RIGHT ADS CAN HELP PREVENT DRUG USE

In 1988, the Harvard School of Public Health launched one of the
best-documented examples of a successful media effort to change
public-health behavior: the designated-driver campaign.

The campaign, that was strongly supported by the leading broadcast
networks, Hollywood studios, government agencies, non-profit groups and
corporations, demonstrated how a new social concept, the ''designated
driver,'' could be rapidly diffused through American society via mass
communication.

The campaign broke new ground when television writers agreed to insert
drunken-driving-prevention messages, including references to designated
drivers, into the scripts of top-rated television programs. Networks also
aired frequent public-service announcements during prime time that
encouraged the use of designated drivers. Studies showed that this
sustained media blitz contributed to a fundamental shift in social norms,
in this case related to driving after drinking.

Today, another media campaign with similar ambitious aims is at risk: the
federal government's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, a
groundbreaking effort that has become one of the nation's largest advertisers.

During the past five years, Congress has set aside $929 million to support
this effort. The Bush administration wants another $180 million to continue
the campaign during the coming year.

Have the results been worth the effort -- and taxpayers' dollars? Some say
no. At a recent House hearing on the controversial anti-drug effort, Rep.
Ernest Istook, R-Okla., charged that ''thus far, the reports show we have
no concrete evidence that the campaign is producing the desired effect,
namely to reduce drug use among youth.''

He's right -- to a point. While a new study found that messages aimed at
young people aren't working, other messages directed at parents -- another
key target group of the campaign -- have shown real promise in getting
parents to see the preventive value in keeping closer tabs on their kids.

The administration's drug czar, John Walters, acknowledges the campaign's
shortcomings. Instead of killing the program, though, he proposes fixing
it. That can be done by focusing the effort on older teens rather than on
younger kids, by hammering away at the health risks involved in drug use
and by instituting careful pre-testing of the advertisements. Progress can
be measured over time, but not overnight, through tracking studies that
look for changes in the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of young people.

We know the campaign can be fixed because it wasn't always broken. Prior to
the federal government's financing and control of the anti-drug messages,
the campaign was run by the non-profit Partnership for a Drug-Free America
(PDFA). Studies conducted by the PDFA, while not proving cause and effect,
showed a clear correlation between the frequency of exposure to the
messages and the degree to which young people developed negative attitudes
and behaviors toward drugs.

Among teens who saw PDFA ads frequently, about half said the ads made them
more aware of the risks of using drugs, compared with 28% of teenagers who
saw the ads infrequently. Drug use among the group exposed to more ads fell
much faster than in the group exposed to fewer messages. Equally important
were PDFA messages aimed at parents. Parents frequently exposed to the ads
said they talked to their children about drugs more often than those who
saw the ads infrequently. A well-focused, hard-hitting and carefully
researched media campaign is a powerful weapon that can have a tremendous
impact on Americans' attitudes and behavior.

The current national anti-drug media effort is like an at-risk kid: It
needs nurturing and support, not abandonment.

Jay A. Winsten is the associate dean and director of the Center for Health
Communication, Harvard School of Public Health.