Media Campaign
Line
Publications
Line

Testing the Anti-Drug Message in 12 American Cities
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
Phase 1 (Report No. 1)

September 1998

Table of Contents

Testing the Anti-Drug Message in 12 American Cities From the Director

Acknowledgments

List of Exhibits

Executive Summary

The Media Campaign Design
The Evaluation
Phase I Evaluation: Site Visit Findings
Media Tracking Results: 12 Weeks Into the Media Campaign
Site-Specific Findings: 12 Weeks Into the Media Campaign
Lessons Learned
Conclusions

1. Background and Introduction

1.1 The Media Campaign Design
1.2 The Media Campaign Evaluation
1.2.1 Phase I Evaluation
1.2.2 Phase II Implementation and Evaluation
1.2.3 Phase III Implementation and Evaluation 1.3 Phase I Intermediate Evaluation

2. Overview of Methodology

2.1 Comparability of Paired Target and Comparison Sites
2.2 Data Collection Methods
2.2.1 Key Informant Interviews
2.2.2 Focus Groups 2.3 Data Collection Instruments
2.4 Media Tracking
2.5 Analysis of Qualitative Data
2.6 Format for Presentation of Findings

3. Results

3.1 Youth Findings
3.1.1 Baseline Findings for Youth
3.1.1.1 Youth Attitudes, Norms and Behaviors Regarding Drugs
3.1.1.2 Media Influences on Youth 3.1.2 Intermediate Findings for Youth
3.1.2.1 Youth Awareness of Anti-Drug Ads
3.1.2.2 Youth Perceptions of Impact and Effectiveness of Ads
3.1.2.3 Youth Ideas for New Ads/Improvements 3.2 Parent Findings
3.2.1 Baseline Findings for Parents
3.2.1.1 Influence of Anti-Drug Ads on Parents
3.2.1.2 Parents' Role in Talking to Youth About Drugs 3.2.2 Intermediate Findings for Parents
3.2.2.1 Parent Awareness of Anti-Drug Ads
3.2.2.2 Parent Perceptions of Impact and Effectiveness of Ads
3.2.2.3 Parent Ideas for New Ads/Improvements 3.3 Community Findings
3.3.1 Community Findings at Baseline Site Visits
3.3.1.1 Nature and Extent of Community Drug Problems
3.3.1.2 Recent Key Local Events
3.3.1.3 Local Anti-Drug Media Campaigns and Related Activities 3.3.2 Community Findings at Intermediate Site Visits
3.3.2.1 Community Changes in Target Sites
3.3.2.2 Community Rollout or Other Activities to Support the Media Campaign
3.3.2.3 Community Response to ONDCP Media Campaign
3.3.2.4 Media Informants' Responses to ONDCP Media Campaign 3.4 Media Monitoring Findings
3.4.1 Television Data
3.4.2 Newspaper Data

4. Case Studies

Atlanta, Georgia
Baltimore, Maryland
Boise, Idaho
Denver, Colorado
Hartford, Connecticut
Houston, Texas
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Portland, Oregon
San Diego, California
Sioux City, Iowa
Tucson, Arizona
Washington, D.C.

5. Lessons Learned

5.1 Lesson 1: Improving Anti-Drug Media Ads
5.2 Lesson 2: The Precarious Situation of Parents
5.3 Lesson 3: Confounding Societal and Contextual Issues
5.4 Lesson 4: Risks of Presumably Protective "Structured" Activities
5.5 Lesson 5: Suburbs in Jeopardy
5.6 Lesson 6: Embattled Schools
5.7 Lesson 7: Merits of the Media Campaign to Date
5.8 Conclusion

References

Appendix A: Supplemental Information on Methodology

Selection of Target and Comparison Sites

Last Updated: August 23, 2002