Order Code RS21490
Updated July 3, 2006
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. H.R. 2829 (passed by the House on March 13, 2006) and S. 2560 (reported
by the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 25, 2006) would reauthorize the media
campaign, along with the other programs run by the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP). H.R. 5576, the House-passed appropriations bill that funds ONDCP,
proposes $100 million for the campaign for FY2007. The media campaign’s
effectiveness has been questioned, and the program has engendered its share of
controversy. Nevertheless, ONDCP, the office of the “drug czar,” is optimistic that
recent changes in campaign strategy will help to reduce illegal drug use by young
people. This report will be updated as legislative activity occurs.
Background
Although it accounts for less than 1% 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 be effective
only if its messages are seen repeatedly by large numbers of youth and by the adults who
influence them — such as parents, teachers, clergy, and mentors. According to
congressional testimony in 2003, 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
1 The facts cited in this paper, unless otherwise noted, are drawn from U.S. Congress, House
Committee on Government Reform, ONDCP Reauthorization: The National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign, 108th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 27, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003).
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
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
young people in the United States.” The antidrug media campaign is an attempt at
behavior change, forms of which have been used in other government campaigns and are
used by nongovernmental organizations and commercial marketers. It seeks to reinforce
existing antidrug attitudes in youth and adults and reverse the attitudes of those who have
positive ideas about illegal drugs, thereby reducing the number of young Americans who
use illegal drugs.
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 nonprofit 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 antidrug ads. The Partnership itself receives minimal 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.
In addition to media ads, the campaign has a non-advertising component consisting
of public outreach and specialized supporting communications efforts. These include the
operation of antidrug websites, meetings with news and entertainment writers and editors
to encourage them to promote antidrug messages, and a corporate sponsorship program
under which leading corporations insert antidrug messages into their own communications
with their customers and the public.
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 run
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 originally proposed and $45 million less than the
authorized level.
Although the authorization expired at the end of FY2002, the Administration has
continued to request funding for the campaign, and Congress has continued to provide
appropriations at levels less than requested in the President’s annual budget request and
less than appropriated in previous years (see Table 1). Congress has reduced funding for
the media campaign every year since FY2001, from $185 million in that year’s budget to
$100 million in FY2006, an overall cut of 47%. Nevertheless, over the nine years of the
campaign’s existence, Congress has appropriated nearly $1.5 billion to the media
campaign.
The President’s budget submission for FY2004 provided the following comment
about the campaign (Appendix, p. 1053):
2 P.L. 105-277, Division D, Title I, Sect. 102, Oct. 21, 1998; 112 Stat. 2681-752; 21 U.S.C. 1801.

---

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.
Congressional skepticism about the program persists, as evidenced by declining levels of
funding for the campaign.
Table 1. Media Campaign Appropriations, by Fiscal Year
(dollars in millions)
Fiscal
Administration
House
Senate
Final
Authorized
Year
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
—
180.0
170.0
100.0
150.0
2004
—
170.0
150.0
100.0
145.0
2005
—
145.0
120.0
100.0
120.0
2006
—
120.0
120.0
95.0
100.0
2007
—
120.0
100.0
TBD
TBD
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from Administration budget requests and from
appropriation bills. (Amounts shown are pre-rescission; rescissions were 0.38% in FY2000, 0.22% in FY2001,
0.65% in FY2003, and 0.59% in FY2004.)
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 antidrug ads on television, radio, print,
and outdoor media. Internet sites for youth, parents, and community partners were
launched. Partnerships were begun with corporations, community antidrug 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

---

CRS-4
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 antidrug ads are required to donate an
equal amount of advertising time or space or other in-kind contributions to the antidrug
effort. 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 other 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 antidrug 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
antidrug content. Under this scheme, the networks earned $21.8 million in FY1999 by
selling airtime that, in the absence of the credits for antidrug messages embedded in their
programs, would have been donated to the campaign under the matching requirement.3
This practice was publicized in January 2000, in the online magazine Salon, by
freelance reporter Daniel Forbes, who also claimed that, in some cases, ONDCP was
reviewing scripts and suggesting changes to make shows conform to the campaign’s
antidrug message.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 at
which ONDCP officials denied influencing the content of TV shows and magazine
articles. Following the controversy, 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
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 Cong., 2nd sess., Feb. 9, 2000 (Washington: GPO, 2000), p. 40.
4 Daniel Forbes, “Prime-Time Propaganda,” Salon, Jan. 13, 2000. Forbes’ stories on this issue
can be accessed in the archives of Salon.com.
5 Howard Kurtz 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 Ariel Berschadsky, “White House Anti-Drug Policy: Statutory and Constitutional Implications,”
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
Oversight and Evaluation
The campaign’s authorizing and appropriations language both require rigorous
evaluation of the program. ONDCP has allocated more than $50 million for research and
evaluation of the program. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) manages the
Phase III evaluation process 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, although it was found to modify parental
behavior.8 In its subsequent November 2002 report, Westat stated:
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
Congressional appropriators, informed by these and other evaluations of the media
campaign, have frequently expressed concern about the campaign. For example, after
noting that total appropriations since the inception of the campaign had exceeded $1
billion, the FY2003 appropriations conference report stated: “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,
painted drug users as implicit supporters of terrorism by indirectly providing money to
terrorists. These ads were criticized as misleading and ineffective in media stories. Some
critics contended 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, which are no longer run, also created
friction between ONDCP and PDFA, with PDFA considering the ads off-target.
7 (...continued)
Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, vol. 19, 2001, p. 199.
8 Vanessa O’Connell, “Drug Czar Says Ad Campaign Has Flopped,” Wall Street Journal, May
14, 2002, p. B1.
9 Robert Hornik, et al., Evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: Fifth
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.

---

CRS-6
Changes in Strategy
ONDCP Director John P. 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.”11 H.R. 2829 (sec. 12(a)) would reinforce this
anti-marijuana focus of the campaign with its congressional findings on the harmfulness
of the drug and its provision that “the Director [of ONDCP] may emphasize prevention
of youth marijuana use” in the advertising and other activities of the media campaign.
Two more changes were revealed by ONDCP Chief of Staff Chris Marston at the
House hearing in March 2003.12 Previously, 60% of campaign ad expenditures had been
directed at adults, 40% at youth. Marston announced a reversal of that ratio. He also said
that the campaign would introduce the theme of treatment in its ads, beginning with an
emphasis on early intervention, in an attempt to reach youth who use drugs on a regular
basis or who are suspected of using drugs. Taken together, according to Marston’s
testimony, all of these changes “mark a substantially new and essentially re-directed
Media Campaign.”
Reauthorizing Legislation in the 109th Congress
H.R. 2829 and S. 2560, bills to reauthorize ONDCP, would extend the media
campaign and authorize appropriations. H.R. 2829, as amended, passed the House on
March 13, 2006, and has been sent to the Senate. S. 2560 was reported by the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary on May 25, 2006. For analysis on how these bills would
affect the media campaign, see CRS Report RL32352, War on Drugs: Reauthorization
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, by Mark Eddy.
11 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,
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.
12 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, ONDCP Reauthorization: The
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, 108th Cong., 1st sess., Mar. 27, 2003 (Washington:
GPO, 2003).

---