3 readings main points and details, 3 pages within 8 hours

Drugs, Money, and Graphic Ads: A Critical Review of the Montana Meth Project

David M. Erceg-Hurn

Published online: 7 August 2008 # Society for Prevention Research 2008

Abstract The Montana Meth Project (MMP) is an organi- zation that launched a large-scale methamphetamine pre- vention program in Montana in 2005. The central component of the program is a graphic advertising campaign that portrays methamphetamine users as unhy- gienic, dangerous, untrustworthy, and exploitive. Montana teenagers are exposed to the advertisements three to five times a week. The MMP, media and politicians have portrayed the advertising campaign as a resounding success that has dramatically increased anti-methamphetamine attitudes and reduced drug use in Montana. The program is currently being rolled out across the nation, and is receiving considerable public funding. This article critically reviews the evidence used by the MMP to claim that its advertising campaign is effective. The main finding is that empirical support for the campaign is weak. Claims that the campaign is effective are not supported by data. The campaign has been associated with increases in the accept- ability of using methamphetamine and decreases in the perceived danger of using drugs. These and other negative findings have been ignored and misrepresented by the MMP. There is no evidence that reductions in metham- phetamine use in Montana are caused by the advertising campaign. On the basis of current evidence, continued public funding and rollout of Montana-style methamphet- amine programs is inadvisable.

Keywords Methamphetamine . Graphic advertising .

Drug prevention . Boomerang effect

Methamphetamine (also known as meth, speed, ice, crystal, chalk, and glass) is a highly addictive synthetic stimulant. Around 4.3% of the U.S. population have tried metham- phetamine during their lifetime, and over 500,000 people currently use the drug each month (National Institute on Drug Abuse 2006). Rates of methamphetamine use have declined in recent years, but dependence and abuse have significantly increased (Winslow et al. 2007). Use of the drug is associated with numerous adverse consequences, including myocardial infarction, stroke, respiratory failure, severe dental problems, weight loss, psychosis and risky sexual behavior (Colfax and Shoptaw 2005; Cartier et al. 2006; National Institute on Drug Abuse 2006; Winslow et al. 2007).

Methamphetamine is a significant problem in the state of Montana. The state spends $49 million annually dealing with the direct costs of methamphetamine abuse (McGrath 2007). Half of Montana’s adult prison population is in jail due to methamphetamine-related crime (McGrath 2007). Concerned by the impact of the drug on the community, businessman Thomas Siebel founded the Montana Meth Project (MMP).

The Montana Meth Project

The MMP is a non-profit organization that launched a large scale methamphetamine prevention program in Montana during 2005. The aim of the program is to reduce methamphetamine use (The Meth Project 2007a). The central component of the program is a confronting, graphic advertising campaign. The advertisements can be viewed at http://www.montanameth.org/ads. Methamphetamine users are portrayed in advertisements as unhygienic, dangerous, untrustworthy, and exploitive. Users are shown threatening

Prev Sci (2008) 9:256–263 DOI 10.1007/s11121-008-0098-5

D. M. Erceg-Hurn (*) School of Psychology M304, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia e-mail: [email protected]

to kill their parents, being raped, and prostituting them- selves to fund their drug habit. The MMP claims the graphic advertisements are research-based and realistic (Meth Project Foundation 2008; The Meth Project 2006). The MMP believes that by equipping youths with knowl- edge about the dangers of methamphetamine, the appeal of the drug is reduced, and youths are less likely to experiment with it (The Meth Project 2006). Montana teenagers are exposed to the advertisements three to five times a week via television, radio, print and billboard advertising (The Meth Project 2006).

According to the MMP, the advertisements have caused, “dramatic shifts in the perception of risks associated with Meth use, more frequent parent–child communications, greater social disapproval, and significant declines in Meth use and associated crime,” (The Meth Project 2007a, p. 2). Hundreds of media stories have documented the apparent success of the advertising campaign (Mcquillan 2006, August 3). Rick Rawson, Associate Director of the Integrated Substance Abuse Program at UCLA, has described the ads as impressive and effective (The Meth Project 2007f; IR Staff 2007, September 19). In September 2007, MMP founder Tom Siebel testified before a Senate Finance Committee hearing into methamphetamine abuse that, “the Meth Project results in Montana have been more significant than any drug prevention program in history,” (Before the Senate Finance Committee: Statement of Thomas M. Siebel, 2007, September 18, p. 4).

Initially, the MMP’s advertising campaign was privately funded. However, the apparent success of the campaign has resulted in the allocation of public monies to it. In April 2007, the MMP was granted $2 million from the Montana legislature (“An expensive habit: State pledges $2 million to Montana Meth Project,” 2007, April 17). This was followed by $500,000 worth of Federal funding in October (“Montana Meth funding advances,” 2007, June 29; Tester 2007a), and an additional $916,500 in December (Tester 2007b; Associated Press 2007, December 19). Senator Max Baucus has indicated that the money is the start of a long- term government commitment to funding MMP-style methamphetamine prevention programs (Tester 2007a), and Tom Siebel has suggested that federal funding of $40 million a year should be considered (Before the Senate Finance Committee: Statement of Thomas M. Siebel, 2007, September 18, p. 4).

In October 2006, Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) Director John Walters declared that the MMP’s prevention program should serve as a model for the nation (Office of National Drug Control Policy 2006, October 16). The program is currently being used as a template to implement prevention programs in Arizona and Idaho (The Meth Project 2007a), and several of the MMP’s graphic advertisements were selected for use in a multi-million

dollar national anti-methamphetamine campaign that launched in September 2007 (ONDCP 2007; Executive Office of the Presidents of the United States 2007, February; The Meth Project 2007d).

Government enthusiasm for graphic anti-methamphet- amine programs is largely the result of evidence that the MMP’s advertising campaign is successful. It is often claimed that the campaign has increased negative public attitudes towards methamphetamine and caused a reduction in use of the drug in Montana (e.g., Montana Meth Project 2006, April 19; Mcquillan 2006, August 3; Montana Meth Project 2007a; Montana Contractors’ Association 2007, December 17; Montana Meth Project 2007b; Before the Senate Finance Committee: Statement of Thomas M. Siebel, 2007, September 18; The Meth Project 2007e, f; Progress in fighting meth,” 2007, September 20). But how solid is the evidence to support these claims? A search of the MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases in April 2008 for Montana Meth Project returned zero results, indicating that the project’s data have not undergone peer review. To date, the only literature on the MMP has been published by the organization on its own website. The remainder of this article critically reviews this literature, in particular the MMP’s use and attitudes surveys, which are the primary pieces of evidence used to claim that the program is effective in changing attitudes towards methamphetamine and reducing drug use.

Report 1: 2005/06 Montana Surveys

In August 2005, a baseline survey of methamphetamine use and attitudes in Montana was conducted. The MMP’s advertising campaign commenced in September, and a follow up survey was conducted 6 months later. In early 2006, the MMP released a report comparing the August 2005 and March 2006 data (The Meth Project 2006).

The surveys were administered via the internet to teens (aged 12–17), young adults (18–24) and parents of teens. Only 50% of Montana’s population has access to the internet (The Meth Project 2006, p.7). Previous research has shown that internet users tend to be more affluent and educated than non users (Skitka and Sargis 2006). Up to 75% of participants in the surveys were female, yet only 50% of Montana’s population is female (The Meth Project 2006, p.44). These issues raise serious questions about whether the samples surveyed are representative of the general Montana population, and whether the data obtained are generalizable to the wider community—especially considering that methamphetamine use is related to factors such as gender, employment and education (Brecht et al. 2004; Herman-Stahl et al. 2007; Wermuth 2000).

The report’s findings are presented in three sections—an executive summary, a more detailed overview of the

Prev Sci (2008) 9:256–263 257257

findings, and a series of detailed appendices. The appendi- ces contain statistical analyses for every question in the survey (The Meth Project 2006). The MMP also released the findings to the media via a press release (Montana Meth Project 2006, April 19). The executive summary, overview of the findings and press release all portray the program as achieving its goals. In contrast, data contained in the report’s appendices indicates that the advertising campaign is associated with many negative outcomes.

Risks of Using Methamphetamine and Other Drugs

The MMP claims that, “Teens, young adults, and parents are now more aware of the specific, negative consequences associated with meth use,” (The Meth Project 2006, p. 4). Participants were asked to rate the risk of 14 negative consequences occurring as a result of using methamphet- amine once or twice (The Meth Project 2006, pp. 28–37). The consequences assessed included stealing, suffering from brain damage, and getting hooked on methamphet- amine. Following 6 months of exposure to the MMP’s graphic advertising, teens and young adults were signifi- cantly more likely to report that there is a great risk that methamphetamine use could lead to half of the negative consequences (The Meth Project 2006, pp. 61–67). In contrast, parents’ perception that single-time methamphet- amine use would lead to negative consequences increased statistically significantly for only 1 of the 14 consequences. This finding contradicts the MMP’s claim that, “Parents of teens are also becoming more aware of the negative consequences associated with Meth use,” (The Meth Project 2006, p.11).

Participants’ general perception that taking methamphet- amine is a risky behavior was also assessed (The Meth Project 2006, pp. 10, 28, 36). When asked about the risk involved in using methamphetamine once or twice, the percentage of teens reporting that there is great or moderate risk declined significantly, from 93% to 87% (The Meth Project 2006, p. 57). The percentage indicating there is no risk increased significantly, rising from 3% to 8% (The Meth Project 2006, p. 57). When teens were asked about the risk involved in using methamphetamine regularly, the percentage indicating there is no risk again increased significantly, from 3% to 8% (The Meth Project 2006, p. 57). These changes are in the opposite direction to those the MMP is trying to achieve. The MMP did not mention these findings in the report’s executive summary, the more detailed overview of findings, or the press release issued to the media (Montana Meth Project 2006, April 19). Instead, the MMP claimed that, “Overall, perceived risk in using Meth remained relatively constant” (The Meth Project 2006, p.10).

Participants’ perceptions of risk involved in using heroin, cocaine and marijuana were also assessed in the

surveys. A similar pattern of results emerged for these drugs as for methamphetamine. The number of teens who indicated there is great or moderate risk involved in using the drugs decreased significantly, while the number report- ing no risk increased to levels two to three times greater than before the MMP began (The Meth Project 2006, pp. 58–60). Once again, these findings are not mentioned in the main body of the report. They are only apparent upon careful inspection of the appendices.

Approval of Methamphetamine Use

It is noted in the report’s executive summary and press release that most Montana teens disapprove of their friends using methamphetamine (The Meth Project 2006, p.4; Montana Meth Project 2006, April 19). A casual observer could interpret this positive finding as being due to changes caused by the MMP. However, the percentage of teens who disapprove of methamphetamine use was already very high before the advertising campaign began (The Meth Project 2006, p. 68). Furthermore, the percent- age of teens reporting that they strongly approve of regular methamphetamine use increased four-fold after the imple- mentation of the advertising campaign (The Meth Project 2006, p. 68). Again, this finding is not mentioned in the main body of the report.

Perceptions of Advertisements

The MMP claim that their advertisements are perceived by teens as being credible and impactful (Montana Meth Project 2006, April 19). The campaign’s data only partially support such claims (The Meth Project 2006, pp. 89–92). Practically all teens reported that the campaign’s core message—that methamphetamine is dangerous to try just once—is clearly communicated by the advertisements. Around 60% of teens agreed that the campaign’s advertise- ments provided them with new information about the drug. However, 40 to 50% of teens also indicated that many of the advertisements exaggerate the risks of using metham- phetamine (The Meth Project 2006, pp. 91–93). Among Native American teens, a group at high-risk for metham- phetamine use, the percentage indicating that the advertise- ments exaggerate the risks of the drug was as high as 75% (The Meth Project 2006, p. 107). Again, these findings are not documented in the main body of the report.

Report 2: 2007 Montana Survey

The MMP survey was conducted again in early 2007, and a report was issued in March comparing the 2007 data with that collected in 2005 and 2006 (The Meth Project 2007b).

258 Prev Sci (2008) 9:256–263

Rather than using the internet, the 2007 survey was administered in pencil and paper form to teens and young adults. Parents completed the survey via telephone with an interviewer. Random sampling techniques were used to recruit all participants. A total of 2335 teens participated in the 2007 survey, a significant increase in the number who participated in 2005 (N=329) and 2006 (N=419). Unlike the previous report, data were weighted by age and gender to match state norms. Data from the 2005 and 2006 internet surveys were recalculated to take into account the change in sampling methodology (The Meth Project 2007b, pp. 11– 12). The methodology used to recruit participants for the 2007 survey was a significant improvement over that used for 2005 and 2006 surveys. However, the analysis and presentation of data from the 2007 survey were extremely poor. A striking feature of the 2007 report is that appendices containing statistical analyses for each question in the survey are absent. Instead, only select data are presented. Unlike the previous year’s report, the 2007 report contains no testing of statistical significance. As a result, significant changes in the public’s attitudes to methamphetamine between 2005 and 2007 can only be estimated by examining percentages.

The 2007 report (The Meth Project 2007b) and its accompanying press release (Montana Meth Project 2007b) again portray the MMP as successful.

There have been dramatic shifts in attitudes towards meth in the past two years. Compared to the 2005 Benchmark Survey, Montana teens, young adults, and parents are more aware of the dangers of taking meth, more likely to disapprove of taking the drug, and more likely to have had parent–child discussion about the subject. In fact, teens now view meth as more dangerous than heroin (The Meth Project 2007b, p. 3).

Are these claims supported by evidence?

“Montana Residents are More Aware of the Dangers of Taking Methamphetamine”

All groups surveyed were already very aware of the dangers of taking methamphetamine before the advertising cam- paign began. At baseline, at least 80% of teenagers agreed there was a great or moderate risk that using methamphet- amine could lead to 13 of the 14 negative consequences assessed by the survey (The Meth Project 2007b, p. 53). In 2007, teen attitudes were virtually the same—percentages for 11 of the 14 consequences had changed by 3% or less (The Meth Project 2007b, p. 53). Young adults reported no change in the perception of risk for 3 of the 14 consequences, and decreased risk for 8 of the consequences (The Meth Project 2007b, p. 60). This change is incongru- ent with the MMP’s goals, and inconsistent with the claim

that Montana residents are now more aware of the dangers of methamphetamine use.

A notable omission in the 2007 report is any trend data documenting participants’ overall perception of risk in- volved in taking methamphetamine and other drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Only data for 2007 is included in the report (The Meth Project 2007b, p. 19). No comparisons to the 2005 benchmarking survey are made. The omission of such comparisons is concerning given the 2005/06 report revealed a trend amongst teens to view the drugs as less dangerous after the advertising campaign commenced.

“Montana Residents are More Likely to Disapprove of Taking the Drug”

Participants were asked whether they approved or disap- proved of methamphetamine use. No trend data are presented comparing participants’ responses to the question in 2005 and 2007. It is therefore not possible for the MMP to conclude that Montana residents are more likely to disapprove of people taking the drug. Another question, introduced in the 2006 survey, asked teens and young adults whether their friends would give them a hard time for using methamphetamine. The percentage of young adults agreeing with the statement decreased slightly (The Meth Project 2007b, p. 63); however, the percentage of teens agreeing they would be given a hard time increased compared to 2006 (The Meth Project 2007b, p. 21).

“Teens Now View Methamphetamine as More Dangerous than Heroin”

According to the 2005/06 report, at baseline 74% of teens perceived using methamphetamine once or twice as a behavior that involves great risk, compared to 68% who perceived great risk in using heroin (The Meth Project 2006, pp. 57–58). The 2007 report indicated that 65% of teens perceived great risk in using methamphetamine, compared to 56% for heroin (The Meth Project 2007b, p. 19). The figures suggest that teens already believed that methamphetamine was more dangerous than heroin before the introduction of the advertising campaign, and that there may have been a decrease in the perception of risk involved in using both drugs.

“Parent–teen Discussions about Methamphetamine Have Increased”

Parents reporting that they have talked to their teenagers about methamphetamine increased from 85% in 2005, to 96% in 2007 (The Meth Project 2007b, p. 74). Teens reporting that their parents have discussed methamphetamine with them increased from 56% in 2005 to 66% in 2007 (The Meth

Prev Sci (2008) 9:256–263 259259

Project 2007b, p. 55). These figures suggest that parent–teen discussions have increased. The MMP survey could benefit from collecting data about the content of parent–teen discussions, as it is not necessarily the case that discussions involve parents educating their children about the dangers of methamphetamine use. For example, it is possible that some parents and teens could be discussing how the MMP’s advertisements exaggerate the risks of methamphetamine use. Further research is needed to investigate the content of parent–teen discussions; however, the signs are promising.

Additional Findings

Parents were asked what actions they would take if they discovered their child was using methamphetamine (The Meth Project 2007b, p. 73). Between 2005 and 2007, the percentage of parents reporting that they would try to find a drug treatment center increased from 65% to 71%. However, many other help-seeking behaviors decreased. For example, parents who would consult their teens’ doctor decreased from 89% to 60%, and the parents indicating that they would speak to their teen decreased from 93% to 86%.

Report 3: 2007 National Survey

During 2007, a randomly-selected national sample of 2602 teens completed the MMP survey. The national survey used a similar methodology to the 2007 Montana survey. Teens were recruited from randomly-selected high schools across the country, and completed the survey in class. Data were weighed by age, gender and region to match national norms.

In September 2007 a report was issued that drew comparisons between national data and data collected in Montana (The Meth Project 2007c). The report contains several examples demonstrating that anti-methamphetamine perceptions and attitudes are more prevalent in Montana than the rest of the country (The Meth Project 2007c, pp. 5– 6). The MMP has implied that this is due to their advertising campaign (The Meth Project 2007c, p. 5). However, no data are presented to demonstrate that Montana teens did not already have greater anti-metham- phetamine attitudes than the rest of the country before the advertising campaign began. For example, in 2007, 77% of teens nationwide perceived great risk in using methamphet- amine regularly, compared to 87% in Montana (The Meth Project 2007c, p. 30). However, the percentage of Montana teens who perceived great risk in using methamphetamine was already 87% before the advertising campaign com- menced (Montana Meth Project 2008, p. 47). These figures suggest that differences in attitudes between Montana teens and those nationally may be due to pre-existing differences, rather than the impact of the advertising campaign.

Report 4: 2008 Montana Survey

The MMP survey was conduced again in Montana between December 2007 and February 2008, using the same methodology as the 2007 survey. A total of 2334 teens participated. Findings from the survey were released in a report in April 2008 (Montana Meth Project 2008). Like the 2007 Montana and national surveys, only select data are presented in the report.

Trend data are included in the report, documenting changes in teens’ perception of risk involved in using methamphetamine and other illicit drugs (Montana Meth Project 2008, p. 47). Between 2005 and 2008, the percentage of teens reporting that there is great risk in using methamphetamine and heroin remained stable. The percentage reporting there is great risk in using cocaine regularly decreased, from 86% in 2005 to 79% in 2008. The percentage of teens reporting there is great risk in using marijuana regularly increased substantially, from 44% to 55%.

Unfortunately, the MMP only present trend data for the percentage of teens reporting there is great risk involved in using these drugs. As a result, it is not possible to know whether the percentage of teens who believe there is no risk involved in using the drugs has changed between 2005 and 2008. For example, according to the 2006 MMP report, the percentage of teens reporting there is great risk in using heroin increased from 68% in 2005 to 71% in 2006. However, the percentage reporting there is no risk in using heroin also increased, from 3% to 8% (The Meth Project 2006, p. 58). This demonstrates that it is important to include trend data for teens who believe there is great risk involved in using drugs, as well as teens who believe there is no risk involved.

It is claimed in the MMP’s 2008 report that, “There is a predominant and increasing social stigma against taking meth” (Montana Meth Project 2008, p. 16). This statement implies that the number of teens who disapprove of methamphetamine use is growing. The statement is not supported by data. As can be seen from Table 1, the percentage of teens reporting that they strongly disapprove

Table 1 Percentage of Montana teens who strongly disapprove of regular drug use

Drug Year

2005 2006 2007 2008

Methamphetamine 98 94 93 91 Heroin 97 93 91 89 Cocaine 96 88 88 85 Marijuana 62 58 62 64

260 Prev Sci (2008) 9:256–263

of methamphetamine use has decreased during each year of the campaign. Similar trends are evident for heroin and cocaine. The trend data suggest that there is now less stigma attached to taking methamphetamine and other drugs than before the MMP’s advertising campaign commenced.

A positive finding documented in the report is that the percentage of teens who believe taking methamphetamine has positive outcomes has decreased substantially between 2005 and 2008 (Montana Meth Project 2008, p. 46). However, this change in attitude occurred primarily during the first 6 months of the MMP’s advertising campaign, between late 2005 and early 2006. Continued advertising between 2006 and 2008 has been associated with negligible changes in attitudes about the benefits of taking metham- phetamine.

Other Common Claims

“Methamphetamine Use in Montana Has Reduced Due to the Advertising Campaign”

It is often claimed that the MMP’s advertising campaign has reduced methamphetamine use in Montana (e.g., Montana Meth Project 2007b; Gouras 2007, September 18; The Meth Project 2007f; IR Staff 2007, September 19; Rehberg 2007, June 28). As evident in Table 2, the MMP’s data indicate no such reduction has occurred (Montana Meth Project 2008, p. 50). The percentage of teens reporting that they have ever tried Meth was 2% at baseline (2005) and 3% in 2008. An alternate dataset, from the Montana Youth Risk Behavior Study (YRBS), indicates that there has been a decline in teen methamphetamine use in Montana since the introduction of the MMP’s advertising (Office of Public Instruction 2007, September 18). Howev- er, the YRBS data also shows that methamphetamine use was decreasing in the 6 years prior to the introduction of the campaign. The decrease in use between 2005 and 2007 is somewhat larger than in previous years. The discrepancies between the YRBS and MMP data raise questions about the validity of the MMP’s data, given that there have been changes in sampling methodology between the MMP’s surveys.

Assuming that there have been reductions in metham- phetamine use in Montana, it is not necessarily due to the MMP’s advertising campaign. An alternate hypothesis is that methamphetamine use may have reduced due to a decrease in the availability of the drug. Methamphetamine is often illegally manufactured from ephedrine and pseu- doephedrine, ingredients found in many cold and allergy medications. In July 2005, strict laws came into force restricting the sale of cold medicines in Montana that contain ephedrine and pseudoephedrine (McGrath 2007). Since then, methamphetamine supply dropped, the number of methamphetamine seizures almost halved, the number of methamphetamine labs reported by drug task forces decreased by 40%, and cost of the drug increased (McGrath 2007). The percentage of teens reporting that methamphet- amine is easy to acquire has decreased from 41% in 2005 to 30% in 2008 (Montana Meth Project 2008, p. 45). Additional factors are likely to be involved, given that methamphetamine use was declining in the 6 years prior to the introduction of the MMP’s advertising campaign.

“The Advertising Campaign is Research-based”

The MMP claims that its advertisements are well researched, based in science, and refined as a result of the MMP’s surveys (The Meth Project 2007a; Before the Senate Finance Committee: Statement of Thomas M. Siebel, 2007, September 18). However, the advertisements have remained essentially the same since 2005, despite research revealing that many teens believe the advertisements exaggerate the risks of methamphetamine use, and data suggesting that the advertisements may be counterproduc- tive. The MMP approach of scaring individuals into not using methamphetamine ignores a sizeable literature dem- onstrating that scary, graphic public health campaigns are frequently ineffective and sometimes harmful (Ringold 2002; Ruiter et al. 2001; Witte and Allen 2000). For example, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is a vigorous anti-drug campaign that focuses on curbing marijuana use. The campaign’s advertisements link mari- juana use to unplanned pregnancy, misuse of guns and even terrorism. The campaign has cost American taxpayers almost $1.5 billion since 1998 (Eddy 2006) and around 80% of youths report that they are exposed to the

Table 2 Percentage of Montana teens reporting lifetime methamphetamine use

Year

Dataset 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

MMP – – – – – – 2 6 4 3 YRBS 13.5 – 12.6 – 9.3 – 8.3 – 4.6 –

The MMP rounded these figures to the nearest whole number

Prev Sci (2008) 9:256–263 261261

campaign’s anti-drug messages every week (Orwin et al. 2006). However, comprehensive evaluations of the cam- paign have consistently found that it has not reduced drug use or anti-drug attitudes (GAO 2006; Hornik et al. 2002; Orwin et al. 2006). The only significant results have been in an unfavorable direction—some youths reported an in- crease in marijuana use upon increased exposure to the campaign (GAO 2006; Hornik et al. 2002).

Summary

The MMP’s advertising campaign was created with the commendable goal of reducing methamphetamine use. The MMP has portrayed the campaign as a resounding success, and this has resulted in the widespread roll out and public funding of the campaign. However, a critical review of the MMP’s use and attitudes surveys demonstrates that empir- ical support for the campaign is weak. The primary problems with the MMP’s research fall under two headings: (a) poor methodology, and (b) misrepresentation of data.

Poor Methodology

The MMP has attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of its graphic advertising campaign using a pre-experimental design. The lack of an adequate control group from baseline means it is impossible to conclude that the MMP’s advertising campaign has caused any change in metham- phetamine use, or attitudes towards the drug. The MMP’s flawed research design means that the internal validity of the MMP’s research is seriously compromised. Another problem is that the MMP’s 2005 (baseline) and 2006 surveys were conducted using relatively small and unrep- resentative internet samples. The recruitment methodology used in subsequent surveys has improved considerably. However, substantial changes in sampling methodology between surveys means that drawing comparisons between baseline and subsequent data are problematic.

Misrepresentation of Data

The MMP has successfully portrayed its advertising campaign as a resounding success to the media, politicians, and even some researchers. However, claims that the MMP’s advertisements have been associated with positive changes in attitudes to methamphetamine are, for the most part, not supported by evidence. In some cases, the MMP’s claims of efficacy are directly contradicted by data in their own reports. It is very worrying that the MMP has ignored and misrepresented several negative findings, such as increases in the acceptability of methamphetamine use, and decreases in the perceived dangers of drug use

following the introduction of graphic advertisements in Montana. The MMP’s misleading interpretation and inad- equate reporting of data has resulted in the public forming distorted and inaccurate beliefs about the campaign’s effectiveness.

This critical review of the MMP’s use and attitudes surveys has important implications for public policy. On the basis of current evidence, continued public funding and rollout of MMP-style graphic advertising campaigns should be put on hold, pending the outcome of future scientific study of the MMP’s efficacy. The government should consider redirecting funds to alternate, evidence based methamphetamine prevention programs (e.g., Spoth et al. 2006). Politicians, the media, and prevention researchers also need to ensure that in future they critically evaluate any research released by the MMP, rather than assuming the organization’s press releases (and reports) are presenting data in a fair and balanced way. It is recommended that any future reports documenting the results of MMP’s use and attitudes surveys include complete statistical analyses for every question in the survey. This is because researchers and policymakers making decisions about MMP-style graphic advertising campaigns need access to all evidence, rather than a subset of findings that portray the MMP in a positive light.

References

An expensive habit: State pledges $2 million to Montana Meth Project. (2007, April 17). The Missoula Independent. Retrieved from http://www.missoulanews.com/index.cfm?do=article.details &id=0609F40B-2BF4-55D0-F1FBC76356A23DD7.

Associated Press. (2007). Congress approves money for Montana. KX News, December 19. Retrieved from http://www.kxmb.com/ News/191313.asp.

Before the Senate Finance Committee: Statement of Thomas M. Siebel. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.senate.gov/~finance/ hearings/testimony/2007test/091807testts.pdf, September 18.

Brecht, M.-L., O’Brien, A., von Mayrhauser, C., & Anglin, M. D. (2004). Methamphetamine use behaviors and gender differences. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 89–106. doi:10.1016/S0306-4603(03) 00082-0.

Cartier, J., Farabee, D., & Prendergast, M. (2006). Methamphetamine use, self-reported violent crime, and recidivism among offenders in California who abuse substances. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 435–445. doi:10.1177/0886260505285724.

Colfax, G., & Shoptaw, S. (2005). The methamphetamine epidemic: Implications for HIV prevention and treatment. Current HIV/ AIDS Reports, 2, 194–199. doi:10.1007/s11904-005-0016-4.

Eddy, M. (2006). War on drugs: The national youth anti-drug campaign. Retrieved from http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/ RS21490.pdf.

Executive Office of the Presidents of the United States. (2007). National Drug Control Strategy FY 2008 Budget Summary, February. Retrieved from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/ publications/policy/08budget/08budget.pdf.

GAO. (2006). ONDCP media campaign: Contractor’s national evaluation did not find that the youth anti-drug media campaign

262 Prev Sci (2008) 9:256–263

was effective in reducing youth drug use. Retrieved from http:// www.gao.gov/new.items/d06818.pdf.

Gouras, M. (2007). Schools chief says meth use declining due to shock- ing ads, September 18. Retrieved from http://www.methproject.org/ documents/Associated%20Press-Schools9-18-07.pdf.

Herman-Stahl, M., Krebs, C., Kroutil, L., & Heller, D. (2007). Risk and protective factors for methamphetamine use and nonmedical use of prescription stimulants among young adults aged 18 to 25. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 1003–1015. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh. 2006.07.010.

Hornik, R., Maklan, D., Cadell, D., Prado, A., Barmada, C., Jacobsohn, L., et al. (2002). Evaluation of the national youth anti-drug media campaign: Fourth semi-annual report of findings. Retrieved from http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/DESPR/ WestatRep502.pdf.

IR Staff. (2007). Scourge of meth is waning. Helena Independent Record, September 19. Retrieved from http://www.helenair.com/ articles/2007/09/19/opinions_top/a040919_01.txt.

McGrath, M. (2007). Methamphetamine in Montana: A preliminary report on trends and impacts. Retrieved from http://www. montanameth.org/documents/MT_AG_Report_Final.pdf.

Mcquillan, J. (2006). What’s wrong with this picture? Why the Montana Meth Project isn’t all it’s cranked up to be. The Missoula Independent, August 3. Retrieved from http://www.missoulanews. com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=533B1A41-2BF4-55D0- F1FB64E83ABDBD8B&oID=333B82E9-DC2F-69B1- 92B9C55336008A12.

Meth Project Foundation. (2008). Montana Meth Project—Mission. Retrieved from http://www.montanameth.org/About_Us.

Montana Contractors’ Association. (2007). Montana Contractors’ Association members raise nearly $250,000 for Montana Meth Project [Press Release], December 17. Retrieved from http://www. montanameth.org/documents/MMP_Contractors_Fundraising12_ 18_07.pdf.

Montana Meth funding advances. (2007). Billings Gazette, June 29. Retrieved from http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/06/29/ news/state/60-meth.txt.

Montana Meth Project. (2006). New Montana Meth Project survey shows increased awareness of meth risks [Press Release], April 19. Retrieved from http://www.methproject.com/documents/ MMP_Survey_Release_April_2006.pdf.

Montana Meth Project. (2007a). MMP fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.montanameth.org/documents/MMP_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

Montana Meth Project. (2007b). New Montana Meth Project survey shows dramatic shift in attitudes towards meth [Press Release], March 7. Retrieved from http://www.montanameth.org/documents/ MMP_Survey_Release_FINAL.pdf.

Montana Meth Project. (2008). Montana meth: Use and attitudes survey 2008. Retrieved from http://www.montanameth.org/documents/ MMP%202008%20Report%20final.pdf.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2006). Methamphetamine abuse and addiction. Retrieved from http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/ RRMetham.pdf.

Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2006). White House drug czar recognizes effective Montana efforts reducing meth produc- tion, use [Press Release], October 16. Retrieved from http:// methproject.org/documents/Montana%20Meth%20Project% 20ONDCP%20Release%20FINAL.PDF.

Office of Public Instruction. (2007). Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), September 18. Retrieved from http://www.montanameth. org/documents/YRBS_Report.pdf.

ONDCP. (2007). ONDCP’s 2007 Anti-meth campaign: An overview. Retrieved from http://www.methresources.gov/antimeth/about. html.

Orwin, R., Cadell, D., Chu, A., Kalton, G., Maklan, D., Morin, C., et al. (2006). Evaluation of the national youth anti-drug media campaign: 2004 Report of findings. Retrieved from http://www. nida.nih.gov/DESPR/Westat/NSPY2004Report/NSPY2004Report. zip.

Progress in fighting meth. (2007). Billings Gazette, September 20. Retrieved from http://billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/09/20/ opinion/gazette/50-gazetteopinion.txt.

Rehberg, D. (2007). Rehberg praises efforts of Montana Meth Project [Press Release], June 28. Retrieved from http://www.house.gov/ list/press/mt00_rehberg/062807_MethProjectSpeech.html.

Ringold, D. J. (2002). Boomerang effects in response to public health interventions: Some unintended consequences in the alcoholic beverage market. Journal of Consumer Policy, 25, 27–63. doi:10.1023/A:1014588126336.

Ruiter, R. A. C., Abraham, C., & Kok, G. (2001). Scary warnings and rational precautions: A review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychology and Health, 16, 613–630. doi:10.1080/ 08870440108405863.

Skitka, L. J., & Sargis, E. G. (2006). The internet as a psychological laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 529–555. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190048.

Spoth, R. L., Clair, S., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (2006). Long-term effects of universal preventative interventions on methamphet- amine use among adolescents. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 160, 876–882. doi:10.1001/archpedi. 160.9.876.

Tester, J. (2007a). Baucus, Tester grab federal dollars for Montana Meth Project [Press Release], October 16. Retrieved from http:// tester.senate.gov/News/record.cfm?id=285453.

Tester, J. (2007b). Baucus, Tester secure nearly $11 million for Missoula [Press Release], December 18. Retrieved from http:// tester.senate.gov/News/record.cfm?id=289383.

The Meth Project. (2006). Montana Meth use & attitudes survey. Retrieved from http://www.montanameth.org/documents/ MMP_Survey_April_2006.pdf.

The Meth Project. (2007a). Meth Project fact sheet. Retrieved from http://methproject.org/documents/Meth_Project_Fact_Sheet.pdf.

The Meth Project. (2007b). Montana meth: Use & attitudes survey 2007. Retrieved from http://www.montanameth.org/documents/ MMP_Survey_2007.pdf.

The Meth Project. (2007c). National use & attitudes survey 2007. Retrieved from http://www.methproject.org/documents/National_ Survey817.pdf.

The Meth Project. (2007d). Meth Project advertisements selected for national prevention campaign [Press Release], September 13. Retrieved from http://methproject.org/documents/Meth_Project_ Anti_Meth_Campaign9_13_07.PDF.

The Meth Project. (2007e). Meth Project chairman testifies before U.S. Senate Finance Committee [Press Release], September 18a. Retrieved from http://methproject.org/documents/Testimony-9- 18%20_2_.pdf.

The Meth Project. (2007f). Teen meth usage in Montana declined by nearly 50% since 2005 [Press Release], September 18b. Retrieved from http://www.montanameth.org/documents/Montana% 20vs_National9-18.pdf.

Wermuth, L. (2000). Methamphetamine use: Hazards and social influences. Journal of Drug Education, 30, 423–433. doi:10.2190/GMH7-3FWX-1AC1-RWXP.

Winslow, B. T., Voorhees, K. I., & Pehl, K. A. (2007). Methamphet- amine abuse. American Family Physician, 76, 1169–1174.

Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educa- tion & Behavior, 27, 591–615. doi:10.1177/109019810002700506.

Prev Sci (2008) 9:256–263 263263