STARK IMAGES GRAB THE EYE BUT PARENTING IS THE KEY

The Federal Government's new anti-drugs campaign has laudable aims,
writes Norman Swan, but experience suggests they can't be achieved.

The question raised by the Government's expensive TV campaign against
illicit drug use among children and adolescents is whether the money
would be better spent on treatment or other prevention programs.
Let's start with what the campaign says and what it seems to be
seeking.

The ads unlock the fears of most parents of adolescents that their
teenagers will fall prey to drugs, ruin their lives and possibly end
up dead. The ads end with the image of a young face being zipped over
in a body bag.

The international literature on fear campaigns is mixed. They may
work for a short time, but often lose their effect. However, the
research is absolutely clear that when it comes to preventing drug
and alcohol use (alcohol, the most common drug of abuse in young
people along with tobacco, is not targeted in this campaign), media
campaigns of whatever kind do not work by themselves.

Canberra obviously realises this because the TV ads ask parents to
read the printed material the Federal Government will soon send them,
and use it to talk to their kids about drugs.

So the TV ads are only preparing the ground, providing motivation and
giving credibility to the leaflet drop. They will also be provoking
conversations at work, at dinner parties and over the back fence, all
part of the "softening" process and a well-recognised indicator that
campaigns are being noticed and have a chance of being taken up. So
most attention should be paid to the material that each family will
receive in the next few days.

Some of the advisers to the campaign privately admit they are
concerned about it, but say they've achieved the best they could with
a Government which has the prime aim of eliminating illicit drug use
among young people. A laudable aim, but most international
authorities would say it is unachievable.

These advisers were intent on minimising the risk of the Government
making the situation worse by an ill-considered campaign which could
have increased drug use, as some have overseas.

It is known what doesn't work. Straight drug information campaigns
don't, and neither do personal growth programs for children.
School-based education over several school years - tailored for
ethnicity, age and gender - does have a modest effect.

The goal of the printed material is to get parents to talk to their
children about drugs and the material provides facts and figures -
almost a script - for parents to follow. It is very hard to find
strong support in the literature for this as a useful goal.

The list of risk factors for drug abuse in young people is long and
includes being disaffected and disadvantaged, having a conduct
disorder, having poor family communication, having a family history
of drug use, being sensation seeking, having a difficult temperament,
having a history of emotional distress, being exposed to drug use at
home, being adversely influenced by older siblings, perceiving
parents as permissive, and inconsistent discipline. The more risk
factors, the worse the outcome, and the earlier a child starts using
drugs, the more severe the problem.

Protective factors include authoritative parenting where a loving
parent sets limits and is consistent, a father's non-drug use and
emotional stability, and a school which sets limits and shows it
really cares about the child. Setting realistic expectations which
are not too low is also important, especially when it comes to school
performance.

Giving your children information about drugs does not feature
strongly as a protective factor, and parents who can talk to their
children about drugs may not have a problem in the first place.

The difficulty is that while the goverment's material does offer good
advice about parenting, it runs the risk of being lost among all the
information about drugs.

So it's moot whether the Government has done taxpayers' dough -
though at least it is not likely to do actual harm.