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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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. 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.