Drugs awareness strategy must reflect complexity of the issues
It’s a sobering read. Written in academic prose, it takes a number of readings before the findings and messages sink in.
Its publication is very timely, given the high-profile deaths of three young people — model and socialite Katy French; and Waterford party-goers John Grey and Kevin Doyle — after taking illegal drugs towards the end of 2007.
Also the drugs strategy minister Pat Carey is placing a huge emphasis on drug prevention and the rollout of the new national drugs awareness campaign.
The first part of this — an awareness campaign on cocaine — was scheduled to start in December and comes in the wake of a sharp rise in the number of cocaine-related deaths.
A review of the last campaign found that many who participated in it had good things to say about it.
But the review said fundamental problems dogged the entire enterprise.
These included planning and funding problems, as well as the structures used to run the whole campaign.
The National Drug Awareness Campaign (NDAC) ran between 2003 and 2005.
It was part of the National Drugs Strategy 2001-2008 and a key action in the area of prevention.
The Department of Health was responsible for the task and its Health Promotion Unit took on the job.
To assist, the unit set up a steering committee to give direction to the campaign and to include all the various partners to the drugs strategy, including the State, voluntary and community sectors.
It included representatives from health promotion managers, the drugs strategy unit, the gardaí, Health Service Executive (HSE),media experts, drug education officers and the National Advisory Committee on Drugs.
Prior to the review, the reports from updates to the National Drugs Strategy suggested favourable progress in the campaign and that it had a good impact.
Phase 1 of the campaign was aimed at the general population, with an advertising campaign plus a supporting website, an information leaflet and a helpline.
The campaign slogan was “Drugs. There are answers”.
Phase 2 was said to be targeted specifically at parents and featured a television, radio and print advertising campaign, a helpline, specific parent-focussed information on the website, a Parents Guide to Drugs information leaflet and a nationwide roadshow which aimed to provide answers to parents’ questions.
Phase 3 was aimed at cocaine users in the 18-35 age group and focused on public relations activities. This achieved a high level of media awareness, reports said.
But the review, commissioned by the NACD, gives a detailed nuts-and-bolts analysis of the entire campaign and how it operated.
The review was conducted by a team of researchers at the department of health promotion in NUI Galway. As part of their work, they spoke to members of the steering committee.
It highlighted a number of areas where there were serious problems.
The campaign was supposed to start by the end of 2001. While the steering group was established by then, the actual campaign did not start until May 2003.
The review said the “time consuming and inescapable” tendering process demanded by the European Union was partly to blame. However, it said there were a number of other factors, “including ministerial availability”, which contributed to delays.
The review said many of the participants “found it difficult” to find the time to be involved to the extent that they would have liked. The local roadshows were said to be particularly time-consuming. It said time was also a key issue in the development of the campaign website.
Given that the campaign was to do with raising awareness, the review found it odd that there was no theory behind the campaign.
“From the earliest interviews, most interviewees considered that this campaign was not informed by any theory, model or framework.
“The lack of a wide- spread or shared understanding of an agreed theory or framework could be considered to have disadvantaged the campaign.”
The aim of the campaign was to increase awareness in the general population about the drug problems. It was to do this through the achievement of “measurable change” in the knowledge of targeted groups.
Three objectives were listed, but the review said that even if these objectives had been met they were “unlikely” to achieve the stated aim as the objectives did not correspond to the overall aim.
The review said the participants appeared “less clear” of the campaign’s objectives as the campaign progressed.
The review said the committee did not appear to have been clear about what messages it wanted to put across, apart from a consensus that the “fear approach” should be avoided.
The campaign slogan, “Drugs. There are answers”, was praised by some committee members as empowering but “dismissed as meaningless or ridiculous” by others.
The review said the exclusion of alcohol from the campaign was a problem especially as it was the substance “of most concern” to communities.
The review said that throughout the campaign “a lack of clarity persisted” in the steering committee about the target groups. It moved from drug users to unidentified populations, including the general population, and then divided into 22 sub groups.
“Much of the focus of the campaign appeared ad-hoc rather than planned and decided upon rather than agreed.”
It said the roadshows were aimed at parents, but said that in many cases there was a low turnout from parents.
The cocaine campaign, which ran on a fairytale theme, was aimed at users of the drug.
The review said there was substantial media coverage and that interviewees were generally very positive. It said the posters and beer mats were “souvenired” by people and demand for the postcards was unprecedented.
But it said the campaign was less well received by some of the interviewees with direct experience working in the drugs area.
They “particularly disliked” the fairytale element. The cannabis campaign was aimed at a younger age group, but this “apparently failed” to reach the target.
The steering committee tasked to direct the campaign suffered particular problems.
The review said: “At the start of this process evaluation, most interviewees were happy with the co-ordination of the campaign but this perception gradually deteriorated as the campaign progressed.”
The review said the co-ordination of the roadshows was identified as problematic and later, during the cocaine campaign, it was becoming “increasingly difficult” to schedule meetings for the steering committee.
Interviewees said decisions were being made without their knowledge.
“The apparent disintegration of the partnership approach can be tracked through the interviewees’ perception of the quality of communication, co-ordination and collaboration.”
Later in the campaign, “the perceived authoritarian approach” resulted in some people feeling out of the loop and undervalued. The review referred to “disillusionment and sense of alienation” among many.
It noted tensions within the committee, and interviewees referred to “crisis meetings”.
It said committee members were “still vague” as to how a decision was made to run a cannabis campaign in late 2005.
The review noted that the campaign was “overly dependent on personalities” and did not easily withstand changes in personnel, which happened with key people, including the main co-ordinator.
The review noted poor co-ordination between national and local levels, which manifested particularly in many of the roadshows.
The review said this was part of a greater problem in terms of community involvement.
“The more general lack of involvement of these community-based stakeholders led to the campaign being perceived as irrelevant and, in some instances, being resented by them.
“It is interesting to note that those interviewees who worked closer to the ground on drugs issues were more likely to have a negative perception of the campaign, its effectiveness, its message and particularly its slogan.”
Money was a problem from the outset, according to the review.
“Although the campaign had been announced, the finance had not been clearly secured and the involvement of two separate departments in financing was an added complication.
“Issues of finance arose constantly through the planning phase. It was suggested that the limited resources that had been allocated to the campaign indicated a lack of understanding by Government.
“This lack of financial resources resulted in some very tight budgeting and limited the capacity of the campaign.”
The review said no media awareness campaign could have guaranteed success.
But it said: “The National Drugs Awareness Campaign can be seen to have fallen short of the previously identified criteria for success that in turn may have reduced the latent effectiveness of the campaign.”
It said an ambitious long-term campaign required “dedicated extensive funding and careful time management”.
The review added: “However, it would be short-sighted to suggest that based on the process evaluation of this specific campaign, drug awareness mass media campaigns should not be resourced in the future.
“Drug issues are complex and ever changing and interventions must reflect this and be founded on evidence-based best practice to have any chance of success.”
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
