Order Code RS21490
April 10, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
War on Drugs: The National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign
Mark Eddy
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Summary
Authorization of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, a multi-media
federal program to persuade America’s youth not to use drugs, expired at the end of
FY2002. The 108th Congress is expected to consider the reauthorization of the
campaign as part of the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP). The campaign’s effectiveness has been questioned, and the program has
engendered its share of controversy. Nevertheless, ONDCP, which runs the campaign,
is optimistic that recent changes in campaign strategy will result in lower rates of youth
drug use. This report will be updated as legislative activity occurs.
Background
Although it accounts for less than one percent of the federal drug-control budget, the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is, for many Americans, the most visible
aspect of the war on drugs. This is by design. The campaign’s strategy is based on the
belief that its efforts to persuade young people not to use illegal drugs will work only if
its advertisements are seen repeatedly by large numbers of youth and those who influence
them, such as their parents, teachers, clergy, and mentors. According to recent
congressional testimony, the campaign’s broadcast, print, and Internet ads reach about
90% of all teens at least four times per week at a cost to taxpayers of less than $8 per
teenager per year.1
The media campaign was authorized by the Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of
1998.2 This law, less than two pages in length, instructed the Director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (commonly referred to as the “Drug Czar”) to “conduct a
national media campaign ... for the purpose of reducing and preventing drug abuse among
1 The facts cited in this paper, unless otherwise noted, are drawn from testimony presented at the
hearing on the media campaign held on Mar. 27, 2003, by the House Government Reform
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources.
2 P.L. 105-277, Division D, Title I Sect. 102, Oct. 21, 1998; 112 Stat. 2681-752; 21 U.S.C. 1801.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
young people in the United States.” The anti-drug advertising campaign is an attempt at
behavior change, forms of which have been used in other government campaigns and are
used by non-governmental organizations and commercial marketers. It seeks to reinforce
existing anti-drug attitudes in youth and adults and reverse the attitudes of those who have
positive ideas about illegal drugs, thereby reducing the number of drug-using youth.
The media campaign is a public-private partnership. Most of the campaign’s
advertisements have been produced by the Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA),
a non-profit organization that recruits advertising agencies to develop creative concepts
on a pro bono basis. Appropriated media campaign funds are then used to cover the costs
of actually making the finished ads. The Partnership itself receives no federal funding.
Its relationship with the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has made
PDFA the single largest public service initiative in the history of advertising.
Program Funding
The Drug-Free Media Campaign Act authorized appropriations to ONDCP of $195
million for each fiscal year from 1999 through 2002 – a total of $975 million – to pay for
the campaign. The Administration had originally proposed a somewhat less generous
$175 million per year budget, for a total of $875 million, although subsequent budget
requests were for larger amounts. Actual appropriations through FY2002 of $930 million
amounted to $55 million more than ONDCP originally sought and $45 million less than
the authorized level. Although the authorization expired at the end of FY2002, funds
were appropriated to continue the campaign in FY2003, albeit at a reduced level. (See
Table 1.) In total, over the past 6 years, Congress has provided $1.08 billion to the media
campaign, making it one of the country’s largest advertisers.
Table 1. Media Campaign Appropriations, by Fiscal Year
($ in millions)
Fiscal
Administration
House
Senate
Final
year
Authorized
request
passed
passed
appropriation
1998
$195.0
$175.0
$195.0
$110.0
$195.0
1999
$195.0
$195.0
$185.0
$110.0
$185.0
2000
$195.0
$185.0
$195.0
$96.5
$185.0
2001
$195.0
$185.0
$185.0
$98.7
$185.0
2002
$195.0
$185.0
$180.0
$185.0
$180.0
2003
$0.0
$180.0
$170.0
$100.0
$150.0
2004
$0.0
$170.0
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from Administration budget requests
and appropriations bills.
The President’s budget submission for FY2004 provides the following comment
about the campaign (Appendix, p. 1053):

CRS-3
In 2002, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) conducted a systematic review
of more than 200 Federal programs to assess their performance in a number of areas.
The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has not demonstrated the results
sought and does not yet have adequate performance measures and related goals. The
OMB recommended actions include: (1) continued emphasis on developing acceptable
performance measures and goals; (2) allowing sufficient time for the effects of recent
ONDCP actions to be realized before pursuing changes to the program; (3) seeking
no funding increases for the program; and (4) making FY2005 funding contingent
upon improved results.
Early Implementation of the Campaign
Phase I of the campaign, January-July 1998, consisted of a 12-city test pilot of ads
addressed to various ethnic and geographic audiences. Audience awareness surveys and
focus groups were conducted. Phase II, August 1998-July 1999, moved the campaign’s
testing and evaluation to the national stage with anti-drug ads on television, radio, print,
and outdoor media. Internet sites for youth, parents, and community partners were
launched. Partnerships were begun with corporations, community anti-drug coalitions,
and state and local governments. Research efforts continued.
In 1999, after conducting a series of panels composed of national experts in public
health, social marketing, advertising, and youth behavior change, ONDCP organized
Phase III of the campaign. The decision was made to target the campaign’s prevention
efforts toward youths aged 9 to 18 but with an emphasis on so-called “tweens,” those aged
11 to 13 (7th and 8th graders). National surveys showed that drug use first began at the
ages of 11 to 13, but was not yet widespread. It was believed that focusing on these
younger youth would be the most effective strategy. “Stopping drug use before it starts”
became a familiar refrain of then-Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey. Phase III commenced in
August 1999 with all elements in place, including additional partnerships with national
media, entertainment, and sports organizations as well as civic, professional, and
community groups.
The Matching Requirement and an Early Controversy
The campaign’s authorizing legislation has a matching requirement. Media
companies that are paid by the campaign to run anti-drug ads are required to donate an
equal amount of advertising time or space to the campaign. ONDCP contracts with the
Advertising Council to run this National Media Match Program, which has garnered $447
million worth of pro bono TV and radio time for public service announcements (PSAs).
In addition to the campaign’s core ads, the matching requirement can be met by airing the
PSAs of 64 other approved agencies or groups – such as the YMCA – whose programs
reinforce ONDCP’s youth drug prevention strategy.
Early in the program,ONDCP began giving credit toward the matching requirement
to television networks whose programs contained anti-drug story lines. The networks
could then reclaim the credited time it owed to the government and resell it to commercial
advertisers at the going rate. Some magazines participating in the campaign also were
credited with meeting the matching requirement by printing stories or editorials with anti-
drug content. In some cases, ONDCP began reviewing scripts before filming and
suggesting changes to make shows conform to the campaign’s anti-drug message. Under

CRS-4
this scheme, the networks earned $21.8 million in FY1999 by selling air-time that, in the
absence of the credits for anti-drug messages embedded in their programs, would have
been donated to the campaign under the matching requirement.3
ONDCP’s approach to influencing the content of television shows and magazine
articles was publicized in January 2000 in an article by free-lance reporter Daniel Forbes
in the online magazine Salon.4 The next day, the story appeared on the front page of the
Washington Post5 and was picked up by other media outlets, resulting in congressional
hearings. FY2001 appropriations language prohibited the practice of crediting media
outlets on the basis of story content.6 At least one law review article has deemed the
practice unconstitutional.7
Oversight and Evaluation
The campaign’s authorizing and appropriations language both require rigorous
evaluation of the program. ONDCP has allocated $35 million over 5 years for measuring
program performance. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) manages the Phase
III evaluation for ONDCP and awarded the prime evaluation contract to Westat, Inc.
Results are derived from a nationally representative household survey of youths and
parents. In May 2002, NIDA released a Westat evaluation report that found little
evidence that the youth campaign had had direct, favorable effects between 2000 and
2001 on drug use by young Americans.8 This finding was repeated by Westat in its
November 2002 report:
There is little evidence of direct favorable Campaign effects on youth. There is no
statistically significant decline in marijuana use to date, and some evidence for an
increase in use from 2000 to 2001. Nor are there improvements in beliefs and
attitudes about marijuana use between 2000 and the first half of 2002. Contrarily,
there are some unfavorable trends in youth anti-marijuana beliefs. Also there is no
tendency for those reporting more exposure to Campaign messages to hold more
desirable beliefs.9
3 U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Telecommunications,
Trade, and Consumer Protection, The White House, the Networks and TV Censorship, hearing,
106th Congress, 2nd sess., Feb. 9, 2000 (Washington: GPO, 2000), p. 40.
4 Forbes, Daniel, “Prime-Time Propaganda,” Salon, Jan. 13, 2000. Forbes’ stories on this issue
can be accessed in the archives of Salon.com.
5 Kurtz, Howard, and Sharon Waxman, “White House Cut Anti-Drug Deal with TV,”
Washington Post, Jan. 14, 2000, p. A1.
6 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2000, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001
, conference report to accompany H.R. 4577,
H.Rept. 106-1033, 106th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2000), pp. 390-391.
7 Berschadsky, Ariel, “White House Anti-Drug Policy: Statutory and Constitutional
Implications,” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, v. 19, 2001, p. 199.
8 O’Connell, Vanessa, “Drug Czar Says Ad Campaign Has Flopped,” Wall Street Journal, May
14, 2002, p. B1.
9 Hornik, Robert, et al. Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: Fifth
(continued...)

CRS-5
Congressional appropriators, informed by these and other evaluations of the media
campaign, have frequently expressed concern about the campaign. Most recently, after
noting that total appropriations since the inception of the campaign now exceed $1 billion,
the FY2003 appropriations conference report states: “The conferees are deeply disturbed
by the lack of evidence that the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has had any
appreciable impact on youth drug use. ... If the campaign continues to fail to demonstrate
effectiveness, then the Committees will be compelled to reevaluate the use of taxpayer
money to support the Media Campaign.”10
A controversial series of ads, which began running during the 2002 Super Bowl,
paint drug users as implicit supporters of terrorism by providing money that is channeled
to such uses. These ads have been criticized as misleading and ineffective in media
stories. Some critics contend that it is drug prohibition laws – not drug users – that make
possible huge, illegal drug profits, some of which might be used to fund acts of terrorism.
Moreover, the ads target young, infrequent users who do not account for the vast bulk of
drug use – and therefore drug revenues. These ads also created friction between ONDCP
and PDFA, with PDFA considering the ads off-target. ONDCP will reportedly stop
running these ads in May 2003.11
Changes in Strategy
ONDCP Director Walters convened a task force in February 2002 to examine
strategic issues affecting campaign performance. The group agreed on significant changes
in campaign strategy. Recognizing that the sharpest increase in drug use occurs among
youth aged 14 to 16 (9th and 10th graders), the campaign’s focus was shifted from
“tweens” to these older teens. More rigorous testing of ads was also decided upon. In the
past, not all ads were tested before they ran. Now, all TV ads would be thoroughly tested
against more demanding standards before being aired. There would also be earlier
involvement by ONDCP in the advertising development process.
The release of Westat’s May 2002 evaluation resulted in another important change.
It was decided that the campaign would concentrate its efforts against marijuana. Walters
said in a hearing that “it is clear that we cannot expect to make progress toward our goal
of reducing youth drug use until we significantly reduce the use of marijuana, the
preponderant drug of choice among youth.”12
9 (...continued)
Semi-Annual Report of Findings Executive Summary. (Rockville, MD: Westat, Nov. 2002), p.
xi.
10 U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2003, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for
the Fiscal Year 2003, and for Other Purposes
, conference report to accompany H.J.Res. 2,
H.Rept. 108-10, 108th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 1345-1346.
11 Teinowitz, Ira, “Drug Office to Yank Terror Ads in About-Face,” Advertising Age, March 31,
2003, pp. 1, 89.
12 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Treasury and General
Government, Effectiveness of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, special hearing,
107th Cong., 2nd sess., June 19, 2002 (Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 14. Actually, alcohol,
(continued...)

CRS-6
Two more changes were revealed by ONDCP Chief of Staff Chris Marston at a
hearing by the House Committee on Government Reform in March 2003. Up to now,
60% of the campaign ads have been directed at adults who influence youth, with 40%
directed at youth themselves. Beginning in July 2003, that ratio will be reversed. Also,
Marston said that the next phase of the campaign will introduce the theme of treatment
in campaign ads, beginning with an emphasis on early intervention, in an attempt to reach
youth who use drugs on a regular basis.
Taken together, according to Marston’s testimony, all of these changes “mark a
substantially new and essentially re-directed Media Campaign.” The next Westat
evaluation, due by the end of 2003, will measure the effectiveness of the spring 2002
changes. In the meantime, a short-term evaluation by PDFA of these changes should be
completed by this June. Measurement of the effectiveness of the other changes will be
a longer time in coming.
Reauthorizing Legislation in the 108th Congress
Consideration of the reauthorization of the media campaign is expected to be
included in legislation to reauthorize the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which
expires at the end of FY2003. A bill to reauthorize both is expected to be introduced soon
in both chambers. Hearings testimony in recent years has revealed tension between
ONDCP and PDFA in their respective views on how best to conduct the campaign.
PDFA would like the reauthorization bill to include language requiring that all of the
campaign’s ads be produced by PDFA. ONDCP, on the other hand, would like to retain
creative control and be able to go elsewhere for ads when necessary.
Another reauthorization issue involves a recent ruling of the Federal
Communications Commission. In November 2002, the FCC issued a ruling that all ads
that are run to satisfy the media outlet’s matching requirement must state that the time has
been furnished by ONDCP, even if the ads were produced by other government agencies
or non-profit organizations that object to tagging their ads with implied ONDCP
sponsorship. ONDCP, the Ad Council, and some of the non-profit organizations that
participate in the National Media Match program have asked that the reauthorizing
legislation statutorily exclude participants in the media campaign from this requirement.
12 (...continued)
followed by tobacco, is the most prevalent drug used by America’s youth, and such drug use,
while legal for adults, is not legal for youth.