National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign

Floor Speech

NATIONAL YOUTH ANTIDRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN -- (Senate - October 01, 2007)

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as cochairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, I have had a distinct interest in the National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign and how we can improve its quality and improve its effectiveness. In 1998, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, with overwhelming bipartisan support from Congress, launched a historic initiative to encourage kids to stay drug free. That effort in 1998 built upon the success of former First Lady Nancy Reagan's ``just say no'' campaign. The National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign targets youths age 9 to 18. The campaign also targets parents and other adults who might have influence over the choices young people make about drugs.

Research has clearly shown that if we can keep children free from drugs until the age of 20, chances are very slim that they will ever try or become addicted to drugs. Maintaining a coherent antidrug message begins early in adolescence and continues throughout the growing years. This is essential for educating and enabling our young people to reject illegal drugs. Through realistic portrayals, the media campaign is designed to show kids the harmful effects of drugs and the benefits of a drug-free lifestyle.

I wish to call my colleagues' attention to the poster behind me. This is one of those famous antidrug advertisements that maybe they remember from a long time ago. They might recall this famous advertisement known for its unforgettable slogan: ``This is your brain; this is your brain on drugs.'' Created by the Partnership for a Drug Free America in 1987, it is widely recognized as one of the known influential ads of all time.

While most of us have probably never seen an actual brain on drugs, this commercial helped to shape the view of an entire generation regarding the dangers of drugs.

The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is without a doubt the single most visible symbol of the Federal Government's commitment to youth drug prevention. These advertisements are an important source of information for kids and parents about the risks and dangers associated with illegal drugs. Sadly, though, we have come a long way from the cost and success of those early ads, such as the one you see on the easel.

In the 10 years prior to the creation of the media campaign in 1998, the Partnership for a Drug-free America was able to secure grants from various businesses, foundations, and agencies to create over 1,000 ads. Included in that number is the famous ``this is your brain on drugs'' ad which ran in 90 percent of America's households every day.

Between 1987 and 1998, national and local media outlets donated over $2.3 billion worth of free advertising space. If you adjust that number for today's pricetag, that would be nearly $3 billion worth of donated media time. Unfortunately, as drug use began to decline, then, as you might expect, so did the generous donations of free air time. By 1998, Congress decided--since it was not going to be free--to fund a paid media campaign employing the partnership's antidrug messages.

Since that time, the Federal Government has spent well over $1.5 billion to create, to research, to produce, and to distribute ads to prevent teen drug use. Yet I fear we are continuing to spend precious antidrug dollars to fund increasingly mediocre ads that fail to effectively reach our Nation's youth. In other words, they are nothing like the brain being fried ad I told you about.

A case in point are the spots running on TV today. The image you can see in this new ad I have before us in the Chamber is entitled ``Walk Yourself'' from the ``Above the Influence'' campaign. For those who might not be familiar with this ad, I will give a quick synopsis of what this ad says.

The commercial--which looks as though it could have been drawn by a 5-year-old--begins with a man smoking a marijuana cigarette while his dog looks on. When the man notices that his dog wants to go for a walk, he tells his dog to walk himself, presumably because he is too busy getting high. The dog responds, telling him he is disappointed in his master. The ad ends with the dog leaving and raising an ``Above the Influence'' flag.

Now, maybe I am missing the point, but I fail to see how an ad such as this realistically portrays the dangers or harmful effects of doing drugs.

We have a moral obligation in this country to ensure our young people have a chance to grow up without being accosted with drug pushers at every turn. We need, as a country, to create a strong moral context to help our young people know how to make the right choices. They need to know how to say no. They need to know that saying no is OK. And they need to know that saying no to drugs is the right thing to do. It is not just the safe thing, it is not just the healthier thing, it happens to be the right thing.

While funding for the media campaign has been relatively modest in terms of our overall Federal drug control budget, it, for many, is the most visible aspect of our Nation's war on drugs. With only so much money to go around, we must ensure we are getting the most bang for our buck. Although I support and encourage any agency that works to reduce or prevent drug abuse, as Members of Congress it is important we be good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.

So I refer you to the Weiden-Kennedy chart--and I am not referring to Senator Wyden or Senator Kennedy. This is a different Weiden and a different Kennedy. We have had numerous studies over the years as to how the effectiveness of the present media campaign is very minimal, if not nonexistent.

In last year's Weiden-Kennedy test results of teenagers, the flags ads I referred to in the previous chart, as these ads are called--they are called ``flags ads''--were rated on their believability, persuasiveness, and honesty. When you add up the averages of the flags ads with the rest of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America ads, the flags ads perform well under the ratings of the previous ads. I think the most important categories an antidrug ad must deliver on would be the ones you see listed on this chart. That is why I am concerned the media campaign is failing to reach and deliver an important message to our teens.

Now, I would like to refer back to the funding because these are taxpayers' dollars, and we ought to see how they are being spent.

So I am not alone in this assessment about the believability or the effectiveness of these ads. There is a wide variety of studies beyond just the one I referred to showing a lack of effectiveness. Even the Government Accountability Office recommended that Congress reduce funding for the campaign until it can be proven to be an effective prevention tool.

Congress has slashed funding considerably. As you can see from this chart, the funding for the media campaign is only half of what it was 10 years ago. For fiscal year 2008, the House has slashed another $6 million off the campaign's budget to bring it to $93 million, though our Senate version keeps the funding level. If this is not a wake-up call to the Office of Drug Control Policy, I do not know what is. If Congress is to support the White House's request for a 30-percent budget increase, then the drug czar must take several steps to improve the quality and the effectiveness of the campaign.

The first thing that must be done is to improve the quality of the ads. This does not require a budget increase to do so. The ads need to be simple, they need to be direct, and, obviously, they need to show the consequences of drug use. Exaggerations like a girl flattened on a couch or ``smushed'' from pot use, along with poorly drawn cartoons where dogs speak and space aliens freely roam show unrealistic scenarios and damage the credibility of the campaign, as you saw in the previous chart.

The early antidrug public service announcements--I am talking about going back to that period of time 1987 through 1998--were simple, they were short, they were memorable. I believe the success of those early ads can be replicated by using a similar formula.

Secondly, the campaign could be more effective if its message was more diversified. Although the media campaign has begun an awareness campaign on meth, it took an act of Congress to force the campaign to spend 10 percent of its budget to do so. Most of the ads produced by the campaign so far have all been about marijuana. Although I believe it is important that we discourage marijuana use, there are new and alarming drug abuse patterns that are starting to emerge among teens.

Recent studies and articles are showing an alarming rate of teenagers who are abusing prescription drugs to get high. These drugs are easily accessible because kids can easily find and purchase them online or grab them from their parents' medicine cabinet. Many parents are not even aware of the trend or how they should go about discarding leftover medication. The media campaign could be a very useful tool to educate young people as well as parents on these new and emerging threats.

Finally, the campaign, along with Congress, should work to encourage media outlets to donate more air time for antidrug messages. Currently, the campaign spends most of its budget in purchasing air time. Although media outlets match the amount the campaign spends, it in no way compares to what was donated 20 years ago. I believe it is imperative we show these outlets the need for more donated time in light of the trends I have previously illustrated. With more donated time, it will enable the campaign to focus on producing more ads on emerging drugs without Congress having to balloon its budget in the process.

Some maybe think I have been against antidrug media campaigns because I have been overseeing some of that for a long period of time. But I am not against media campaigns. I am against wasting taxpayers' dollars on ineffective programs that show no effort at improvement. I believe the campaign can be remade into an effective tool to aid in our prevention efforts against teen drug abuse. But much has to change in order for that to happen.

So I intend to send a letter to Director Walters, our drug czar, to find out why the campaign is not having a positive impact on preventing teen drug use. What do they intend to do to change this trend? I am going to ask him. I look forward to hearing their response promptly and to begin the process of reforming and reenergizing the National Youth Antidrug Media Campaign.

Mr. President, let me ask my colleague from Iowa, who has been waiting to speak, I do not know whether we have the first half hour or whether we are going back and forth, but if the Senator does not need the floor right now, I have other remarks I want to make.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source