 

When answering questions, please place an "X" in the box next to the answers you 

select. 

There are small numbers alongside the answer boxes. Do no_~t pay attention to 

these small numbersmthey are only there to help us in data processing. 

This information is being collected by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as part 

of its national strategy for confronting drug abuse in the U.S. Information collection will be used to 

provide data on groups of individuals in participating geographic areas. The estimated houdy 

burden of this collection of information is not estimated to exceed .25 per student response. An 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding 

this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden to: 

Terry Zobeck 

Reports Clearance Officer 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

(202) 395-5503 

Washington, DC 20503 

and to: 

Office of Management and Budget 

Paperwork Reduction Project 

OMB Control Number 3201-0004 

Washington, DC 20503 

-2- 
1. Have you ever heard of these drugs: ("X" ONE ANSWER FOR EACH DRUG) 

Yes N.._£ 

Marijuana (also called weed, reefer, pot) ......................... C]-1 ............ 13-2 

Cocaine ............................................................................ FIq ............ E]-2 

Crack ................................................................................ rq-1 ............ Eg-2 

Things you sniff or huff to get high, 

like glue ......................................................................... Fl-1 ............ I-I-2 

Methamphetamines (also called meth, speed, crystal, 

ice, bennies, black beauties, crank, etc.) ...................... Ft-1 ............ I-I-2 

Heroin ............................................................................... E3-~ ............ rq.2 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

(12) 

. For each of the following questions, please mark the box that shows how dangerous you think 

the drug is. 

a. How dangerous is marijuana (also called weed, reefer, pot)? ("X" ONE ANSWER) 

Very dangerous, never should be used ................................ rq-1 

A little dangerous, but ok to try once or twice ....................... rq-2 

Not at all dangerous, ok to use ............................................. 0-3 

Don't know what it is .............................................................. 0-4 

(13) 

b. How dangerous is cocaine? ("X" ONE ANSWER) 

Very dangerous, never should be used ................................ Flq 

A little dangerous, but ok to try once or twice ....................... rq.2 

Not at all dangerous, ok to use ............................................. 0-3 

Don't know what it is ................................ : ............................. rq-4 

(14) 

c. How dangerous is crack? ("X" ONE ANSWER) 

Very dangerous, never should be used ................................ O-1 

A little dangerous, but ok to try once or twice ....................... rq-2 

Not at all dangerous, ok to use ............................................. rq-3 

Don't know what it is .............................................................. i-]-4 

(15) 

d. How dangerous are things you sniff or huff to get high, like glue? ("X" ONE 

ANSWER) 

Very dangerous, never should be used ................................ O-1 

A little dangerous, but ok to try once or twice ....................... i-l-2 

Not at all dangerous, ok to use ............................................ .E3-3 

Don't know what it is .............................................................. 0,.4 

(16) 

-3- 
e. How dangerous is heroin? ("X" ONE ANSWER) 

g. 

h. 

Very dangerous, never should be used ................................ r-I-1 

A little dangerous, but ok to try once or twice ....................... E3-2 

Not at all dangerous, ok to use ............................................. rq-3 

Don't know what it is .............................................................. rq-4 

How dangerous are methamphetamines (also called meth, speed, crystal, 

bennies, black beauties, crank, etc,)? ("X" ONE ANSWER) 

Very dangerous, never should be used ................................ []-1 

A little dangerous, but ok to try once or twice ....................... rq-2 

Not at all dangerous, ok to use ............................................. rq-3 

Don't know what it is .............................................................. r-]-4 

How dangerous is beer? ("X" ONE ANSWER) 

Very dangerous, never should be used ................................ I-]-1 

A little dangerous, but ok to try once or twice ....................... D-2 

Not at all dangerous, ok to use ............................................. rq-3 

Don't know what it is .............................................................. rq-4 

How dangerous are cigarettes? ("X" ONE ANSWER) 

Very dangerous, never should be used ................................ I-I-1 

A little dangerous, but ok to try once or twice ....................... [q-2 

Not at all dangerous, ok to use ............................................. rJ-3 

Don't know what it is .............................................................. rq-4 

(17) 

ice, 

(18) 

(19) 

(20) 

N 

. 

a, 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

Mark the box that shows what you think about each sentence: ("X" ONE ANSWER FOR 

EACH ITEM) 

Agree Agree Disagree Disagree 

A Lot A Little A Little A Lot 

I am scared of taking drugs ................... E3-1 I-I-2 

I don't want to hang around people 

who use drugs ....................................... I-]-1 [q-2 

It is hard to say "no" when 

friends want you to try drugs ................. [].1 f-l-2 

Using drugs is dangerous ..................... D-1 C]-2 

I--I-3 i"]-4 (21) 

I-i-3 0-4 (22) 

i--1-3 [-i-4 (23) 

lq-3 I-I-4 (24) 

Things you sniff or huff to get 

high (like glue) can kill you .................... rq-1 I-1-2 [~-3 I--I-4 (25) 

-4- 
4. Have you ever tried: ("X" ONE ANSWER FOR EACH ITEM) 

Yeis N.._oo 

Alcohol (more than just a sip) ....................................... I-1-1 ............... [-]-2 

Cigarettes ...................................................................... i-I-1 ............... r]-2 

Marijuana (also called weed, reefer, pot) ..................... C]-1 ............... I-1-2 

Cocaine ......................................................................... O-1 ............... E]-2 

Crack ............................................................................. i-]-~ ............... 0-2 

Things you sniff or huff to get high, like glue ................ i-1-1 ............... r-}-2 

N 

Heroin ............................................................................ M-1 ............... i-1-2 

Methamphetamines (also called meth, speed, 

crystal, ice, bennies, black beauties, crank, etc.) ........ O-1 ............... C]-2 

(26) 

(27) 

(28) 

(29) 

(30) 

(31) 

(32) 

(33) 

5a. How much do you learn that drugs are bad from your school class? 

A lot I-1-1 

A little 13-2 

Nothing r-l.3 

5b. How much do you learn that drugs are bad from your parents or grandparents? 

5c. 

A lot [-]- 1 

A little 13-2 

Nothing i-1-3 

How much do you learn that drugs are bad from your 

A lot 13-1 

A little r3-2 

Nothing 13-3 

Don't have brother 

or sister 

5d. How much do you learn that drugs are bad from 

A lot 

A little 

Nothing 

58. How much do you learn that drugs are bad from 

A lot 

A little 

Nothing 

5f. How much do you learn that drugs are bad from 

A lot 

A little 

Nothing 

brother or sister? 

I-I-4 

your friends? 

[3-1 

i-l-2 

CI-3 

TV commercials? 

[~J-1 

[~'2 

[3-3 

TV shows, news or movies? 

F]-I 

I-J-2 

I-]-3 

(34) 

(35) 

(36) 

(37) 

(38) 

(39) 

-5- 
5g. How much do you learn that drugs are bad on the street? 

A lot O-1 

A little i-l-2 

Nothing f-}-3 

(40) 

6a. Do you ever see or hear 

6b. Do you ever see or hear 

6c. 

6d. 

Do you ever see or hear 

bus stops, or subways? 

messages that say drugs are bad on T_.VV? 

Yes [-1-1 (41) 

No r-t.2 

messages that say drugs are bad on lar.qe outdoor billboards? 

Yes [-I-1 (42) 

No rq-2 

messages that say drugs are bad on posters that are on buses, 

Yes ©-1 (43) 

No 13-2 

Do you ever see or hear messages that say drugs are bad on school posters? 

Yes rq-1 

No [-I-2 

(44) 

. The next few questions are about TV ads or commercials. Please mark "Yes" if you have 

seen the ad in the past few months, and "No" if you have not seen the ad in the past few 

months. ("X" ONE ANSWER FOR EACH QUESTION) 

Have you seen the TV ad or commercial where... 

a. 

b. 

You see all types of colorful, funny cartoon noses called different things: ski slope, 

snout, schnoz, booger factory. A voice says that if you sniff household products to 

get high you could get brain damage or die. 

Yes ID-1 (45) 

No r-l-2 

A young boy is running through alleys and jumping over fences--taking "the long way 

home"--to avoid drug dealers in his neighborhood. The announcer says, '~#Ve hear 

you; don't give up." 

Yes [-]-1 (46) 

No r-I-2 

-6- 
Have you seen the TV ad or commercial where... 

C. To show how dangerous using inhalants is, a girl drowns when her bedroom fills with 

water. The ad says that sniffing household products to get high keeps your brain 

from getting oxygen--just like drowning--and you can die. 

Yes r-]-i (47) 

No r-l.2 

d. In a cartoon, a guy with a beard gets hit on the head with a cooking pot over and over 

as a way of saying that if you smoke marijuana and turn into a "pot-head," you can get 

dumber and dumber. 

Yes {-]-1 (48) 

No 0-2 

e. An African-American girl talks about a crack-head who got shot, and about drugrelated violence in the streets. Unlike people who get involved with drugs and 

violence, this girl wants to be a teacher and a nice woman, and take time to plant 

flowers. The commercial ends with the announcer saying, "Girlfriend, you are 

beautiful." 

Yes I-]-1 (49) 

No O-2 

, Do you agree or disagree with the following: ("X" ONE ANSWER FOR EACH LINE) 

a. 

Aaree Disagree 

TV ads or commercials tell you something 

you didn't know about drugs E]-I ............... 0-2 

b. 

c. 

TV ads or commercials make you stay 

away from drugs ..................................................... C]-1 .............. []-2 

TV ads or commercials make you more 

aware of how dangerous drugs are ...................... r-]-i .............. I-I-2 

d. TV ads or commercials tell lies about 

how dangerous drugs are ..................................... C]-1 .............. []-2 

(5{)) 

(51) 

(52) 

(53) 

TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 

-7- 
N 

9. How often do you watch TV? 

10. Are you a: 

Every day .................................... C]-1 

Almost every day ........................ I-L2 

At least once a week .................. rq-3 

Once or twice a month ............... rq-4 

A few times a year ...................... C1-5 

Never .......................................... C]-6 

Boy .............................................. I%1 

Girl .............................................. I-I-2 

11. What grade are you in? 

4th ............................................... I-I-1 

5th ............................................... [3-2 

6th ............................................... [3-3 

12. What is your race? ("X" ONE RACE ONLY) 

White .................................................................. E3-1 

Black ................................................................... 13-2 

Oriental / Asian ................................................... rq-3 

Other (Please write your race below) ................. r-L4 

(54) 

(55) 

(56) 

(57) 

13. Are you Hispanic? 

14. How old are you? 

8 years old or under ......... rq-1 

9 years old ........................ i-l-2 

10 years old ...................... rq-3 

Yes .............................................. r-L1 

No ................................................ i-l.2 

Don't Know ................................. 13-3 

11 years old ................................ I-]-4 

12 years old ................................ rq-5 

13 years old or over .................... rq-6 

(58) 

(59) 

15. Who do you live with? ("X" ALL THAT APPLY) 

Both parents ................................. [-I-1 

Mother only .................................. 0-2 

Father only ................................... D-3 

Mother and stepfather .................. [3-4 

Father and stepmother ................ El-5 

Grandparents ............................... 0-6 

Other relatives .............................. [-]-7 

Other adults (not relatives) .......... 13-8 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELPt 

(60) 

-8- 

DRUG ATTITUDES STUDY 

TEEN QUESTIONNAIRE 

GRADES 7-12 

1998 

AUDITS & SURVEYS WORLDWIDE 

New York, NY 

OMB Control No. 3201-0004 

CSR 

MARKETS-W2 

-1- 

DRUG ATTITUDES STUDY 

This study is being conducted by Audits & Surveys to find out how people feel about the use of 

various drugs. 

This is not a test. We want to know what you think. Your answers are completely confidential. 

Just put an "X" next to whatever answer is right for you. If you don't find an answer that fits exactly, 

use the one which comes closest. If you are uncomfortable answering any question or feel you 

cannot answer it honestly, just leave it blank. 

Please do not write your name anywhere on the questionnaire. All questionnaires will therefore 

be completely anonymous, and it will be impossible to identify who filled out which one. Moreover, 

no-one from your school will look at any of the questionnaires. When you have finished the 

questionnaire, put it in the box that will be passed around, so that it will be mixed together with all 

the other questionnaires. 

Your answers will be combined with those of other people from around the country. 

Thank you for participating in this important research study. 

When answering questions, please place an "X" in the box next to the answers you select. 

There are small numbers alongside the answer boxes. Do not pay attention to these small 

numbers--they are only there to help us in data processing. 

This information is being collected by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as pad 

of its national strategy for confronting drug abuse in the U.S. Information collection will be used to 

provide data on groups of individuals in participating geographic areas. The estimated hourly 

burden of this collection of information is not estimated to exceed .25 per student response. An 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding 

this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden to: 

Terry Zobeck 

Reports Clearance Officer 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

(202) 395-5503 

Washington, DC 20503 

and to: 

Office of Management and Budget 

Paperwork Reduction Project 

OMB Control Number 3201-0004 

Washington, DC 20503 

-2- 

. 

SECTION I 

Attitudes and Beliefs about Drugs 

Listed below are some statements about drugs like marijuana and heroin. Please "X" one answer for 

each statement to tell how much you agree or disagree with it. 

ao 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e, 

N 

f. 

Agree Disagree 

Somewhat Somewhat 

Heroin will ruin your life .................................... r-q 

Agree Disagree 

Stronqlv Stronalv 

Taking drugs scares me .................................. [].1 [3-2 I-]-3 17.4 (7) 

I don't want to hang around anyone 

who uses marijuana ........................................ [3-1 r-l-2 I-I-3 C]-4 (8) 

I would try to talk a friend out of 

using drugs ...................................................... r-h [-I-2 r--].3 r-l-4 (9) 

The music that my friends and I listen to 

makes drugs seem cool .................................. []-1 r-].2 i-l-3 I-I-4 (10) 

Heroin is a dangerously addictive drug ........... [3-1 [3-2 1~.3 [3-4 (11) 

[3-2 1--I.3 i-]-4 (12) 

MARIJUANA 

. Now, for each of the statements below, please "X" the answer which describes how much 

overall ns"s-ET'here is in using manluana... 

MF 

a. 

MF 

b. 

Great Moderate Sli~lht No 

Risk Risk R,sk Risk 

Trying marijuana once or twice .................... [3-1 [3-2 I-1-3 [3-4 

Using marijuana regularly ............................ 17-1 [3-2 [3-3 [3-4 

(13) 

(14) 

3. How much risk is there that each of the following would happen to someone who uses mariiuana? 

Great Moderate Slight No 

Risk Risk Rink Ris__._kk 

a. Going on to harder drugs ............................. I-I.1 [-I.2 [~-3 [~-4 

b. Doing worse at school, work or sports ........ r-L1 D-2 I-I-3 D-4 

c. Getting hooked on marijuana ...................... [~-1 FL2 r-].3 F]-4 

d. Becoming a loser ......................................... r7.1 r7.2 [3-3 E]-4 

e. Messing up your life ..................................... L-h I-]-2 [3-3 1~.4 

f. Acting stupidly and foolishly ......................... I-7.1 [-]-2 [3-3 [~.4 

g. Missing out on the good things in life .......... i-1.1 r7.2 O-3 [3-4 

h. Upsetting their parents ............. . .................. I-I.1 [3-2 [3-3 []-4 

(15) 

(16) 

(17) 

(18) 

(19) 

(20) 

(21) 

(22) 

-3- 
COCAINE/CRACK 

4a. For eac___hh of the statements below, please "X" the answer which describes how much overall risk there 

is in using cocaine/crack... 

Great Moderate Slight No 

Risk Risk Risk Risk 

MF 

a. Trying cocaine/crack once or twice ............. []-1 D.2 13.3 r-I-4 (23) 

MF 

b. Using cocaine/crack regularly ...................... r-].l D-2 I-7-3 f-I-4 (24) 

METHAMPHETAMINES (Meth, Speed, Crystal, Ice, Bennies, Black Beauties, Crank, etc.) 

4b. For eac.___hh of the statements below, please "X" the answer which describes how much overall risk there 

is in using methamphetamines (meth, speed, crystal, ice, bennies, black beauties, crank, etc.)... 

Great Moderate Slight No 

Risk Risk Risk Risk 

a. Trying methamphetamines once or twice .... 13-1 r7.2 13-3 I-].4 (25) 

b. Using methamphetamines regularly ............ 13-1 r7.2 [~-3 13-1.4 (26) 

4c. How much risk is there that each of the following would happen to someone who uses 

methamphetamines (meth, speed, crystal, ice, bennies, black beauties, crank, etc.)? 

Great Moderate Slight No 

Risk Risk Risk Risk 

a. Getting hooked on methamphetamines ...... I-1-1 I-I.2 I-].3 13.4 (27) 

b. Becoming violent ......................................... r7.1 r-].2 17.3 13.4 (28) 

N 

c. Acting crazy ................................................. 13-1 13-2 r-l.3 I-I.4 (29) 

HEROIN 

4d. For each of the statements below, please "X" the answer which describes how much overall risk there 

is in using heroin... 

Great 

Risk 

Moderate Slight No 

Risk Risk Ris._....kk 

MF 

a. Trying heroin once or twice ......................... D-1 13-2 []-3 I-I.4 (30) 

N 

b. Using heroin regularly .................................. I-I.1 I-I.2 r-l.3 J-J-4 (31) 

-4- 
COCAINE/CRACK 

4a. For each of the statements below, please "X" the answer which describes how much overall risk there 

is in using cocaine/crack... 

Great Moderate Slight No 

Risk Risk Risk Ris._._kk 

MF 

a. Trying cocaine/crack once or twice ............. rq.1 FI.2 I-]-3 [-I-4 (23) 

MF 

b. Using cocaine/crack regularly ...................... C].1 rq.2 [-]-3 r-l.4 (24) 

METHAMPHETAMINES (Meth, Speed, Crystal, Ice, Bennies, Black Beauties, Crank, etc.) 

4b. For each of the statements below, please "X" the answer which describes how much overall risk there 

is in using methamphetamines (meth, speed, crystal, ice, bennies, black beauties, crank, etc.)... 

Great Moderate Slight No 

Risk Risk Risk Risk 

a. Trying methamphetamines once or twice .... I-1.1 I-1.2 i-l.3 [-1-4 (25) 

b. Using methamphetamines regularly ............ I-}.1 F1.2 I-I.3 FI-4 (26) 

4c. How much risk is there that each of the following would happen to someone who use__s 

methamphetamines (meth, speed~ crystal, ice, bennies, black beauties, crank I etc.)? 

Moderate Slight No 

Risk Risk Ris._..kk 

Great 

Risk 

a. Getting hooked on methamphetamines ...... rq4 rq.2 i-].3 [-I-4 (27) 

b. Becoming violent ......................................... D-~ C].2 i-1.3 I-I.4 (28) 

N 

c. Acting crazy ................................................. ~q.1 rq.2 I-I.3 I-i.4 (29) 

HEROIN 

4d. For each of the statements below, please "X" the answer which describes how much overall risk there 

is in using heroin... 

Great Moderate Slight No 

Risk Risk Risk Ris.__.kk 

MF 

a. Trying heroin once or twice ......................... O.1 El-2 rq.3 [-I.4 

N 

b. Using heroin regularly .................................. 1-14 El-2 rq.3 1-1.4 

(3o) 

(31) 

-4- 
SECTION I 

Attitudes and Beliefs about Drugs 

. Listed below are some statements about drugs like marijuana and heroin. Please "X" one answer for 

each statement to tell how much you agree or disagree with it. 

a. 

b. 

Co 

d. 

eo 

N 

f. 

Agree 

Stronalv 

Taking drugs scares me .................................. O.1 0-2 

I don't want to hang around anyone 

who uses marijuana .............. . ......................... O.1 0-2 

I would try to talk a friend out of 

using arugs ...................................................... D.1 0.2 

The music that my friends and I listen to 

makes drugs seem cool .................................. O.1 0.2 

Heroin is a dangerously addictive drug ........... I-1-1 i-l.2 

Heroin will ruin your 0-2 life .................................... O-1 

Agree 

Somewhat 

Disagree Disagree 

.Somewhat Stronalv 

[-I-3 r-].4 (7) 

0-3 O-4 (8) 

r-~.3 [~.4 (9) 

I--I.3 I-].4 (10) 

['~-3 0-4 (11) 

0-3 0-4 (12) 

MARIJUANA 

. Now, for each of the statements below, please "X" the answer which describes how much 

overall risk there is in using marijuana... 

MF 

a. 

MF 

b. 

Great Moderate Slight No 

Risk Risk HIS K Ris.__.kk 

Trying marijuana once or 0-2 i-l.3 04 twice .................... O.1 

Using marijuana regularly ............................ O-1 0-2 [--I-3 0-4 

(13) 

(14) 

3. How much risk is there that each of the following would happen to someone who uses mariiuana? 

a, 

b. 

C. 

d. 

e, 

f. 

g. 

h. 

Great 

Risk 

Going on to harder drugs ............................. I-I.1 

Doing worse at school, work or sports ........ O-1 

Getting hooked on marijuana ...................... r-I.1 

Becoming a loser ......................................... O.1 

Messing up your life ..................................... I-I.1 

Acting stupidly and foolishly ......................... O-1 

Missing out on the good things in life .......... o-1 

Upsetting their parents ................................ O.1 

Moderate Slight No 

Risk Rink Risk 

D.2 D-3 D-4 

0-2 D-3 D-4 

0-2 D-3 04 

D-2 0-3 0-4 

D-2 D-3 D-4 

D-2 D-3 D-4 

D-2 D-3 D-4 

D-2 Q-3 0-4 

(15) 

(16) 

(17) 

(18) 

(19) 

(20) 

(21) 

(22) 

-3- 

DRUG ATrlTUDES STUDY 

This study is being conducted by Audits & Surveys to find out how people feel about the use of 

various drugs. 

This is not a test. We want to know what you think. Your answers are completely confidential. 

Just put an "X" next to whatever answer is right for you. If you don't find an answer that fits exactly, 

use the one which comes closest. If you are uncomfortable answering any question or feel you 

cannot answer it honestly, just leave it blank. 

Please do not write your name anywhere on the questionnaire. All questionnaires will therefore 

be completely anonymous, and it will be impossible to identify who filled out which one. Moreover, 

no-one from your school will look at any of the questionnaires. When you have finished the 

questionnaire, put it in the box that will be passed around, so that it will be mixed together with all 

the other questionnaires. 

Your answers will be combined with those of other people from around the country. 

Thank you for participating in this important research study. 

When answering questions, please,place an "X" in the box next to the answers you select. 

There are small numbers alongside the answer boxes. Do no._.!t pay attention to these small 

numbers--they are only there to help us in data processing. 

This information is being collected by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as part 

of its national strategy for confronting drug abuse in the U.S. Information collection will be used to 

provide data on groups of individuals in participating geographic areas. The estimated hourly 

burden of this collection of information is not estimated to exceed .25 per student response. An 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding 

this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden to: 

Terry Zobeck 

Reports Clearance Officer 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

(202) 395-5503 

Washington, DC 20503 

and to: 

Office of Management and Budget 

Paperwork Reduction Project 

OMB Control Number 3201-0004 

Washington, DC 20503 

-2- 

DRUG ATTITUDES STUDY 

TEEN QUESTIONNAIRE 

GRADES 7-12 

Portland, OR 

1998 

AUDITS & SURVEYS WORLDWIDE 

New York, NY 

OMB Control No. 3201-0004 

CSR 

MARKETS-W2 

-1- 
N t 

10. How often do you watch TV? 

TV VIEWING 

Every day ............................................................. [3.1 

Almost every day ................................................. r7.2 

At least once a week ............................................ 0-3 

Once or twice a month ......................................... r-].4 

A few times a year ............................................... D-s 

Never ................................................................... [3-6 

(69) 

SECTION III 

Demographics and Background 

11. How old are you? 

Under 13... I-I.1 

13 .............. I-I.2 

14 .............. 0-3 

15 .............. f-].4 

16 .............. i-l.s 

17 .............. I-1.6 

18 .............. I-I.7 

19 or older.Da 

(7o) 

12. Your sex: 

Male .......... D-1 

Female ...... r-I-2 

(71) 

13. What grade are you in? 

7th .............. I-].1 

8th .............. I-i.2 

9th .............. I-I-3 

10th .......... r-l.4 

1 lth ......... .I-Ls 

12th .......... I-1-6 

(72) 

14. Race: 

White ................................................................ r-I.1 

Black ................................................................. 1-1.2 

Oriental / Asian .................................................. r-l.3 

Other (Please Write Your Race Below) ............. i-l.4 

(73) 

15. Are you Hispanic? 

Yes ............. r-I.1 

No ............... [3-2 

(74) 

16. Who do you live with? ("X" ALL THAT APPLY) 

Both parents ...................................................... [3-1 

Mother only ....................................................... I-I-2 

Father only ........................................................ I-I.3 

Mother and stepfather ....................................... [-I.4 

Father and stepmother ..................................... I-]-s 

Grandparents .................................................... i-1-6 

Other relatives ................................................... 0-7 

Other adults (not relatives) ............................... I-I-8 

(75) 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELPt 

-8- 
. 

PRTLND 

HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OF THESE COMMERCIALS? 

Below are short descriptions of anti-drug television commercials that may or may not have been shown 

in your area over the past few months. Please read each description and tell us whether you have seen 

the advertisement often, a few times or not at all. How often have you seen the following ads in the 

past few months? ("X" ONE ANSWERFOR EACH ITEM) 

Have Seen In Past Few Months 

a. A teenage boy, seen in close-up, tells us how he used to 

be a straight-A student, but getting involved with marijuana 

got him thrown out of his house. 

A Few Not At 

Often Times All 

D-I D-2 ~-3 (61) 

b. A young woman in a kitchen smashes an egg with a frying 

pan, and then smashes up the kitchen, to show how heroin 

wrecks your body and your life. O-i D-2 ~-3 (62) 

C. You hear very upset people phoning 911 because 

someone is in trouble from using methamphetamines 

(speed). The announcer gives you a phone number 

to call for information. (63) 

d. You see a series of scenes: a girl seated at her 

mirror, a group of boys graduating, a little boy 

on a seesaw. For each scene,~you hear a voice asking: 

What would make you claw at your skin until it scarred, 

What would make you rob a convenience store, 

What would make you cut off your son's head? 

The spot ends by asking: 

What would make you try crystal meth? O-I 0-2 0.3 (64) 

e. Troy Nowell, the widow of Brad Nowell, lead singer in the 

band Sublime, sits with her little son Jake. Troy tells how 

Brad died of a heroin overdose and now Jake doesn't have 

a father. They both miss Brad. Troy says that heroin kills, 

and that you shouldn't get involved with heroin, you 

shouldn't let anyone miss you. O-I D-2 0-3 (65) 

The three members of the band Everclear introduce 

themselves in front of a bright orange background. One of 

the band members talks about how drugs take your life 

away from you, and how by using drugs he threw away 

14 years of his own life. He urges you to "figure it out 

yourself" what a mistake using drugs is. D-1 O-2 0-3 (66) 

g. Lauryn Hill, of the band the Fugees, is standing on a city 

sidewalk. She talks about how people's potential is so 

much greater than any chemical substance, and how she 

is soon to be a mother so she thinks a lot about these things. 

She ends by saying, "Stay away from the drugs; there's no 

place positive youcan get with that route." D-+ D-2 []-3 (67) 

h. You see a boy lying in bed, paranoid and hallucinating that 

bugs are crawling all over him. The announcer says that 

you can get these hallucinations when you're hooked on 

meth, which you see being heated and bubbling in a spoon, 

and in a syringe. The commercial ends by saying, r7.1 

"Sweet dreams." 

TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 

[-I-2 I--I-3 (68) 

-7- 
SECTION II 

. In the past few months, how frequently have you seen or heard commercials or ads telling you about 

the risks of drugs? 

Not at all ........................................ I-I.~ 

Less than once a month ................ 0-2 

1-3 times a month ......................... 0-3 

1-3 times a week ........................... IE].4 

Every day or almost every day ...... D-s 

More than once a day ................... [3.6 

(44) 

(If you checked "Not at all" to Question 6, skip to Question 8.) 

7. How much do you agree or disagree that these commercials or ads have: 

I Agree I Agree I Don't 

A Lot A Little Agree At All 

a. Made you more aware of the risks of using drugs ... O-1 0.2 

b. Made you less likely to try or use drugs ................... O-1 I-]-2 

c. Given you new information or told you things 

you didn't know about drugs ..................................... O-1 

d. Exaggerated the risks or dangers of marijuana ....... I-I.1 

r1.2 

I-I.2 

1"-1.3 

17.3 

I-L3 

17.3 

(45) 

(46) 

(47) 

(48) 

8. How much have you learned about the risks of drugs from each of the following? 

A Lot A Little 

a. School lessons or programs ..................................... D-1 

b. Parents or grandparents ........................................... r7.1 

c. Brother or sister ........................................................ O-1 

d. Friends ..................................................................... I--L1 

e. TV commercials ....................................................... O-1 

f. TV shows, news or movies ....................................... []-1 

g. Radio ........................................................................ I-I.~ 

h. Print ads in newspapers or magazines .................... Ool 

i. Billboards outside ..................................................... D-~ 

j. Posters on buses, bus stops or subways ......... : ....... D-~ 

k. School posters .......................................................... r7.~ 

I. On the street ............................................................. D-~ 

I--I-2 

I--I-2 

1"7-2 

r-].2 

[-']-2 

i-7-2 

[--I-2 

I--I-2 

[-1-2 

I--I-2 

[--I-2 

F-I-2 

Nothing 

I-]-3 

I-I-3 

I-I-3 

[-i.3 

r-].3 

r-l.3 

F].3 

[-I.3 

r-l.3 

[-i.3 

[--I-3 

I-1-3 

(49) 

(50) 

(51) 

(52) 

(53) 

(54) 

(55) 

(56) 

(57) 

(58) 

(59) 

(60) 

-6- 
DRUG USE 

MF 

5a. 

Never. 

How many times have you used marijuana... 

In the past 12 months? ................................ 0-0 

In the past 30 days? .................................... r-].o 

2-3 4-9 10-19 20+ 

Once Times Times Times Times 

0-1 0-2 0-3 O-4 0-5 

0-1 D-2 O-S 0-4 D-S 

(32) 

(33) 

MF 

5b. How many times have you used cocaine... 

In the past 12 months? ................................ O.o 

In the past 30 days? .................................... 0-o 

0-1 O.2 D-s 0-4 D-5 

0-1 0-2 0-3 ~-4 O-5 

(34) 

(35) 

MF 

5C. How many times have you used crack... 

In the past 12 months? ................................ 0-o 

In the past 30 days? .................................... 0.o 

0-1 0-2 0-3 0.4 0-5 

0-~ 0-2 0-3 0-4 D.5 

(36) 

(37) 

MF 

5d. How many times have you sniffed or huffed things like glue, solvents, or inhalants to get high... 

In the past 12 months? ................................ [-7.o O-1 F1.2 I-I-3 F-I.4 0-5 

In the past 30 days? .................................... FI.o Fl.1 0-2 0-1.3 r-l-4 FI.5 

(38) 

(39) 

5e. How many times have you smoked cigarettes... 

In the past 12 months? ................................ rq-o 

In the past 30 days? .................................... Fl-o 

D-1 D-2 D-3 D.4 D-5 

D-1 D-2 D.3 D-4 D.5 

(40) 

(41) 

MF 

5f. How many times have you used alcohol... 

In the past 12 months? ................................ Fl-o 

In the past 30 days? .................................... FI.o 

D-1 0-2 0-3 D-4 D-5 

D-1 D-2 D-3 ~-4 0-5 

(42) 

(43) 

-5- 
DRUG USE 

MF 

5a. 

Never 

How many times have you used marijuana... 

In the past 12 months? ................................ I-I.o 

In the past 30 days? .................................... rq-o 

2-3 4-9 10-19 20+ 

Once Times Times Times Times 

O-1 ~-2 O-3 ~-4 ~-5 

D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 

(32) 

(33) 

MF 

5b. How many times have you used cocaine... 

In the past 12 months? ................................ I-I-o 

In the past 30 days? .................................... r].o 

D-1 D-2 []-3 D-4 D-5 

D-1 0-2 0-3 ~-4 O-s 

(34) 

(35) 

MF 

5c. How many times have you used crack... 

In the past 12 months? ................................ D.o 

In the past 30 days? .................................... [3-0 

O-1 0-2 D-3 O-4 ~-s 

O-1 0-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 

(36) 

(37) 

MF 

5d. How many times have you sniffed or huffed things like glue, solvents, or inhalants to get high... 

In the past 12 months? ................................ I-I.o I-I-1 I-1.2 0-3 0-4 r--I.s 

In the past 30 days? .................................... I-I.o O-1 0.2 (-I-3 i-3.4 r--I.s 

(38) 

(39) 

5e. How many times have you smoked cigarettes... 

In the past 12 months? ................... : ............ D-o 

In the past 30 days? .................................... C]-o 

D-1 D.2 D-3 D-4 D-5 

~-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 

(40) 

(41) 

MF 

5f. How many times have you used alcohol... 

In the past 12 months? ................................ I-I.o 

In the past 30 days? .................................... [-7.0 

O-1 D.2 D-s O-4 D-s 

O-1 O-2 D-3 D-4 D.s 

(42) 

(43) 

-5- 
SECTION II 

. In the past few months, how frequently have you seen or heard commercials or ads telling you about 

the risks of drugs? 

Not at all ........................................ D.~ 

Less than once a month ................ I-1-2 

1-3 times a month ......................... r7.3 

1-3 times a week.... ~. ...................... I-I-4 

Every day or almost every day ...... D-s 

More than once a day ................... O-e 

(44) 

(If you checked "Not at all" to Question 6, skip to Question 8.) 

7. How much do you agree or disagree that these commercials or ads have: 

I Agree I Agree I Don't 

A Lot A Little Agree At All 

a. Made you more aware of the risks of using drugs ... D1 

bo Made you less likely to try or use drugs ................... D-1 

c. Given you new information or told you things 

you didn't know about drugs ..................................... D1 

d. Exaggerated the risks or dangers of marijuana ....... D1 

I-I.2 

C-I-2 

17.2 

I-I.2 

I-I-3 

I-I-3 

N-3 

[]-3 

(45) 

(46) 

(47) 

(48) 

8. How much have you learned about the risks of drugs from each of the following? 

A Lo.~_..tt A Little 

a. School lessons or programs ..................................... r7.1 

b. Parents or grandparents ........................................... I-].1 

c. Brother or sister ......... ............................................... O-1 

d. Friends ..................................................................... I-I.1 

e. TV commercials ....................................................... D-1 

f. TV shows, news or movies ....................................... O.1 

g. Radio ........................................................................ r-I.1 

h. Print ads in newspapers or magazines .................... O-1 

i. Billboards outside ..................................................... i-I.1 

j. Posters on buses, bus stops or subways ................. D.1 

k. School posters .......................................................... r7.1 

I. On the street ............................................................. D-1 

0-2 

I-]-2 

I-I.2 

f-L2 

[-I.2 

I-].2 

I-]-2 

I--I-2 

D-2 

I-I-2 

N.2 

I--I.2 

Nothing 

FL3 

r-1.3 

I-I.3 

[-I-3 

[-1-3 

1"-]-3 

F].3 

D-3 

[-]-3 

I-I.3 

r--I.3 

I-]_3 

(49) 

(50) 

(51) 

(52) 

(53) 

(54) 

(55) 

(56) 

(57) 

(58) 

(59) 

(60) 

-6- 
. 

HAVE YOU SEEN ANY OF THESE COMMERCIALS? 

Below are short descriptions of anti-drug television commercials that may or may not have been shown 

in your area over the past few months. Please read each description and tell us whether you have seen 

the advertisement often, a few times or not at all. How often have you seen the following ads in the 

past few months? ("X" ONE ANSWER FOR EACH ITEM) 

Have Seen In Past Few Months 

a. 

b. 

A teenage boy, seen in close-up, tells us how he used to 

be a straight-A student, but getting involved with marijuana 

got him thrown out of his house. 

A young woman in a kitchen smashes an egg with a frying 

pan, and then smashes up the kitchen, to show how heroin 

wrecks your body and your life. 

A Few Not At 

Often Times All 

D-1 D-2 D-z 

D-1 ~-2 D-3 

C. You hear very upset people phoning 911 because 

someone is in trouble from using methamphetamines 

(speed). The announcer gives you a phone number 

to call for information. D-1 D-2 ~-3 

d. You see a series of scenes: a girl seated at her 

mirror, a group of boys graduating, a little boy 

on a seesaw. For each scene, you hear a voice asking: 

What would make you claw at your skin until it scarred, 

What would make you rob a convenience store, 

What would make you cut off your son's head? 

The spot ends by asking: 

What would make you try crystal meth? O-1 D-2 D-3 

e. A teenage girl talks about how she didn't think marijuana 

would be a problem: she'd just smoke and hang out with 

friends. But she found that smoking marijuana led her to 

other drugs, including crack. She ends by saying that you 

have to think about the consequences of smoking marijuana. 

(61) 

The commercial shows different scenes of a teenage girl in 

the city, hanging out with a guy who looks like a drug dealer. 

The announcer says that some girls think hanging out with a 

drug dealer is a way to live "the good life." But the teenage 

girl and her baby accidentally end up in the rifle sight of a 

sniper on the roof who is trying to shoot the dealer. 

(62) 

g. The commercial follows a teenage girl called Maria as she 

walks through the city. Different people tempt her, offering 

her drugs, but she rejects their offers. The commercial 

ends by saying that when Maria refuses the drugs, she is 

one day stronger, one day freer. 

(63) 

h. You see a boy lying in bed, paranoid and hallucinating that 

bugs are crawling all over him. The announcer says that 

you can get these hallucinations when you're hooked on 

meth, which you see being heated and bubbling in a spoon, 

and in a syringe. The commercial ends by saying, 

"Sweet dreams." 

(64) 

I-I-! D-2 I-I.3 (65) 

O-1 D-2 D-3 

O-~ O-2 D-s 

(66) 

(67) 

O-1 I-I.2 I-7-3 (68) 

TURN TO THE NEXT PAGE 

-7- 
N 

10. How often do you watch TV? 

TV VIEWING 

Every day .......................................................... I-I.1 

Almost every day .............................................. r7.2 

At least once a week ......................................... D-3 

Once or twice a month ...................................... 0-4 

A few times a year ............................................ 13-s 

Never ................................................................ []-6 

(69) 

11. How old are you? 

SECTION III 

Demographics and Background 

Under 13... O-1 

13 .............. D-2 

14 .............. r--I-3 

15 .............. I-I-4 

16 .............. 0-5 

17 .............. 1-1.6 

18 .............. 1-]-7 

19 or older .D-8 

(70) 

12. Your sex: 

Male .......... I-I.1 

Female ...... I-I.2 

(71) 

13. What grade are you in? 

7th .............. I-I.1 

8th .............. I-I-2 

9th .............. I-I.3 

10th .......... 0-4 

1 lth .......... C]-s 

12th .......... I-I.6 

(72) 

14. Race: 

White ................................................................ r-I.1 

Black ................................................................. C].2 

Oriental/Asian .................................................... 0-3 

Other (Please Write Your Race Below) ............. 13-4 

(73) 

15. Are you Hispanic? 

Yes ............. E].~ 

No ............... I-I.2 

(74) 

16. Who do you live with? ("X" ALL THAT APPLY) 

Both parents ...................................................... O-1 

Mother only ....................................................... C]-2 

Father only ........................................................ [3]-3 

Mother and stepfather ....................................... 13.4 

Father and stepmother ..................................... 13-5 

Grandparents .................................................... 13.6 

Other relatives ................................................... I-I.7 

Other adults (not relatives) ............................... O.8 

(75) 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP! 

-8- 
I CATISCREENER I 

DRUG ATTITUDES STUDY 

PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE 

(PARENTS OF CHILDREN 18 AND UNDER) 

TELEPHONE INTERVIEW 

1997-1998 

AUDITS & SURVEYS WORLDWIDE 

New York, NY 

OMB Control No. 3201-0004 

CSR-Markets 

Parents Wl and W2 

Hello. I'm of Audits & Surveys, a national market research company. We're conducting a 

national survey to find out how people feel about the use of various drugs. 

Your answers will be completely confidential. If you feel uncomfortable answering any question or you feel you 

cannot answer it honestly, you can choose not to answer. 

This is not a test. We just want to know what you think. 

1. How many members of your household are the parent of child aged 18 or younger (including yourself)? 

• IF NONE, TERMINATE. 

• IF ONE, ASK TO SPEAK TO THAT PERSON. 

• IF NECESSARY, SCHEDULE CALLBACK. 

IF TWO OR MORE~ ASK: 

2. Of these people, may I speak to the one who has the nex.___!t birthday? 

YES --> CONTINUE 

NO --> TERMINATE 

• IF NECESSARY, SCHEDULE CALLBACK. 

WHEN PERSON COMES TO PHONE, RE-INTRODUCE SELF. 

VERIFY THAT PERSON IS THE PARENT OF A CHILD AGED 

18 OR YOUNGER. 

-2- 
1 How many children age 18 or under do you have? 

................................. • -1 

2 ................................. • -2 

3 ................................. • -3 

.................................... • -4 

5 .................................... • -5 

6 or more ..................... • -6 

How many are 

Under 5 years old ...... 

5-8 years old .............. 

9-12 years old ............ 

13-15 years old .......... 

16-17 years old .......... 

18 years old ............... 

-3- 
. 

Attitudes and Beliefs about Drugs 

i'm going to read you some statements. For each statement, please tell me 

whether doing it would be a GREAT RISK, a MODERATE RISK, a SLIGHT 

RISK, or NO RISK. 

How much overall risk do you think there is in... 

a. Trying marijuana once or twice 

Would you say there is Great Risk, Moderate Risk, Slight Risk, or No Risk? 

Great Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk No Risk 

b. Using marijuana regularly 

Would you say there is Great Risk, Moderate Risk, Slight Risk, or No Risk? 

Great Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk No Risk 

c. Trying cocaine/crack once or twice 

Would you say there is Great Risk, Moderate Risk, Slight Risk, or No Risk? 

Great Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk No Risk 

d. Using cocaine/crack regularly 

Would you say there is Great Risk, Moderate Risk, Slight Risk, or No Risk? 

Great Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk No Risk 

e. Sniffing things like glue to get high once or twice 

Would you say there is Great Risk, Moderate Risk, Slight Risk, or No Risk? 

Great Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk No Risk 

f. Sniffing things like glue to get high regularly 

Would you say there is Great Risk, Moderate Risk, Slight Risk, or No Risk? 

Great Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk No Risk 

T 

g. 

T 

h. 

N 

i. 

N 

j. 

Trying methamphetamines once or twice 

Would you say there is Great Risk, Moderate Risk, Slight Risk, or No Risk? 

Great Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk No Risk 

Using methamphetamines regularly 

Would you say there is Great Risk, Moderate Risk, Slight Risk, or No Risk? 

Great Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk No Risk 

Trying heroin once or twice 

Would you say there is Great Risk, Moderate Risk, Slight Risk, or No Risk? 

Great Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk No Risk 

Using heroin regularly 

Would you say there is Great Risk, Moderate Risk, Slight Risk, or No Risk? 

Great Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk No Risk 

-4- 
Now I'm going io ask you a set of statements about your child's experiences and how he or she feels about 

drugs. Please think about your oldest child who is 18 years of age or younger. 

4. First of all, what is the age of your oldest child who is 18 years of age or younger? 

Under6 • 1 ->SKIPTOQ9 11 

12 

6 • -2 13 

7 ° -3 14 

8 • -4 15 

9 • -5 16 

10 • 6 17 

18 

,-1 

°-2 

°-3 

.4 

°-5 

0- 6 

°-7 

°-8 

. What sex is that child? 

Male • -1 

Female ° -2 

6. What grade is that child currently enrolled in? 

Pre-school • -1 4th ° -6 9th 

Kindergarten ° -2 5th • -7 10th 

1 st • -3 6th ° -8 1 lth 

2nd • -4 7th • -9 12th 

3rd • -5 8th • -0 College 

Not in school 

.-1 

.-2 

.-3 

.-4 

°-5 

.-6 

. Have you ever talked to your child about drugs? 

Yes • -1 -~ ANSWER QUESTION 8 

No ° -2 -~ SKIPTO QUESTION 9 

IF "YES" TO QUESTION 71 ANSWER QUESTION 8: 

8 In the past year, how often have you talked to your child about drugs? 

Never • 1 

Once • "2 

Two or three times • 3 

Four or more times • -4 

-5- 
. 

a. 

b. 

For each statement, please tell me whether you AGREE STRONGLY, AGREE SOMEWHAT, DISAGREE 

SOMEWHAT, or DISAGREE STRONGLY. 

What I say will have little influence over whether my child tries marijuana. 

Do you Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat, Disagree Somewhat, or Disagree Strongly? 

__ Agree Strongly __Agree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly 

My child knows exactly how I feel about him/her using drugs. 

Do you Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat, Disagree Somewhat, or Disagree Strongly? 

_Agree Strongly ______Agree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly 

C. 

d. 

e. 

I don't think it is so bad if my child tries marijuana. 

Do you Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat, Disagree Somewhat, or Disagree Strongly? 

_Agree Strongly _Agree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly 

I would be upset if my child ever tried marijuana. 

Do you Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat, Disagree Somewhat, or Disagree Strongly? 

__Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly 

It wouldn't worry me if my child tried sniffing things to get high, like glue. 

Do you Agree Strongly, Agree Somewhat, Disagree Somewhat, or Disagree Strongly? 

Agree Strongly Agree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly 

T 

10. 

T 

11a. 

T 

11b. 

T 

11c. 

In the past few months, how frequently have you seen or heard commercials or ads telling you about the 

risks of drugs? Would you say...(READ LIST) 

Not at all 

Less than once a month 

1-3 times a month 

1-3 times a week 

Every day or almost every day 

More than once a day 

(If respondent indicates "Not at all," interviewer should skip to Question 12.) 

How much do you agree or disagree that these commercials or ads have... 

made you more aware of the risks of using drugs 

Do you Agree a Lot, Agree a Little, Disagree a Little, or Disagree a Lot? 

Agree a Lot Agree a Little Disagree a Little Disagree a Lot 

How much do you agree or disagree that these commercials or ads have... 

given you new information or told you things you didn't know about drugs 

Do you Agree a Lot, Agree a Little, Disagree a Little, or Disagree a Lot? 

Agree a Lot Agree a Little Disagree a Little Disagree a Lot 

How much do you agree or disagree that these commercials or ads have... 

made you aware that America's drug problem is something that all families should be concerned 

about 

Do you Agree a Lot, Agree a Little, Disagree a Little, or Disagree a Lot? 

Agree a Lot Agree a Little Disagree a Little Disagree a Lot 

-6- 
12. Now rm going to read you some short descriptions of anti-drug television commercials that may or may 

not have been shown in your area over the past few months. For each ad I'd like you to tell me how often 

you saw it in the past few months, 

a. A boy skateboards through a safe-looking suburban neighborhood and then smokes a 

marijuana joint with his friend. 

In the past few months, did you see this advertisement Often, a Few Times or Not at All? 

Often A Few Times Not at All 

b. Carroll O'Connor (who played Archie Bunker on TV) talks about how his son killed himself 

after using drugs and urges you to get between your kids and drugs any way you can. 

In the past few months, did you see this advertisement Often, a Few Times or Not at All? 

Often , A Few Times Not at All 

C. A young girl is being interviewed in a classroom. She is asked how she knows so much 

about the dangers of matches and strangers. She replies "My mommy told me." When 

asked about drugs, the girl is silent. 

In the past few months, did you see this advertisement Often, a Few Times or Not at All? 

Often A Few Times Not at All 

d. As you move from room to room in a suburban house, you learn that ordinary household 

products, when inhaled or sniffed, can kill kids. 

In the past few months, did you see this advertisement Often, a Few Times or Not at All? 

Often A Few Times Not at All 

e. A boy and his father, standing outside in a playground, practice how to say no to drug 

dealers. 

In the past few months, did you see this advertisement Often, a Few Times or Not at All? 

Often A Few Times Not at All 

N 

13. 

TV VIEWING 

How often do you watch TV? (READ LIST) 

Every day 

Almost every day 

At least once a week 

Once or twice a month 

A few times a year 

Never 

-7~ 
DEMOGRAPHICS 

I now have a few final questions just for classification purposes. 

14. Which one of the following age groups are you in? Please stop me when I reach your age group. 

you... (READ LIST) 

18 to 24 45 to 54 

25 to 34 55 to 64 

35 to 44 65 or older 

Are 

15. Are you white, black, Oriental or Asian, or some other ethnic group? 

White 

Black 

Oriental/Asian 

Other (Specify: 

16. Are you of Hispanic origin? 

Yes 

No 

17. Are you (READ LIST) 

Married 

Single, never married 

Single, never married, and living with opposite sex 

Divorced or separated 

Widow or widower 

18. What is the highest level of schooling you have completed? (DO NOT READ LIST) 

Some high school or less 

Completed high school 

Some college 

Completed college 

Graduate school 

19. Which of the following income groups best describes the total yearlyincome of all members of your 

household combined last year (READ LIST) 

Under $10,000 

$10,000-$14,999 

$15,000-$24,999 

$25,000-$34,999 

$35,000-$49,999 

$50,000-$74,999 

$75,000-$99,999 

$100,000 or over 

-8- 
20, 

21. 

What is your 5-digit zip code? 

CODE SEX: 

Male 

Female 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING 

IN THIS IMPORTANT RESEARCH STUDY. 

-9-L 
APPENDIX C 

WEIGHTING PROCEDURES 

APPENDIX C: WEIGHTING PROCEDURES 

WEIGHTING FOR SCHOOL POPULATIONS 

In each wave of the study, data were separately weighted for the two student 

populations (4th-6th grades; 7th-12th grades). Within each of these populations, 

data were separately weighted for each of the 20 markets, and within each market, 

data were separately weighted for the central city and the non-central city portions 

of the market. 

Schools were originally selected with probability proportional to size, separately 

for each market, and within each market separately for central city vs. non-central 

city. For this reason, an equal number of classes was assigned per school, in such 

a way as to yield an equal number of classes for each grade within each of the 

sampling segments (i.e., central city vs. non-central city within each market). 

Since the design called for 3 classes per school and 16 schools per market (in 

total), this would yield a total of 48 classes per market. Half of these were central 

city and half non-central city, or 24 classes for each of these categories. Within 

each of these categories, half the classes (or 12) were from the 4th-6th grades, and 

half from the 7th-12th grades. At the bottom line, this means that there were 4 

classes from each of grades 4 through 6 from central city schools and 4 classes 

from each of these grades from non-central city schools; there were 2 classes from 

each of grades 7 through 12 from central city schools and 2 classes from each of 

these grades from non-central city schools. In this way, classes were selected 

within schools with equal probability under the assumption that class sizes in a 

given school for a particular subject matter and grade will be approximately 

equal. 

In an analytical study such as this, the usual first step would have been to weight 

the data by the probability of selection, which (given the present sampling design) 

would have reduced to a weight of the form c/ni, where c is a constant and ni is the 

number of completed interviews in a given school. In the present study sites and 

subsites were predetermined, having been selected on the basis of the composition 

of the market and the needs of the research. For each of the two school studies 

(youth and teen) a sample of four schools was drawn for each particular subsite 

(where by subsite, we refer to one of the two subdivisions - city or suburbs - of 

one of the markets in the study). Because of the small number of schools drawn 

for each subsite and the requirement that results be projected to the total 

enrollment for that subsite, there were several constraints involved in the drawing 

process. The set of four schools had to meet several criteria: stratification by 

ethnicity, including the right combination of grades available for selection (e.g., a 

simple probability sample drawn proportional to eligible students for the 

elementary study could, unless controlled, yield 4 schools, all including only 

grades K-5, which would make it impossible to include 6 th graders), etc. 

Because of these constraints, the selection probability could not be simply 

described as "probability proportional to eligible student enrollment." By the 

original sample design (which is essentially self-weighting); we would expect the 

Office of National Drug Control Policy C-1 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

relative sample selection weights to approach a constant. Two surrogates, 

therefore, for the "true" selection probability weight were considered: either 

adjust the sample as if the probability of selection were, in fact, probability 

proportional to enrollment (using the original selection probability, which was 

proportional to enrollment) or consider the sample self-weighting as to sample 

selection probability (and use a constant). The difference in the relative impact of 

these two approaches was tested for two of the markets and found to be 

negligible. 1' For this reason, it was decided to favor simplicity and to treat the 

sample as self-weighting with regard t ° sample selection. 

The weighting performed was the projection weight, which was a balance 

weighting or a "weighting adjustment." In calculating results from the school 

studies, projection weighting to universe values was carried out for selected 

demographics. Data were weighted only to balance by grade, sex, and ethnicity 

within subsites within sites. In this process, the universe counts are determined 

(or estimated from available census data) for each cell of a weighting diagram by 

the three demographics--grade, sex, and ethnicity--within each subsite. Then, 

cell by cell, each sample cell count is weighted up to the desired universe count 

for that cell. Expressed as a formula: 

wun = Nun /nun, 

where: wij n is the weight for subsite i, grade j, gender k, and 

ethnicity l, 

Nun is the (estimated) universe count for subsite i, grade j, gender 

k, and ethnicity l, 

nun is the sample count for subsite i, grade j, gender k, and 

ethnicity l. 

In the analyses of these survey data, a nonresponse adjustment was implicitly 

performed because of the use of estimated universe counts in the weighting 

procedure. Consequently, a separate nonresponse adjustment was not necessary. 

When applying weights to point estimates for any result (for example, the 

proportion of students seeing a specific ad), the projection weights that are 

calculated generate individual respondent weights--that is, at the end of the 

weighting process, each respondent is assigned the weight calculated for the cell 

into which that respondent fell. This weight is then permanently associated with 

that specific individual respondent's data. Thereafter, any "weighted" data is 

obtained by summing these weights across all specified respondents (for any 

particular specification). 

For these markets, the average difference between these two weighting approaches on analytical measures in the study 

was less than two tenths of one percentage point. 

C-2 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Weighting Procedures 

For example, the weighted percent of students seeing a specific ad at an individual 

school would be calculated by taking the sum of the weights for each respondent 

at that school who saw the ad, and dividing that total by the sum of the weights 

for all respondents at the school. The same calculation applies for a given site or 

subsite (summing over the entire site or subsite instead of over the school). Since 

projections were originally made to a constant for each site, the result for the 

combination of all sites would also be done in the same manner, simply summing 

over all respondents in all sites combined. Each site would then have the same 

weight in the composite figure. 

Universe Counts--The total number of students in the relevant grades for a 

given segment was calculated based on the Market Data Retrieval database of 

public schools. For each school in the database, the number of students in the 

relevant grades was computed by multiplying the proportion of grades that 

qualified in the school times the total students enrolled. For example, if a given 

school consisted of grades K through 6 (a total of 7 grades), the number of 

students in grades 4 through 6 was estimated by multiplying the total enrollment 

of the school times 3/7 (the proportion of grades that qualified for the elementary 

sample). 

The ethnic breakdown for a given segment was obtained from the same 

database (which includes the ethnic composition for each school), by 

multiplying the ethnic breakdown per school times the estimated number of 

students in the school in qualifying grades, then summing over all schools in 

the segment. 

The proportion of students in each grade was estimated from Table 3 of the 

U.S. Census report on "School Enrollment- Social and Economic 

Characteristics of Students: October 1996" (P20-500). 

The proportion of students by sex was also estimated from the U.S. Census 

report on "School Enrollment--Social and Economic Characteristics of 

Students: October 1996" (P20-500). 

Undesignated on Demographics m Adjustments were made to deal with 

undesignated sex and ethnicity; site, subsite, and grade were never missing. 

Respondents who were undesignated on sex were assigned the average weight 

for male and female respondents in the same grade and segment of the market. 

This occurred among 1.1% of students at baseline, and among 1.1% of 

students at follow-up. The weights for all three sex categories 

(male/female/undesignated) were then adjusted down to maintain the original 

total weighted count for the given grade within the given segment of the 

market. 

Respondents who were undesignated on ethnicity were similarly given 

average weights for the other ethnicities for the given grade, sex, and segment 

of the market. Undesignated responses on ethnicity occurred among 1.5% of 

students at baseline and among 1.3% of students at follow-up. In the case of 

Office of National Drug Control Policy C-3 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

ethnicity, this was accomplished by adjusting the target cell counts, as 

follows: Theethnic breakdown for the market was first calculated for 5 

categories: white, black, Hispanic, other, and undesignated, where the last 

percent was taken to be the percent undesignated in the sample for this 

market, and the first four percentages were computed to add to 100 percent 

minus the undesignated percent, using the correct 4-way ratio for these 

categories for the market. The five categories were then collapsed to four by 

including "Undesignated" in the "Other" category, both for the sample data 

and for the target counts. 

Empty Cells and Extreme WeightsBAdjustments for empty cells and extreme 

weights were carded out in the following manner: 

In some cases, a cell was found to be empty for a particular segment of a 

market. Typically, this might occur when a cell was likely to be extremely 

small to begin with (for example, black 4th-grade boys in the Duluth noncentral city segment). In this case, the other cells for the same sex, grade and 

segment (i.e., central city vs. non-central city) were weighted up to keep the 

total (for this sex, grade and segment) at the level required for the target 

population. (i.e., the data was "pooled" across ethnic groups). The reason for 

pooling across ethnic groups (rather than across sex or grade) is that other data 

sources indicate that key measures--such as drug usage--tend to be more 

highly correlated with sex and grade than with ethnicity. 

When the process resulted in a cell which had an excessive weight, (where 

excessive was, on average, about 8 times the average weight for a given 

market) the excessive weight was truncated at the maximum allowable value, 

and the difference made up by a process of pooling similar to that just 

described for empty cells. 

Approach for Handling Exceptional Cases--The specific approach taken with 

regard to handling of exceptional cases in the weighting is demonstrated through 

the following procedures: 

For Ethnicity, the target proportion of "All Other" ethnicity was 

adjusted for each site, such that the proportion of non-responses would 

remain constant from the unweighted to the weighted data. For 

example, suppose that for a given site, the ethnic breakdown for 

population was: 

White: 75% 

Black: 14% 

Hispanic: 6% 

Other: 5% 

Suppose that for this same site, the sample proportion who did not answer the 

question was 5%. The target percentage were then adjusted as follows: 

White: 71.25% (75% White times 95% designated) 

C-4 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Weighting Procedures 

Black: 

Hispanic: 

All Other: 

13.30% (14% Black times 95% designated) 

5.70% (6% Hispanic times 95% designated) 

9.75% ((5% Other times 95% designated) plus 5% 

undesignated) 

Sample data for the site then were weighted up to the adjusted target 

percentages for that site. 

Sex was handled in a similar fashion. Any respondents for whom sex was 

undesignated were given weights such that the results will not inflate nor 

deflate the proportion of "No Answers" on sex, (i.e., the ratio of male to 

female was maintained as per the population data for the site, but the target 

proportions of males plus females totalled the proportion designated in the 

sample). For example, suppose that for a given site, the proportion male and 

female is the following: 

Males: 47% 

Female: 53% 

Suppose further, that 2% of the sample did not answer the "Sex of 

Respondent" question. The adjusted target percentages would become: 

Males: 46.06% 

Females: 51.94% 

No Answer 2.00% 

(47% male times 98% designated) 

(53% female times 98% designated) 

(maintain the 2% undesignated found in :~ 

the sample) 

Thus, the ratio of male to female was adjusted to reflect the ratio found in the 

population, while maintaining the percent undesignated found in the sample. 

With regard to Empty cells, in the case where an empty cell was found in the 

sample distribution for a particular site, data were pooled across ethnicity 

(since historically, both grade and sex are more strongly correlated with key 

measures such as drug usage, than is ethnicity). That is, if a cell in the sample 

distribution for a given site was found to be empty, the other cells for the same 

grade and sex within that site were weighted up to make up the difference. For 

example, suppose that the target cell numbers for female 5 th grade in the 

suburbs of Baltimore were: 

White: 17.8 

Black: 5.4 

Hispanic: 2.1 

All Other: 2.3 

Total: 27.6 

And suppose that the sample distribution for female 5 th graders in this subsite 

were: 

White: 21 

Office of National Drug Control Policy C-5 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Black: 10 

Hispanic: 0 

All Other: 5 

Total 36 

By simply mechanically calculating the weights for these cells, we obtain the 

following: 

White: 

Black: 

Hispanic: 

All Other: 

This would yield: 

.85 (17.8, the target, divided by 21, the number of 

interviews) 

.54 (5.4, the target, divided by 10, the number of 

interviews) 

NA (there are no interviews in this cell) 

.46 (2.3, the target, divided by, 5, the number of 

interviews) 

White: 17.8 

Black: 5.4 

Hispanic: 0 

All Other: 2.3 

Total 25.5 

But we know that we want a total of 27.6 female 5th graders. So, to make up 

for the fact that the Hispanic cell is empty, each of the other three weights 

would be increased by a constant proportion to bring the total female 5th 

graders up to 27.6. This constant increment would be 27.6 divided by 25.5, or 

1.08235. Thus, the "pooled" weights would be the previous weights times this 

constant, as follows: 

White: 

Black: 

Hispanic: 

All Other: 

.92 (.85 times 1.08235) 

.58 (.54 times 1.08235) 

NA (there are no interviews in this cell, so it's 

irrelevant) 

.50 (.46 times 1.08235) 

This would yield the following weighted totals for these cells: 

White: 19.3 

Black: 5.8 

Hispanic: 0.0 

All Other: 2.5 

Total: 27.6 

This brings the total number of female 5th graders up to the desired target of 

27.6, while maintaining the correct proportions for those ethnicities that were 

represented in the sample. 

C-6 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Weighting Procedures 

Since, in general, empty cells occur most frequently for those combinations of 

demographics which are least common in each site, the adjustments resulting 

from this type of pooling are generally small, and maintain demographic 

proportions well for both site and subsite. 

In sum, the data are considered projectable to all students present on the day of 

the interviewing process who chose to participate, since these are all the students 

from whom data were collected. Thus, to the degree to which participation levels 

may vary by participating class, the degree of participation is reflected in the final 

data and reflects the actual mix of students who participated in the study. 

The following tables represent the distribution of weights for the elementary and 

secondary samples, for the two waves of interviewing. Weights are presented 

relative to the average (i.e., "1.0" would be a weight that happened to be exactly 

the average for the particular sample and wave, "2.0" would be a weight that was 

twice the average, etc.). 

Range of 

Weights 

0.0 - 0.2 

Elementary Sample 

Wave I Wave 2 

8% 

Range of 

Weights 

0.0 - 0.2 

Secondary Sample 

Wave I 

9% 

Wave 2 

7% 8% 

0.2 - 0.4 15% 13% 0.2 - 0.4 15% 15% 

0.4 - 0.6 17% 18% 0.4 - 0.6 17% 16% 

0.6 - 0.8 12% 12% 0.6 - 0.8 11% 10% 

0.8 - 1.0 9% 10% 0.8 - 1.0 8% 10% 

1.0 - 1.2 10% 11% 1.0 - 1.2 9% 11% 

1.2- 1.4 7% 9% 1.2- 1.4 9% 8% 

1.4- 1.6 5% 6% 1.4- 1.6 8% 8% 

1.6- 1.8 5% 3% 1.6- 1.8 4% 3% 

1.8 - 2.0 3% 3% 1.8 - 2.0 2% 3% 

2.0 - 3.0 5% 7% 2.0 - 3.0 5% 5% 

3.0 - 4.0 2% 1% 3.0 - 4.0 2% 2% 

Over 4.0 1% 1% Over 4.0 1% 1% 

Weighting ProceduresmThe following five pages contain a walk-through of the 

procedures followed in weighting the school samples in this study. The example 

is the Baseline wave of the teen data for the Baltimore market. At the bottom of 

each table is a description of the data presented in that table as well as its 

derivation. Table 5 contains the actual final weights applied to this data. 

Following the five tables is a brief description of the universe estimates for these 

data. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy C-7 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Table 1 

Baltimore Market 

Males 

G rades 7, 8 

Grades 9, 10 

Grades 11, 12 

Females 

Grades 7, 8 

Grades 9, 10 

Grades 11, 12 

Undesignated Sex 

Grades 7, 8 

Grades 9, 10 

Grades 11, 12 

City 

White I Black I Hispanic I Other 

4 37 3 0 

10 36 0 4 

2 44 0 1 

3 39 0 2 

2 48 1 1 

6 55 0 1 

1 0 0 5 

1 0 0 3 

0 1 0 2 

Suburbs 

White I Black I Hispanic I Other 

14 2 2 4 

16 6 0 3 

17 9 4 0 

20 5 0 1 

18 4 1 2 

22 4 0 4 

0 0 0 0 

0 - 0 0 2 

0 0 0 0 

The above table shows the actual unweighted number of interviews conducted for the teen sample in the 

Baltimore market, separately by subsite (city vs. suburbs) for sex by grade by ethnicity. 

C-8 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Weighting Procedures 

Males 

Grades 7, 8 

Grades 9, 10 

Grades 11, 12 

Females 

Grades 7, 8 

Grades 9, 10 

Grades 11, 12 

Undesiqnated Sex 

Grades 7, 8 

Grades 9, 10 I 

Grades 11, 12 

Table 2 

Baltimore Market 

City 

White I Black I Hispanic] 

4.5 37 3 

10.5 36 0 

2 44.5 0 

3.5 39 0 

2.5 48 1 

6 55.5 0 

Suburbs 

Other White I 

2.5 14 

5.5 16 

2 17 

4.5 20 

2.5 18 

2 22 

Black I Hispanic I Other 

2 2 4 

6 0 4 

9 4 0 

5 0 1 

4 1 3 

4 0 4 

In Table 2, the counts for the "Undesignated Sex" cells have been evenly split between male and female for the given 

grade, ethnicity and subsite. This is done in order to be able to assign an average weight (i.e., the average of the male 

and female weights for the given grade, ethnicity and subsite category) to those interviews for which sex is undesignated. 

Since the target table (as will be seen) does not include "Undesignated Sex", the next effect will be to slightly reduce 

the weighted total for the interviews for which sex was designated, such that if the average weight is applied 

to the undesignated sex interviews, the total weighted count across all three sex categories (for the given grade, 

ethnicity and subsite) will come back to the true target values. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy C-9 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Table 3 

Baltimore Market 

Males 

Grades 7,8 

Grades 9,10 

Grades11,12 

Females 

Grades 7, 8 

Grades 9,10 

Grades 11,12 

City 

Whitel Black I Hispanic I Other 

54.097 337.090 1.226 17.601 

56.017 349.057 1.270 18.226 

50.820 316.670 1.152 16.535 

51.497 320.889 1.167 16.755 

53.325 332.282 1.209 17.350 

48.377 301.450 1.097 15.740 

Suburbs 

White I Black I Hispanic I Other 

941.120 219.869 41.798 109.296 

974.531 227.675 43.282 113.177 

884.108 206.550 39.266 102.675 

895.889 209.302 39.790 104.044 

927.695 216.733 41.202 107.737 

841.618 196.623 37.379 97.741 

Table 3 contains the universe counts by cell for the Baltimore market, which were calculated by taking the total 

desired universe count (set at 10000 for each market), then multiplying by the proportion of the universe falling 

into each sex, grade, and ethnicity category, separately by subsite. For the Baltimore market, these percentages 

were as follows: 

Subsite Sex Grade 

% % % 

City 23.81 Males 51.23 7th-8th 33.61 

Suburbs 76.19 Females 48.77 9th-10th 34.81 

11th-12th 31.58 

White 

Black 

Hispanic 

All Others 

Ethnicity No Answer Ethnicity 

City Suburbs on Ethnicity City Suburbs 

% % % % % 

13.72 74.57 3.8136 13.19 71.73 

85.47 17.42 82.21 16.76 

0.31 3.31 0.30 3.19 

0.50 4.70 4.29 8.33 

(Before adjusting for no answer.) (After adjusting for no answer.) 

The sources of these universe estimates are described in detail at the end of this appendix (i.e., from a 

combination of U.S. Census data and enrollment data on a specific school by school basis from Market Data 

Retrieval. Sex and grade estimates were applied uniformly across markets and subsites; ethnicity estimates 

were made separately for each subsite within each market. The above ethnicity distributions show the percents 

before and after the adjustment for non-response on the c;thnicity question has been made (as is elsewhere 

described). 

C-10 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Weighting Procedures 

Males 

Grades 7, 8 

Grades 9, 10 

Grades 11, 12 

Females 

Grades 7, 8 

Grades 9, 10 

Grades 11, 12 

Undesignated Sex 

Grades 7, 8 

Grades 9, 10 

Grades 11, 12 

Table 4 

Baltimore Market 

city 

White I Black I Hispanic I Other 

12.02 9.11 0.41 7.04 

5.33 9.70 #DIV/0! 3.31 

25.41 7.12 #DIV/0! 8.27 

14.71 8.23 #DIV/0! 3.72 

21.33 6.92 1.21 6.94 

8.06 5.43 #DIV/0! 7.87 

13.20 4.91 

8.41 4.45 

6.18 8.07 

Suburbs 

White I Black I Hispanic I Other 

67.22 109.93 20.90 27.32 

60.91 37.95 #DIV/0! 28.29 

52.01 22.95 9.82 #DIV/0! 

44.79 41.86 #DIV/0! 104.04 

51.54 54.18 41.20 35.91 

38.26 49.16 #DIV/0! 24.44 

31.56 

Table 4 shows the first stage in calculating the weights for each cell in the diagram. For the "designated sex 

categories (i.e., "Males" and "Females"), the weights is calculated by dividing the target number for that cell 

in Table 3 by the unweighted count for that cell in Table 1. For the "Undesignated Sex" cells, the weight 

is calculated by taking the aggregate target for "Males" and "Females" in the corresponding position (byethnicity, 

grade, and subsite) in this table, then dividing by the aggregate number of interviews. Cells in which "#DIV/0!" 

appears are empty cells (i.e., no inter/iews were conducted with st~udents who would fall into this cell). Since 

empty "Undesignated Sex" cells do not need to be taken into account in the weighting, these cells have been 

left empty in the above diagram. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy C-11 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Table 5 

Baltimore Market 

Males 

Grades 7, 8 

Grades 9, 10 

Grades 11, 12 

Females 

Grades 7, 8 

Grades 9, 10 

Grades 11, 12 

Undesignated Sex 

Grades 7, 8 

Grades 9, 10 

Grades 11, 12 

city 

White I Black I Hispanic I Other 

12.02 9.11 0.41 7.04 

Suburbs 

21.33 6.92 1.21 6.94 

;: 'i~,','~i'~: ~'~J',',~"~,J'! ~!',! '~"',', ',~!'~:',~ii!~,~ iii!',~ !',':', '~,:,~!~ 

13.20 4.91 

8.41 4.45 

6.18 8.07 

White I Black I Hispanic I Other 

67.22 109.93 20.90 27.32 

• ~'162!0~ ~i~i ji!ij j ; ~!~3 

i,~, ,, ~,,', ~ !~ ~ ~:,~,j',9,i i~,,, ,,ii~i ~ ~! ~ ~,i, i!i~,J!','~/,~,~' ~!~ ~,'~ ',",'~'~ 'iL ',L~ ','~' 

51,54 54,18 41.20 35.91 

31.56 

Table 5 indicates the instances of adjusting or "pooling" that were necessary because of empty cells in 

the table of completed interviews (Table 1). Each set of four shaded cells within one subsite (i.e., either 

City or Suburbs) in the table above illustrates one instance of "pooling." This poolingwas accomplished 

as follows (taking the instance of the 9th-10th grade males in the city): 

Each of the three weights for non-empty cells for 9th-10th grade males in the city (i.e., those for 

white, black, and other 9th-10th grade males in the city) were adjusted upward by a constant factor 

such that the total for these four cells will once again equal the total for these four cells in the target table 

(Table 3). A similar adjustment was made for 9th-10th grade males in the suburbs; 11th-12th grade males 

in the city; etc. (for each of the shaded areas in the chart above). 

Note that (as expected) empty cells are most likely to occur for combinations that are low in incidence.• 

The empty projection cells in the above diagram represent only about 2.3 percent of the total population. 

C-12 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Weighting Procedures 

WEIGHTING FOR PARENTS DATA 

Universe Counts--The universe for the parent study was all parents of children 

18 years of age or younger in the market areas included in Phase I. A probability 

sample was drawn, using the principles of random digit dialing, enhanced to 

increase the incidence of working residential telephone households. This 

methodology makes it possible to project the sample results to the relevant test 

universe. RDD gives unlisted telephone households the same chance of falling 

into the sample as listed ones. At least 175 parents were interviewed in each of 

the 24 sites. 

Design Weighting--Data for parents was weighted separately by market. Since 

the sample was simple random-digit-dialing (RDD), the projections were in each 

case for the whole market (i.e., there was no distinction between central and noncentral city). 

The respondent selection frequency weight was applied to account for the fact that 

only one interview was obtained per household. The weight consisted of the 

number of parents in the household (i.e., an interview with a parent from a 1- 

parent household is given a weight of 1; an interview with a parent from a 2- 

parent household is given a weight of 2). This balances for inequality in the 

probability of selection of individual parents in the household. 

Balance Weighting m Data were weighted by sex and ethnicity. Target values for 

each market were obtained from the 1990 census data per market. In order to 

estimate the sex and ethnicity ratios, the following procedure was followed by 

market: 

• Sex 

Total female parents = sum of two-parent families plus one-parent (female) 

subfamilies. 

Total male parents = sum of two-parent families plus one-parent (male) 

families plus two-parent subfamilies plus one-parent (male) subfamilies. 

The ratio of parents by sex for each market is the ratio of the above two 

numbers. 

• Ethnicity 

The above data are available in the 1990 census by ethnic group. The above 

calculation was thus made for male, female, and total parents within each 

ethnic group. Since Hispanics are included in the other ethnic categories, 

adjustment was made (using the racial breakdown of Hispanics from the 

census) to remove the Hispanics from the other ethnic categories as 

appropriate to bring the total to 100%. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy C-13 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

Data from Market Statistics for 1990 and 1997 were used to estimate the shifts 

in population by ethnic group for each market. These shifts were then applied 

to each of the numbers obtained above by ethnic group. The final set of data 

was used to estimate the sex/ethnic ratios for the market. 

The following exhibit provides a detailed example of how the parents' weights 

were calculated for the market study. 

Table 1 

Exhibit 1 

EXAMPLE: Austin, Texas, Wave 2 

Estimates of Parents in Austin, TX MSA (from Census, as Described in 

Previous Correspondence) 

Male 

Female 

Total 

White 

79,483 

92,051 

171,534 

Black 

7,065 

12,481 

19,545 

Hispanic 

26,164 

31,487 

57,650 ~ 

Other Total 

4,255 116,966 

4,683 140,702 

8,938 257,667 

Table 2 Percentages 

Male 

Female 

Total 

White 

30.8% 

35.7% 

66.6% 

Black 

2.7% 

4.8% 

7.6% 

Hispanic 

10.2% 

12.2% 

22.4% 

Other Total 

1.7% 45.4% 

1.8% 54.6% 

3.5% 100.0% 

Table 3 Target Values: (i.e., Projecting to a Constant 1000) 

White Black Hispanic 

101.5 

Other Total 

Male 308.5 27.4 16.5 453.9 

Female 357.2 48.4 122.2 18.2 546.1 

Total 665.7 75.9 223.7 34.7 1000.0 

Table 4 Wave h Data, Weighted by Individual Selection Probability Within 

Household 

White Black Hispanic Other Total 

Male 70 11 34 6 121 

Female 103 24 39 9 175 

Total 173 35 73 15 296 

Table 5 Weights (Percent "Other" Maintained as Per Sample; Others 

Proportionate Within Gender) 

White Black 

Male 4.35 2.46 

Female 3.40 1.98 

Hispanic 

2.95 

Other 

3.75 

3.07 3.12 

C-14 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Weighting Procedures 

Table 1 provides estimates of parents in the Austin, TX MSA to which the data 

were weighted. 

Table 2 expresses the data from Table 1 in terms of percent of total. 

Table 3 shows how the data were projected up to a constant total of 1000. Each 

market was weighted up to a constant total of 1000 in order to allow the total of 

all markets to represent an average across all markets. 

Table 4 includes data from the parent interviews, tabulated by sex and race, and 

weighted to adjust for respondent selection probability in multi-parent versus 

single-parent households. Only a single level of adjustment was made (i.e., if the 

number of parent in the household was 1, the weight was 1; if the number of 

parents in the household was greater than 1 (normally 2), the weight was 2. 

Table 5 presents the weights assigned to each cell. Note that these weights are 

cumulative with the above-described respondent selection probability weights 

(i.e., for any particular respondent, the two weights are multiplied together to 

yield the final weight for that respondent). 

In calculating the weight, it would be presumed that the weight should simply be 

the value for a cell in Table 3 (the target value) divided by the value for the same 

cell in Table 4 (the sample value). However, an additional consideration that 

needs to be taken into account is that the "other" category in the ethnicity variable 

includes responses of "Don't Know" and "Refused" as well as legitimate 

"Others." For this reason, it would be inappropriate to weight this cell to the 

actual census number for "Other Ethnicity" in the market (which represents 

Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans). In fact, what was done was 

maintain this category in the same proportion at which it occurred (within 

gender). Then the other three gender categories were weighted in proportion up 

to the total for that gender (exclusive of the weighted "other" category). 

The following tables represent the distribution of weights for the parents sample 

for the two waves of interviewing. Weights are presented relative to the average 

(i.e., "1.0" would be a weight that happened to be exactly the average for the 

particular sample and wave, "2.0" would be a weight that was twice the average, 

etc.). The bimodal distribution is a result of the selection process of no more than 

one interview per household and the resultant difference in the weights of 1- 

parents vs. 2-parent households. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy C-15 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

\ \ 

\ 

Range of 

Weights 

Parents Sample 

Wave I 

0.0 - 0.2 0% 

0.2 - 0.4 2% 

0.4 - 0.6 18% 

0.6 - 0.8 

Wave 

1% 

4% 

16% 

11% 15% 

0.8 - 1.0 14% 8% 

1.0- 1.2 26% 26% 

1.2 - 1.4 16% 17% 

1.4 - 1.6 10% 10% 

1.6- 1.8 2% 4% 

1.8 - 2.0 0% 0% 

2.0 - 3.0 0% 0% 

3.0 - 4.0 0% 0% 

Over 4.0 0% 0% 

C-16 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
APPENDIX D 

ANALYTIC APPROACH AND STATISTICAL TESTING 

APPENDIX D: ANALYTIC APPROACH AND STATISTICAL 

TESTING 

Survey data were analyzed to examine change from baseline to followup. Change 

was examined within target groups, within comparison groups, and then 

differences between the groups were explored. Two-tailed tests were conducted, 

which is a conservative approach to analyzing the data, requiring no further 

adjustments. The Significant Net Difference Test was conducted on parent data 

using the automated tabulation program included in the Quantum software. For 

youth and teen data, the Significant Net Difference Test was modified to take into 

account the design effects for the youth and teen samples. A detailed description 

of the calculation of standard errors and the statistical testing performed is 

included in this section. 

1.1 ESTIMATION OF PROPORTIONS IN RANDOM SAMPLING 

Consider the proportion of respondents falling in a response category of interest 

(e.g., to a question on awareness). There were four proportions, Pi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) 

involved in the test of the net change between baseline and followup for target site 

vs. comparison site, as follows: 

P~, the proportion at comparison site for baseline; 

P2, the proportion at target site for baseline; 

P3, the proportion at comparison site for followup; and 

P4, the proportion at target site for followup. 

There are a number of questions we might like the experimental results to answer: 

a. Is the proportion at comparison site for baseline the same as at followup? 

b. Is the proportion at target site for baseline the same as at followup? 

c. Is the difference between baseline and followup different for target vs. 

comparison? 

The questions can be answered by comparing proportions under the following 

hypotheses. 

a. Ho: P3 = P1 

b. Ho: P4 = Pz 

C. Ho: P4 - P3 = P2- P1 

A systematic way of forming and testing hypotheses such as these is provided by 

the concept of contrasts among proportions. A linear function 

Office of National Drug Control Policy D-1 
Testing the Anti-Drug Message (Report No. 2) 

L =EkiPi 

is said to be a contrast of proportions if Z ki = 0 provided that at least one ki # 0. 

We used contrasts in hypothesis testing by framing the null hypothesis as a 

contrast and then testing the hypothesis that the contrast is zero against the 

alternative that it is not. That is, we tested 

Ho: L = 0 against 

Ha: L ;~ 0 

To test the hypothesis, we need a sample estimate of L and the sample variance of 

the estimate. The sample estimate, l, is obtained by substituting the sample 

proportion, p, for the population proportion in the contrast under test. We have 

-Z =- l = ]~ ki pi 

Under the condition that the sample groups are independent, the variance of l is 

given by 

V(l) = Y_, ki 2 V(p ) 

and its estimate v(l) = E ki 21)(pi) 

Under the usual assumption that the experimental error (in general and large 

sample theory) is normally distributed, a test statistic for testing Ho: L = 0 against 

Ha : L#0is 

t (Student's t, 1908) = l/'Xlv(1) 

which has degrees of freedom approximately equal to the total number of units in 

the comparison. For large sample sizes, t values can be compared with normal 

percentage points (probabilities or areas). Generally 2.576, 1.96, and 1.645 are 

used for tail probabilities ct = 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively. 

1.2 ESTIMATION OF PROPORTIONS IN CLUSTER SAMPLING 

• Schools were considered as cluster units 

• Students were considered as the elements 

N = the number of clusters (schools) in the universe 

n = the number of clusters selected in a random fashion 

m U = the (weighted) number of respondents (sample students) in study i, 

(i .th . = 1,2,3,4) andj school, j = 1,2....N 

D-2 Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Analytic Approach and Statistical Testing 

a o = the (weighted) number of respondents falling in the response category of 

interest. 

Estimate of the proportion P~ (study i) in a response category is 

aq 

P~ ~ m~j 

Thus Pi takes the form of a ratio estimator, m 0 is not a constant. In calculating the 

standard errors for this study, the clustering due to selection of schools was taken 

into account in the formula (see Cochran, 1963; Scheaffer et al., 1990). The 

following formula was used to calculate the variance estimate v(pi) of Pi: 

v(Pi) 

]~ ( a ij - m ij p , ) 2 

- (~mi)), 

2 4- 2 2 2a,~ -2p, Zaijmo P, Zm,j 

(~ mij) 2 

For the Significant Net Difference Test, set the hypotheses as 

Estimate ofLis 

Ho" L = P4 - P3 - (P2 - P t) = 0 

Ha'L ° 0 

l =P4 -P3 - (P2 -Pl) 

and its estimated variance is 

v(l) =~v(p,) 

for nonoverlapping samples (covariance ofpi and pj are assumed to be zero or 

negligible). Then the test statistic Student's t can be applied. 

1.3 REFERENCES 

Cochran, W.G. 1963. Sampling Techniques. New York, John Wiley & Sons. 

Petersen, R.G. 1985. Design and Analysis of Experiments. 

Scheaffer, Mendenhall, and Ott. 1990. Elementary Survey Sampling, 4th ed. 

PROPERTY OF 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) 

8_~× 6000 

Office of National Drug Control Policy Rockville, MD 20849-6000 D-3 




&~ 

~ws & 

Sea~h I Contact ONDCP I 

• The President's drug policy 

• Current data on drug use 

• Prevention, treatment, 

and enforcement programs 

• ONDCP initiatives, news, testimony 

• Links to other valuable resources 

• Information for campaign stakeholdersanti-drug leaders, media executives, 

policy makers 

• Communications strategy and integrated 

communications plan 

• News, testimony, initiatives 

• Online ad samples 

National Youth Anti-Drug ,~~ Media Campaign 

"The earlg results indicate that television, radio and prlnt 

advertising are having a significant Impact on children and 

their parents." .- ,~'~ 

I W I 

W,, 

I IIIII 

,. VV:~ ~.}i 

",t ,,. dr=Kj ~*t,e b*,to=,, ,l '~!,~t'~ [] 

• The truth about drugs for campaign 

audiences- youth and parents 

• Real stories about real families 

• No-nonsense facts about drugs of abuse 

• tips for youthand parents 

National Drug Clearinghouse: 1-800-666-3332 

Media Campaign Clearing House: 1-800-788-2800 

NCJ-175682