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.