Anti-Drug Media Campaign: An Array of Services Was Provided, but Most Funds Were Committed to Buying Media Time and Space
Published: 2005-03-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was required by the Drug Free Media Campaign Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) to conduct a national media campaign to reduce and prevent drug use among America's youth. Since 1998, Congress has appropriated over $1 billion for the media campaign. However, a 2003 report by the Senate Committee on Appropriations expressed some concerns about the media campaign, including concern that a large portion of the campaign's budget had been used for consulting services rather than the direct purchase of media time and space. The report, therefore, directed GAO to review the use of consultants to support the media campaign. This report describes the services provided by consultants (defined by GAO as the prime contractors and their subcontractors) in support of the media campaign, along with the estimated award amounts for these services.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Our analysis of contracts covering ONDCP's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign from fiscal years 2002 through 2004 revealed that four contractors provided many of the services required to execute the campaign. These four prime contractors provided an array of services that fell within three broad categories: (1) advertising, (2) public communications and outreach, and (3) evaluation services to gauge the campaign's effectiveness. The prime contractors also acquired additional specialized expertise from 102 subcontractors. Some of the specific tasks performed by the contractors and their subcontractors included conducting qualitative and quantitative research for advertising creation, working with the entertainment industry to portray the negative consequences of drug use in television and movies, and conducting an evaluation intended to measure the effectiveness of the media campaign. Based on our analysis of contracts covering fiscal years 2002 through 2004, we estimated that $520 million was awarded to the four prime contractors, of which an estimated $373 million--72 percent--was committed to purchasing media time and space for campaign advertisements. The remaining $147 million--28 percent--was for the services provided by the prime contractors. Contractors, in turn, awarded $14 million of that amount to their subcontractors.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is charged with  reducing illicit drug use, manufacturing and trafficking, drug-related crime  and violence, and drug-related health consequences. To achieve these  goals, the office formulates a National Drug Control Strategy that includes  multipronged approaches to combating national drug use. Among these  approaches is an effort to reduce and prevent drug use among America’s  youth by conducting educational and community action programs,  including a National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The campaign  combines paid and donated advertising with public communications  outreach in an effort to change teen and parental beliefs and behaviors  regarding drug use.
Congress first authorized funding for the media campaign in fiscal year  1998, with the expectation that demonstrable changes in youth drug  behaviors would be apparent within 3 years. Since then, over $1 billion has  been appropriated for the media campaign. In a committee report for the  fiscal year 2004 appropriations cycle, the Senate Appropriations  Committee asserted that drug use was increasing in spite of the campaign  and that some observers had concluded that the campaign was having no  noticeable impact. In addition, the report asserted that a large portion of  the campaign’s budget pays for outside media and advertising consultants.  As such, the report expressed concern about the amount of resources  consumed by consultants and the extent to which funds were spent for  consulting services rather than media time and space for advertisements.  Given these issues, the committee report directed us to review how  consultants were used in support of the media campaign. This report  focuses on the following question: What services did contractors and their  subcontractors provide in support of ONDCP’s media campaign and what  were the estimated award amounts for these services for fiscal years 2002  through 2004? We are currently conducting a separate review examining  the design and execution of ONDCP’s primary effort to evaluate the media  campaign’s effectiveness.
To respond to the question for this report, we met with and obtained  documentation from officials at ONDCP headquarters and contractor and  subcontractor officials in Washington, D.C., and New York City that  supported the media campaign. We analyzed the contracts of the prime  contractors and their subcontractors to determine the services they  provided and the associated estimated award amounts. We used estimated  award data because at the time of our review actual expenditure  information was not complete. We conducted our work from March 2004  through February 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Appendix I provides more detailed information about  the scope and methodology of our work.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Congressional Authorization and Funding of the Media Campaign
paragraphs: The Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998, 21 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.,  required the Office of National Drug Control Policy to conduct a national  media campaign to reduce and prevent drug abuse among America’s  youth. The act specified certain uses of funds provided for the media  campaign to include (1) the purchase of media time and space; (2) out-of- pocket advertising production costs; (3) testing and evaluation of  advertising; (4) evaluation of effectiveness; (5) partnerships with  community, civic, and professional groups and with government  organizations; (6) collaboration with the entertainment industry to  incorporate anti-drug messages in movies, television, Internet media  projects, and public information; (7) news media outreach; and   (8) corporate sponsorship and participation, among other uses. The act  also mandated a matching requirement. To implement this requirement,  ONDCP developed a pro bono match program requiring media vendors  who sell advertising time or space to the media campaign to provide (1) an  equivalent amount of free public service time or space or (2) an equivalent  in-kind contribution.
Congress has appropriated over $1 billion for ONDCP’s media campaign  since it was initiated in 1998. However, the media campaign’s annual  appropriations have declined since Congress initially funded the program.  ONDCP’s 2005 appropriation provides $120 million for the media  campaign, which represents a $25 million decline from the 2004  appropriation and a $75 million decline from the first-year funding in 1998.
section_title: Media Campaign’s Advertising Development and Research Process
paragraphs: The media campaign employs an iterative three-phase advertising  development and research process. The first phase, the exploratory  research phase, occurs before advertisements are created. For example,  before developing the “Monitoring/Love” advertisement series—a message  targeting parents, promoting awareness of their children’s whereabouts— extensive research was conducted to help ad creators understand methods  of communicating effectively with parents of teens. The second phase  consists of creating advertisements and subjecting them to research and  expert review. For example, in the “Monitoring/Love” series, focus groups  were used to assess parents’ reactions to a set of advertising concepts. The  concepts were subsequently revised in response to the feedback. Once the  concepts were approved by ONDCP, the actual advertisements were  produced and tested for effectiveness. The third and final phase begins  after the advertisements have been determined to meet ONDCP’s  effectiveness standards and involves the strategic placement of the  advertisements in television, radio, and print media. For example, the  “Monitoring/Love” series advertisements were aired during television  shows and radio programs most popular with the target audience, the  parents of teens. This phase also involves measuring the effectiveness of  specific advertisements over time within target audiences. See figure 1 for  a depiction of the three-stage process. Appendix II provides a more  detailed description of the campaign’s advertising development and  research process.
section_title: Contractor Services in Support of the Media Campaign
paragraphs: ONDCP uses advertising contractors to supplement its in-house  capabilities regarding the development, production, and placement of paid  advertisements on television, radio, print, and the Internet. The media  campaign also used a contractor to provide assistance with public  communications and outreach for the campaign, for example, encouraging  the entertainment industry to portray the negative consequences of drug  use in movies and television. In addition to developing advertisements and  conducting public outreach, ONDCP is required to assess whether the  media campaign’s efforts have been effective in changing American  youths’ behavior regarding drug use. During fiscal years 2002 through  2004, ONDCP used four prime contractors with varying responsibilities to  carry out the campaign’s requisite tasks: Ogilvy & Mather, The Advertising  Council, Inc. (The Ad Council), Fleishman-Hillard, Inc. (Fleishman- Hillard), and Westat, Inc. (Westat). These contractors used funds from  their contracts to secure additional specialized expertise from  subcontractors.
section_title: Prime Contractors and Their Subcontractors Provided Three Broad Categories of Services, but Most of the Estimated Award Dollars Were Committed to Purchasing Media Time and Space
paragraphs: During fiscal years 2002 through 2004, the four major prime contractors  were responsible for a variety of services that generally fall into three  broad categories—advertising, public communications and outreach, and  evaluation. According to our analysis, an estimated $520 million was  awarded to the prime contractors, of which an estimated $373 million—72  percent—was committed to purchasing media time and space for  advertisements. The remaining $147 million—28 percent—was for the  services provided by the prime contractors.
Tasks associated with advertising and advertisement development were  performed by prime contractors Ogilvy & Mather and the Ad Council.  Ogilvy & Mather was responsible for managing the creative development  and production of advertising that is targeted toward changing drug beliefs  and behaviors among America’s youth and parents. More specifically,  Ogilvy & Mather’s tasks included (1) media planning, placement, and  purchase; (2) qualitative and quantitative research for advertising creation;  and (3) advertising assessment and review. The total estimated amount  awarded to Ogilvy & Mather for these services was about $97 million.
The Ad Council was responsible for implementing several specific aspects  of the advertising component of the media campaign, including   (1) overseeing the use of media match space and time for public service  announcements that are not part of the media campaign, (2) creating and  managing a community-based anti-drug strategy advertising campaign, and   (3) administering reviews of media campaign advertisement production  costs. The total estimated amount awarded to the Ad Council for these  services was about $5 million.
The purpose of public communications and outreach, which was  implemented by Fleishman-Hillard, was to extend the reach and influence  of the campaign through nonadvertising forms of marketing  communications. To achieve this end, Fleishman-Hillard’s tasks included  (1) conducting media outreach—for example, submitting articles relating  to key campaign messages such as effective parenting or the effects of  marijuana on teen health to newspapers and magazines; (2) building  partnerships and alliances—for example, coordinating positive activities  for teens with local school and community groups; (3) creating Web sites  and exploring other alternative media approaches—for example, designing  and hosting message-oriented Web sites such as theantidrug.com; and   (4) entertainment industry outreach—for example, encouraging the  entertainment industry to portray the negative consequences of drug use  in movies and television. The total estimated amount awarded to  Fleishman-Hillard for these services was about $27 million.
To evaluate the effects of the campaign, ONDCP entered into an  interagency agreement with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).  NIDA, in turn, contracted with Westat to design, develop, and implement  an evaluation of the outcome and impact of the media campaign in  reducing illegal drug use among youth. To accomplish this, Westat  designed a multiphase study to measure the attitudes and behavior of  critical target audiences—preteens, teenagers, and parents. The total  estimated amount awarded to Westat for these services was about   $18 million.
To fulfill their responsibilities, the prime contractors retained the  expertise and services of 102 subcontractors for approximately   $14 million. Table 1 shows the estimated award amounts for  subcontractors during fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
Ogilvy & Mather retained 20 subcontractors for nearly $5 million to  provide two types of services: (1) multicultural media planning and buying  agencies and (2) substance use behavioral change experts, who  constituted the Behavioral Change Expert Panel (BCEP). The  multicultural subcontractors received more than $4 million (about 90  percent of the nearly $5 million awarded by Ogilvy & Mather to  subcontractors) for providing marketing services and strategies with  regard to specific minority audiences. For example, one subcontractor,  Bromley Communications, was responsible for strategically purchasing  media time and space for advertisements targeting Hispanic parents and  youth. Bromley Communications also provided advice on how to develop  effective advertising for Hispanic audiences.
The BCEP received less than $500,000 (about 10 percent of the $5 million  awarded by Ogilvy & Mather to subcontractors) for applying behavioral  science expertise to several aspects of the campaign. For example, one  behavioral change expert provided consulting services related to  developing drug use prevention messages targeted to parents by reviewing  advertising concepts and recommending revisions to enhance  effectiveness. See appendix III for a more comprehensive description of  these services.
The Ad Council retained one subcontractor, Madison Advertising  Management, LTD., (MAM), to provide advertising production cost review  services for about $636,000. MAM was responsible for tracking, analyzing,  and managing estimates and invoices detailing the production costs for  media campaign advertisements to ensure that production costs were  reasonable and adhered to ONDCP guidelines. MAM’s goals were to work  with the pro bono advertising agencies, their production companies,  ONDCP, The Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA), and the Ad  Council to minimize production costs without infringing on the creative  process and to maximize the cost efficiency of the media campaign.
Fleishman-Hillard awarded about $8 million of its total contract award to  80 subcontractors for public communications and outreach services.  These subcontractors provided a wide range of services, including  photography and video services, research services, Internet technology  services, and an assortment of speaker and panelist services. See appendix  IV for a complete description of all services provided by Fleishman-Hillard  subcontractors and the associated award amounts for these services.
Of the estimated $8 million awarded by Fleishman-Hillard to  subcontractors, the vast majority—89 percent—went to 14 subcontractors  that provided campaign message promotion services. These services were  designed to extend the reach and influence of the media campaign beyond  the paid advertisements by using a variety of marketing techniques to  publicize the media campaign’s anti-drug messages. For example, Rogers  & Associates was responsible for promoting the campaign’s message by  encouraging the entertainment industry to incorporate specific media  campaign messages—such as the negative consequences of drug use—into  television show and movie plots. Another campaign message promotion  subcontractor, Campbell & Company, was responsible for using its social  marketing and public health experience to conduct public outreach to the  African American community—for example, developing partnerships with  school and community organizations to lend credibility to and extend the  reach of the media campaign.
Westat retained one subcontractor—the Annenberg School of  Communication at the University of Pennsylvania (Annenberg)—for an  estimated $785,000. Although Annenberg was responsible for providing  overall support to Westat with respect to the entire scope of work detailed  in the prime contract, it was specifically directed to provide particular  support for the following six tasks: (1) project management,   (2) development of the campaign evaluation plan, (3) instrument  development, (4) data analysis and report generation, (5) preparation of  contract reports, and (6) modification of the campaign evaluation plan.
To determine the full range of subcontractor services, we reviewed the  agreements between the prime contractors and their 102 subcontractors.  From our analysis, we identified 16 distinct categories of services. Table 2  contains definitions and examples for each category.
section_title: ONDCP’s Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Director of the Office of National  Drug Control Policy for comment.  In a March 14, 2005, letter, the Director  commented on the draft.  His written response is presented in its entirety  in appendix V.  In its comments, ONDCP generally agreed with our report’s  findings, and we incorporated its technical comments where appropriate.   At the same time, ONDCP expressed some concerns about our definition  of consulting services as it had done throughout our review.  Specifically,  ONDCP argued that the “common use of the term” defines consultants as  providing advice only, not services. As discussed with ONDCP officials  throughout this review, we defined “consultants” as the prime contractors  and their subcontractors that provided services, including expert advice,  to implement the media campaign.  Although the senate committee report  that mandated our review did not define the term “consultants,” through  our consultations and its previous hearings, the committee expressed  concerns about the use of contractors and their subcontractors for the  media campaign.  We used our definition of consultants to  comprehensively account for how campaign funds were being used to  supplement ONDCP’s in-house capabilities regarding the advertising,  public communications and outreach, and evaluation aspects of the media  campaign.
ONDCP also commented on a footnote in appendix IV of this report, which  cites a GAO appropriations law decision holding that ONDCP violated  publicity or propaganda prohibitions and the Anti-Deficiency Act when it  is used appropriated funds to produce several prepackaged news stories  which failed to disclose that ONDCP produced them for video news  releases (VNRs) used in the media campaign.  ONDCP commented that it  has not produced a VNR since well before May 19, 2004, when GAO issued  its first decision, B-302710, on VNRs and prepackaged news stories.   ONDCP also said that it has no further plans to produce any VNRs, stating  that GAO’s guidance on prepackaged news stories provided in our Circular  Letter, B-304272, February 17, 2005, is “inherently incompatible with  contemporary news gathering methods, thus rendering VNRs  impracticable.”  However, the guidance in the Circular Letter addresses  the lack of attribution in prepackaged news stories, which are only one  part of VNRs.  The Circular Letter advises agencies that prepackaged news  stories can be utilized without violating the law, so long as there is clear  disclosure to the television viewing audience that this material was  prepared by or in cooperation with the government department or agency.
We are sending copies of this report to the Director, Office of National  Drug Control Policy, appropriate congressional committees, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on  GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any  questions on this report, please call Glenn Davis on (202) 512-4301 or me  on (202) 512-8777.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: Our review of contractor services and contract award amounts associated  with the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) National Youth  Anti-Drug Media Campaign covered fiscal years 2002 through 2004. To  develop background critical to describing and evaluating key aspects of  the campaign, we conducted our work at the headquarters of ONDCP, The  Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA), and media campaign prime  contractors in Washington, D.C., and New York City. We reviewed the  legislation authorizing the campaign—The Drug-Free Media Campaign Act  of 1998—and subsequently enacted campaign legislation, as well as  reports, testimony, interagency agreements, contracts, subcontracts,  invoices, and vouchers. In addition, to obtain information on the media  campaign process, we interviewed officials from ONDCP and PDFA. We  also interviewed officials from the four prime contractors: Ogilvy &  Mather, Fleishman-Hillard, the Ad Council, and Westat. To supplement our  understanding of some of the kinds of services provided by  subcontractors, we also interviewed officials from three of the  subcontractors. In addition, we reviewed guidelines, reports, and other  background documents relevant to the media campaign process provided  by the officials we interviewed. Finally, we reviewed the contracts  between the prime contractors and ONDCP, which laid out the objectives,  strategies, and processes of the campaign, as well as the subcontracts  issued under those prime contracts. While we reviewed the contract and  subcontract documents, we did not review any of the products resulting  from those contracts or subcontracts to determine whether they complied  with any applicable laws.
To describe the services provided by contractors and their subcontractors  in support of the media campaign, we analyzed the contracts of the four  prime contractors and the subcontracts of the 102 subcontractors. We  obtained information about the roles and responsibilities of each of the  four prime contractors from the background, scope of work, and task  description sections of their respective contracts. Additionally, to describe  services provided by the 102 subcontractors, we developed a data  collection instrument (DCI) to allow us to analyze these services uniformly  by capturing the following information: (1) the subcontract agreement  date(s), (2) the prime contractor issuing the subcontract(s), and (3) what  task categories captured the tasks listed in the subcontract agreement(s).
We supplemented our analysis of the prime contracts and subcontracts  with information from interviews with officials from ONDCP and PDFA  and representatives from several prime contractors and subcontractors.
We estimated the amounts awarded to each of the four prime contractors  based on the award data contained in their contracts and any subsequent  modifications to these contracts related to awards. Each of the four prime  contracts was a “cost plus fixed fee” contract, meaning that with the  exception of a fixed fee, payments were disbursed in the form of  reimbursements for invoiced costs. Therefore, the award amounts listed in  the contract agreements were estimates of the amounts the contractors  would actually receive in reimbursements. Because these estimates were  constantly revised based on the status of campaign projects or other  information, contract modifications were used to update the contract  award data. For the purposes of this review, we used the latest contract  modifications to estimate the prime contractors’ awards as they contained  the most recent information. Each of these contracts covered multiple  years. Awards for each year of the contract were estimated at the  beginning of the contract, and those yearly estimates were modified  throughout the life of the contract. The year time frames established by  the contracts (with the exception of the Westat contract) did not  correspond to government fiscal years and differed with each contractor.  For example, Ogilvy & Mather’s contract year was from January to January  and Fleishman-Hillard’s contract year was from December to December.  In order to estimate the prime contractors’ award amounts by fiscal year,  it was necessary to prorate the award data listed in the contracts and  modifications. By prorating the award data, we obtained estimated award  data for each month and were then able to calculate estimated award  amounts by fiscal year. An example of this type of calculation appears  below.
The major limitation of this method of analysis is that it assumes an equal  distribution of the total estimated award over the term of the contract,  which may not reflect the actual schedule of reimbursements to the  contractor. Another limitation of our analysis is that it relies on estimates  of the actual costs (i.e., estimated award amounts). We decided to use  estimated award data instead of the expenditure data provided by ONDCP  because the expenditure data were not complete.
We estimated the amounts awarded to each of the 102 subcontractors  based on the award data contained in their subcontracts and modifications  to these subcontracts. In 18 cases where subcontract award data were  insufficient, we used invoices and vouchers provided by the prime  contractors to estimate expenditure data. Subcontract award data were  determined to be insufficient if (1) the subcontract did not contain any  estimated award data or (2) the subcontract listed a rate of compensation  for services but did not specify a maximum term or compensation.
We classified the award data contained in the subcontracts of the 102  subcontractors into five types: (1) cost-reimbursable, (2) cost plus fixed  fee, (3) indefinite quantity/indefinite delivery, (4) firm fixed price, and   (5) rate-based. We analyzed each type of award data differently to produce  estimated award data for the 102 subcontractors for fiscal years 2002  through 2004. We analyzed the subcontracts containing cost-reimbursable,  cost plus fixed fee, and indefinite quantity/indefinite delivery award data  using the same method used to analyze the prime contractor award data.
We analyzed the subcontracts containing firm fixed price award data using  the prorating method described above only if the term of the subcontract  covered multiple fiscal years. Many of these subcontracts had terms that  fell completely within a single fiscal year, in which case we assigned the  total award amount listed in the subcontract to the appropriate fiscal year.  Firm fixed price subcontracts are agreements in which the subcontractor  receives a fixed amount for the services it provides. Regardless of the time  the subcontractor requires to complete its assigned tasks or whether the  subcontractor incurs additional unexpected costs in the completion of its  assigned tasks, it will not receive any additional funds without a  subsequent modification to the subcontract. Consequently, the award data  contained in the firm fixed price subcontracts represents the actual  amount the subcontractor should have received.
We analyzed subcontracts containing rate-based awards in a two-step  process to produce estimated awards by fiscal year. Subcontracts  containing rate-based data contain (1) a rate of compensation for the  subcontractor (for example, $200 per hour), (2) a maximum term (such as  10 hours) or maximum compensation (such as $2,000), and (3) a term or  period of performance (i.e. the period of time during which the  subcontractor will provide its service, such as between June 1, 2002, and  June 30, 2002). We calculated the maximum possible award by multiplying  the rate of compensation by the maximum term (unless the subcontract  specified a maximum compensation). We considered this calculation of  maximum possible awards as the total estimated award amounts for all  rate-based subcontracts. If the term (period of performance) of the  subcontract fell within a single fiscal year, then the total estimated award  of the contract was assigned to the appropriate fiscal year. If the term  (period of performance) of the subcontract covered multiple fiscal years,  then the total estimated award was prorated as previously described, and  total estimated awards for each fiscal year were calculated. An example of  this type of analysis appears below.
In the 18 cases where we used invoices and vouchers to estimate  expenditure data because subcontract award data were insufficient, we  grouped the invoices and vouchers of each subcontractor by fiscal year  and totaled the invoice/voucher amounts for each fiscal year.
The methods of analysis used to produce estimated award data for  subcontractors for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 have many of the same  limitations as the method used to analyze the prime contract award data  (i.e., much of the subcontract award data had to be prorated and some of  the subcontract award data represented estimated reimbursements). In  addition, we had to substitute expenditure data in the case of 18  subcontracts that did not contain sufficient award data. Consequently, we  based some of our calculations related to total subcontractor estimates on  different types of data (expenditure or award). We decided to use  estimated award data whenever possible to ensure data consistency (i.e.,  to avoid comparing contractor awards based on estimated award data  with subcontractor awards that were based on expenditure data).
We conducted our work from March 2004 through February 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix II: Three Phases of Advertising Development
paragraphs: To develop anti-drug television, print, Internet, and radio ads, the media  campaign employs a three-phase advertising development and research  process. The three phases of the advertising development and research  process are (1) the exploratory research phase (pre-ad creation); (2) the  qualitative and quantitative research and expert review phase (during ad  creation); and (3) the media planning, placement, and tracking phase  (post-ad creation).
The initial exploratory phase consists of extensive research to understand  the subject matter and covers many sources of information, including   (1) consumer insights, (2) national studies, (3) behavioral change experts,  and (4) subject matter experts. PDFA is a major source for this  background research. In addition, the Behavioral Change Expert Panel  (BCEP), assembled by Ogilvy & Mather, is composed of a number of  individuals possessing specialized expertise relevant to specific aspects of  the media campaign, such as the sociology of behavior change in youth or  communicating with minority audiences. The BCEP is responsible for  developing a Behavioral Brief, which is a background document that  describes the major insights of research and literature to consider when  developing advertising intended to reach youth audiences. The final goal  of the exploratory research phase is for Ogilvy & Mather and PDFA to  produce a Creative Brief for each advertising series. The Creative Brief is  a compilation of information provided by subject matter experts, including  (1) information relevant to the specific messages of the campaign and   (2) relevant portions of the qualitative research provided by PDFA  regarding consumer insights and national studies. The pro bono agencies  responsible for the creative development of a given advertising series use  the Creative Brief and the Behavioral Brief to inform their efforts.
The second phase involves ad creation and qualitative and quantitative  research. PDFA is responsible for soliciting pro bono advertising agencies  that create the advertising concepts using the Creative and Behavioral  Briefs. The media campaign uses multiple pro bono advertising agencies to  develop advertisements. One example of a media campaign advertising  series is the “Monitoring/Love” series of advertisements—a message  targeting parents, promoting awareness of their children’s activities. A  single pro bono ad agency developed all of the advertisements within this  series. After initial advertising concepts are developed, the Formative  Creative Evaluation Panel (FCEP) and the BCEP review these initial  concepts. Next, feedback from FCEP and BCEP is used to revise the  advertising concepts. Any recommendations or observations that may be  relevant to future campaign efforts are to be kept for possible applications  to new Creative Briefs during the initial exploratory research phase (i.e.,  the feedback loop in this iterative process).
Once the advertising concepts have been reviewed and revised,  production estimates are calculated and reviewed for maximum cost  efficiency. Once this process is completed, ONDCP is responsible for  reviewing the ad concepts and approving funding for production of the  advertisements. After advertisements are produced, they are submitted for  copytesting, a process used to determine whether advertisements meet  effectiveness standards for distribution. In the copytesting process, large  sample audiences (usually consisting of 300 youths and 150 parents per  copytest session) view the ads and are surveyed regarding their responses  to the advertisement, drug attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Copytesting  relies on a comparison of exposed audiences and nonexposed control  audiences to determine effectiveness of advertisements. According to  Ogilvy & Mather (the contractor responsible for implementing  copytesting), the audience is split evenly across ethnic, gender, and age  categories. One-half of the audience is exposed to the advertisement and  the other half is not. Copytesting researchers then survey and compare the  drug beliefs and intentions of each group to determine the effectiveness of  the advertisement. If an advertisement does not meet effectiveness  standards set by ONDCP, the advertisement is not aired. To successfully  pass the copytesting process, an advertisement must significantly  strengthen anti-drug beliefs or weaken intentions to use marijuana without  creating any adverse effects. Copytesting questions are designed so that  the information provided by the responses can be used to revise  advertisements that fail to meet effectiveness standards.
Media planning (determining where, when, and for how long to air or print  the advertisements) occurs concurrently with the advertising development  and assessment process. The media plan is finalized and executed (the  advertisements are distributed to media vendors) once the advertisements  have successfully completed the copytesting phase and the advertisements  have undergone a final review by ONDCP. After the advertisements air,  audience reactions are to be tracked through an evaluative process that  measures the effectiveness of specific ads over time within specific  audience populations.
section_title: Appendix III: Ogilvy & Mather’s Subcontractor Services and Associated Estimated Award Amounts
paragraphs: During fiscal years 2002 through 2004, Ogilvy & Mather retained the  services of two groups of subcontractors: (1) multicultural media planning  and buying agencies and (2) substance use behavioral change experts— the Behavioral Change Expert Panel. Ogilvy & Mather awarded nearly $5  million to its 20 subcontractors.
subsections: section_title: Multicultural Subcontractors Services and Estimated Awards
paragraphs: Six multicultural subcontractors provided services in support of Ogilvy &  Mather’s media planning, placement, and purchase responsibilities. Each  multicultural subcontractor provided marketing services and strategies  with regard to a specific minority audience. Each multicultural  subcontractor was responsible for planning and buying media advertising  time and space targeting its minority audience, managing the pro bono  match activity that accompanied its media purchases, and trafficking  advertising to media vendors. The multicultural subcontractors also  assisted Ogilvy & Mather with its advertising creation and assessment  responsibilities by providing strategic input with regard to marketing to  minority audiences, particularly at the preliminary qualitative research and  initial ad concept review phases.
Ogilvy & Mather awarded more than $4 million to the multicultural  subcontractors, constituting about 90 percent of the nearly $5 million  amount awarded by Ogilvy & Mather to subcontractors during fiscal years  2002 through 2004. The awards received by multicultural subcontractors  covered only the cost of labor, overheard, and fees and did not include any  funding specifically designated for the purchase of media advertising time  and space.
section_title: Behavior Change Expert Panel Subcontractors Services and Associated Estimated Award Amounts
paragraphs: BCEP subcontractors mainly applied their specialized expertise to three  aspects of the advertising development and research process: (1) the  development of the Behavioral Brief, (2) the review and revision of initial  advertising concepts, and (3) the evaluation of ad effectiveness in the  postproduction and postdistribution phases of the campaign. During the  initial exploratory research phase, the BCEP developed the Behavioral  Brief and contributed to the development of the Creative Brief. The pro  bono advertising agencies engaged by PDFA used the Behavioral and  Creative Briefs to develop initial advertising concepts and preliminary ads.  During the qualitative research and expert review portion of the ad  creation phase, the BCEP reviewed the initial advertising concepts and  preliminary ads and contributed to the qualitative research process by  recommending improvements and revisions to the ads to foster behavior  changes in the target audiences. After the final production of the ads, the  BCEP worked with PDFA and Ogilvy & Mather to develop the questions  used during the copytesting and postdistribution evaluation processes to  determine the nature and extent of the effect of the ads on audience  beliefs and intentions. At any point during the advertising development  and research process, BCEP subcontractors were to provide strategic  input and advice to any media campaign partner on an as-needed basis.
Ogilvy & Mather awarded less than $500,000 to the BCEP subcontractors,  constituting about 10 percent of the nearly $5 million awarded by Ogilvy &  Mather to all of its subcontractors during fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
section_title: Appendix IV: Fleishman-Hillard Subcontractor Services and Associated Estimated Award Amounts
paragraphs: To support its public communications and outreach efforts, Fleishman- Hillard retained the services of 80 subcontractors, which we categorized in  the following 10 groups: (1) campaign message promotion,   (2) photography and video production, (3) campaign message  development, (4) contracting management, (5) research, (6) internet  technology, (7) Marijuana & Kids Briefings panelists and speakers,   (8) Library Working Group experts, (9) Asian American and Pacific  Islander Marijuana Media Roundtable panelists and speakers, and   (10) Teen Advisor Program experts. Fleishman-Hillard awarded about   $8 million to its 80 subcontractors.
Approximately 89 percent of the estimated $8 million dollars that  Fleishman-Hillard awarded was provided to a single category of  subcontractor—those responsible for campaign message promotion. Table  3 depicts award amounts within the remaining 11 percent (about  $900,000), which was awarded to nine categories of subcontractors.
subsections: section_title: Photography and Video Production
paragraphs: Eleven photography and video production subcontractors provided a wide  array of services, including photographing media campaign promotional  events and creating audiovisual materials promoting media campaign  messages. For example, one photography subcontractor was responsible  for photographing the media campaign’s Boston Parent Wake-Up Rally and  processing the photographs for Web display and digital reproductions.  Gourvitz Communications, Inc. was responsible for producing a number of  videos for the media campaign, including the Marijuana Initiative Video  News Release and the Marijuana Community Coalition Video.
Fleishman-Hillard awarded an estimated total of nearly $345,000 to  photography and video production subcontractors during fiscal years 2002  through 2004. Within this group, the two largest awards went to video  production subcontractor Gourvitz Communications, Inc. (an estimated  $262,000) and to Court TV (an estimated $77,000). The remaining nine  awards were each for an estimated $1,500 or less.
section_title: Campaign Message Development
paragraphs: Fourteen campaign message development subcontractors provided a wide  array of services, including planning and implementing promotional events  and researching and drafting feature articles for submission to print and  online media venues. For example, one campaign message development  subcontractor, Students Against Destructive Decisions, Inc. (SADD), was  responsible for raising public awareness of the risks of marijuana use by  planning and executing five guerrilla “Wake-Up” student rallies in which  students, dressed in distinctive clothing designed by ONDCP and SADD,  distributed media campaign materials in highly public urban sites during  rush hour. Another campaign message development subcontractor  answered “Ask the Expert” questions submitted through the media  campaign’s “theantidrug.com” Web site and researched and wrote feature  articles on media campaign key messages that were placed on the Web site  and submitted to print media venues.
Fleishman-Hillard awarded an estimated $214,000 to campaign message- development subcontractors during fiscal years 2002 through 2004. Within  this group, the four largest awards went to SADD (an estimated $44,000),  to Pride Youth Programs (an estimated $30,000), and to two individual  experts (estimated amounts of $54,000 and $25,500). The remaining   10 awards were each for an estimated $14,000 or less.
section_title: Contract Management
paragraphs: The sole subcontractor providing contract management services was a  temporary placement agency. This subcontractor provided temporary  personnel staff to Fleishman-Hillard to assist with the preparation of  invoices to be submitted to ONDCP regarding Fleishman-Hillard projects.  Fleishman-Hillard awarded an estimated $174,000 to this subcontractor  during fiscal years 2002 through 2004.
section_title: Research
paragraphs: Five research subcontractors provided a wide array of services, including  analyzing media campaign marketing strategies and reporting on the kinds  of drug-related messages currently influencing America’s youth. For  example, one research contractor, MarketBridge was responsible for  demonstrating and quantifying the value of corporate partnerships to the  media campaign. Another research subcontractor, Mediascope, was  responsible for conducting a study on the prevalence and context of  substance use and abuse in the 150 most popular music videos for the  purposes of identifying the negative and positive substance-related  messages targeting youth audiences.
Fleishman-Hillard awarded an estimated $83,000 to research  subcontractors during fiscal years 2002 through 2004. Within this group,  the largest award, an estimated $56,000, went to MarketBridge. The  remaining four awards were each for an estimated $10,000 or less.
section_title: Internet Technology
paragraphs: Four Internet technology subcontractors provided a wide range of services  including e-mail distribution and Web site development. For example, an  Internet technology subcontractor, Experian eMarketing Services, was  responsible for creating and sending e-mail messages to recipient lists  created by Fleishman-Hillard, using content provided by Fleishman- Hillard. Another Internet technology subcontractor, TestPros, assessed the  usability of two media campaign Web sites.
Fleishman-Hillard awarded an estimated $35,000 to Internet technology  subcontractors during fiscal years 2002 through 2004. Within this group,  the largest award, an estimated $17,500, went to Experian eMarketing  Services. The remaining three awards were each for an estimated $11,000  or less.
section_title: Marijuana & Kids Briefings
paragraphs: Twelve Marijuana & Kids Briefings subcontractors served as panelists and  speakers in roundtable discussions addressing the latest science on  marijuana’s neurological, health, and developmental effects on youth.
Fleishman-Hillard awarded an estimated $15,000 to these subcontractors  during fiscal years 2002 through 2004 to panelists and speakers for its  Marijuana and Kids Briefings. All of the Marijuana & Kids Briefings’  subcontractors were individual experts, rather than firms. Most of these  subcontractors were paid at a daily rate of $500, with a maximum term of  service of 1 day. Within this group, the largest award went to an individual  expert for an estimated $9,000. The remaining 11 awards were each for an  estimated $1,000 or less.
section_title: Library Working Group
paragraphs: The purpose of the Library Working Group was to explore how librarians  and other adults can help kids find accurate, high-quality information  about drugs on the Internet. Five Library Working Group subcontractors  provided a range of services including advising on common library and  Internet issues; assisting in the development of instructional products  about cyberliteracy and illicit drugs; and recommending strategies,  vehicles, and partnerships to accomplish program goals.
Fleishman-Hillard awarded an estimated $5,000 to Library Working Group  subcontractors during fiscal years 2002 through 2004. All of the Library  Working Group subcontractors were individual expert, rather than firms.  Each of the five subcontractors received a total estimated award of $1,000.
section_title: Asian American and Pacific Islander Marijuana Media Roundtables
paragraphs: Ten Asian American and Pacific Islander Marijuana Media Roundtable  subcontractors served as panelists and speakers in roundtable discussions  to address the latest scientific findings on marijuana’s neurological, health,  and developmental effects on youth.
Fleishman-Hillard awarded an estimated $5,000 to Asian American and  Pacific Islander Marijuana Media Roundtable subcontractors during fiscal  years 2002 through 2004. All of the Asian American and Pacific Islander  Marijuana Media Roundtable subcontractors were individual experts,  rather than firms. Each of these subcontractors received a total estimated  award of $500.
section_title: Teen Advisor Program
paragraphs: Four Teen Advisor Program subcontractors were responsible for  providing insight and feedback on the campaign’s youth-oriented  strategies in order to guide the development of teen programs, events, and  Web site content.
Fleishman-Hillard awarded an estimated $800 to Teen Advisor Program  subcontractors during fiscal years 2002 through 2004. All of the Teen  Advisor Program subcontractors were individual experts, rather than  firms. Each of the four subcontractors received a total estimated award of  $200.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Office of National Drug Control Policy
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, the following individuals contributed to  this report: David Alexander, Leo Barbour, R. Rochelle Burns,   Christine Davis, Wendy C. Johnson, Weldon McPhail, Jean McSween,  Brenda Rabinowitz, Tami Weerasingha, Bill Woods, and Kathryn Young.