th
ABN: 70 056 731 670
ACN: 056 731 670
1

1 Executive Summary
.................................................................................................................... 4
1.1
Background
........................................................................................................................... 4
1.2
The Campaign and Its Objectives
.............................................................................. 4
1.3
Research Objectives
......................................................................................................... 4
1.4
Research Methodology and Sample
......................................................................... 5
1.5
Reporting of Results
.......................................................................................................... 5
1.6
Key Findings
......................................................................................................................... 5
2 Background
..................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1
Current Policy Context
..................................................................................................... 7
2.2
The National Drugs Campaign
..................................................................................... 8
3 Research Task
........................................................................................................................... 11
3.1
Specific research objectives
....................................................................................... 11
4 Methodology
................................................................................................................................ 11
4.1
Research design
.............................................................................................................. 11
4.2
Sample structures
........................................................................................................... 12
4.3
Questionnaire
.................................................................................................................... 14
4.4
About this report
............................................................................................................... 15
5 Campaign Awareness
............................................................................................................. 16
5.1
Category advertising recall
......................................................................................... 16
5.2
Recalled message takeout
.......................................................................................... 17
5.3
Channel of recalled advertising
................................................................................ 18
5.4
Campaign recognition
................................................................................................... 19
5.5
Recognition of specific campaign elements
....................................................... 20
5.6
Media channel consumption
...................................................................................... 21
6 Campaign Impact
...................................................................................................................... 21
6.1
Prompted message takeout
........................................................................................ 21
2

6.2
Perceived credibility, effectiveness and relevance
.......................................... 22
6.3
Action taken as a result of the campaign
............................................................. 24
7 Attitudes Towards Ice and The Campaign’s Impact on These ........................... 26
8 Risk of Drug Use Among Youth
......................................................................................... 29
9 Parental Discussions With Children About Drugs
..................................................... 31
10 Sources of Information About Drugs
........................................................................... 33
11 Summary and conclusions
............................................................................................... 38
11.1
Summary of key findings against the research objectives
........................... 38
11.2
Further discussion
........................................................................................................... 40
3

This report evaluates the impact of the 2015 National Drugs Campaign activity which commenced 10 May 2015 and concluded in late June 2015.
The National Drugs Campaign supports the National Drugs Strategy and the overall aim of the current phase is to contribute to a reduction in the uptake of illicit drugs among young Australians, by raising awareness of the harms associated with illicit drug use and encouraging and supporting decisions not to use illicit drugs. The most recent wave of campaign activity focussed on the drug
Ice.
The campaign aims to deliver the following key messages to two key target audiences of young people aged 14-25 and parents of young people aged 14-25:

There are a range of serious harms associated with the use of ice;

It is highly addictive;

Go to the campaign website for information and links to support services.
A new creative was developed which shows the harms and risks of ice use with
15, 30, 45 and 60 second versions shown through different media channels including TV, cinema and digital. There are also further digital advertisements based on stills from the overarching TVC which were shown online and via social media.
The aim of this research was to assess the campaign against its objectives amongst the target audiences of young people (14 to 25 years) and parents of young people. Specifically this included:

Assess the level of Campaign awareness
 Assess the level of awareness of the Campaign’s key messages

Assess the credibility of the Campaign’s key messages

Assess attitudes towards ice

Assess knowledge of information and support services
 Assess young peoples’ intentions and behaviours in relation to the use of ice and other illicit drugs
 Assess parents’ intentions and behaviours in relation to talking to their children about drug use
4

An internet-based survey was conducted among both the youth and parent target audiences of the campaign. The survey design was similar to that used in previous waves of Campaign research (Phase Five (2011-2012) in particular) to allow for direct comparison of results where appropriate.
Respondents were recruited from online (research only) panels. Fourteen to seventeen year olds were recruited via their parents (who are members of the panel) and with parental permission, and 18-25 year-olds were recruited directly.
Parents of 14-25 year-olds was also recruited directly. In addition, 18-25 year olds were also recruited via their parents if they were still living at home.
A pilot phase of fieldwork for both the youth and parent survey was conducted from 29-30 June 2015 and no changes were found to be required. The main fieldwork occurred from 1-12 July 2015 for the youth survey and from 1-16 July
2015 for the parent survey. The fieldwork was timed to occur towards the end of the majority of the campaign activity.
The sample included 2,126 young people aged 14-25 and 1,679 parents of 14-25 year-olds. The samples for both groups were designed to be nationally representative, with quotas were placed on gender, age, location in terms of state and metro/regional locations, all of which were achieved and no weighting was required. The samples also captured a representative proportion of
Indigenous Australians, people from a culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) background and, among the youth sample, people identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI) (sexual orientation was not asked in the parent survey).
Results from this wave are compared between different subgroups (e.g. gender, age, location) and against previous waves of research. Statistical tests (onetailed) were undertaken to establish whether differences between the responses of subgroups within each sample, or against previous waves of NDC evaluation research in some cases, were statistically significant. Where differences are reported, it implies that a statistically significant difference at a 95% confidence level has been established.
There was a high level of Campaign recall and recognition amongst both audiences with 76% of youth and 78% of parents recognising at least one
Campaign element. The Campaign has particularly reached young people at risk of drug use with recognition of 80% among those at risk in comparison to 67% of
5

those not at risk. Recognition was also higher in regional areas among both youth (80% regional cf. 74% metro) and parents (81% regional cf. 77% metro).
These results indicate that the Campaign has been effective in reaching at-risk target audiences.
The inclusion of television in the media buy during this phase of the Campaign, in contrast to Phase Five (2010-2011 and 2011-2012), has boosted its reach and cut through considerably. Both the ‘traditional’ and digital TV media buy has been shown to be effective in reaching both the youth and parent target audiences.
The Campaign was effective in delivering clear messages related to the harms of ice and/or discouraging ice use, and these messages were felt to be believable and effective by both youth and parents. As is typical in NDC evaluation, fewer found them personally relevant.
Exposure to the Campaign was effective in increasing negative attitudes towards ice, educating young people about the risks, and in communicating the harms of drug use
– particularly aggression, addiction and that ‘ice destroys lives’. This was predominantly through swaying those who were unsure towards a negative opinion. The Campaign also influenced attitudes that were beyond its objectives, such as reducing perception that ice is a fun drug and increasing perception that it is made using dangerous substances.
There was greater awareness of the Campaign website among those who have seen the Campaign for both youth (45% saw Campaign cf. 19% did not see it) and parents (47% saw Campaign cf. 20% did not see it).
While not a primary objective, the Campaign also prompted parents to talk to their children about drugs. Parents who recognised the campaign were significantly more likely to have talked to their children about drugs (67% saw
Campaign cf. 52% that did not see it). Additionally, conversations with parents represent an important influence on young people’s perceptions, with 61% of youth saying parents are the most influential source of drug information.
Both parents and young people are keen for credible information sources with anti-drug advertising representing an important source of information about drugs for both young people (51%) and parents (45%).
A growing proportion of young people are at risk of drug use, particularly 22-25 year-olds and as such future phases of the NDC should continue to target these age groups. Risk of use increased across the full range of drugs but most particularly cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine. The increase for ice was the least pronounced. Risk of cannabis use has increased considerably, and as a gateway drug (along with synthetic cannabis) could form an important future campaign target. Risk of cocaine and ecstasy use has also increased considerably and may also be worth targeting in future campaigns.
6

Illicit drug use in Australia impacts negatively on individuals, families and communities in a number of ways. Illegal drugs not only have dangerous health impacts but are a significant contributor to crime (especially organised crime), can contribute to road accidents, violent incidents, family breakdown and social dysfunction.
The National Drug Strategy is an ongoing response by the federal government to drug use in Australia, providing a national framework for action to minimise the harm to individuals, families and communities from alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. One of the challenges identified for the current phase of the National Drug
Strategy (2010-2015) is the changing patterns of use of, and harms from, illegal drug use and the fact that these need to be continually monitored and responded to.
The National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2013 found that, while the use of methamphetamines has remained steady between 2010 and 2013 (at 2.1% of the population), there has been a shift in the form of the drug used. The use of the crystal methamphetamine form has more than doubled among those who use methamphetamines from 22% to 50%. The report also found that use of methamphetamines was higher among certain demographic groups including: people living in remote and very remote areas, the unemployed, people with the lowest SES, Indigenous Australians and people who identify as homosexual/bisexual 1 . Ice is the purest form of methamphetamines and, as such, is more addictive and has more harmful side effects than the powder form
(‘speed’), and is associated with violent, ice-induced psychotic episodes. Longterm use is associated with numerous physical and mental health problems, dependence on the drug and social, financial and work problems 2 . Australia is an attractive market for overseas exporters of ice because of the premium price point compared to other markets. Correspondingly, ice grew from 5% of detected illicit drug imports to Australia in 2011 to 59% in 2014 3 . It is also strongly associated with organised crime groups in Australia, with 60% of known gangs associated with methamphetamine production 3 . In short, ice is a significant and growing problem facing the Australian community and thus been a recent community and policy focus.
1 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2014. National Drug Strategy Household Survey detailed report 2013.
2
3
http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/drug-facts/ice
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/taskforces/national-ice-taskforce
7

In addition to the National Drug Strategy, the Department of Prime Minister and
Cabinet established the National Ice Taskforce in April 2015, charged with developing a National Ice Action Strategy to tackle the growing use of ice in the community.
The National Drugs Campaign supports the National Drug Strategy and the overall aim of the current phase is to contribute to a reduction in the uptake of illicit drugs among young Australians, by raising awareness of the harms associated with illicit drug use and encouraging and supporting decisions not to use illicit drugs. The most recent previous national Campaign activity (2012) focused on the drug ecstasy, though within the current context of the growing use of ice among various community groups, this drug is the focus of the Campaign activity in 2015. A new creative has been developed which shows the harms and risks of ice use. It aims to deliver the following key messages:

There are a range of serious harms associated with the use of ice;

It is highly addictive;

Go to the campaign website for information and links to support services.
The target audiences of the campaign are young people aged 14-17 (who are beginning to be exposed to illicit drugs), young people aged 18-25 (who are at greater risk of ice use) and also parents of 14-25 year-olds who are key to reducing drug use through having conversations with their children about the associated risks and harms. Encompassed within these target audiences are specific community groups identified as at greater risk of ice use, including
Indigenous Australians, those in rural and remote communities, and people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (GLBTI).
The Campaign centres around an overall creative, which includes four different scenes, referred to as ‘Office’, ‘Family’, ‘Bugs’ and ‘Hospital ED’.
8

The ‘Office’ scene shows a woman asking a colleague if he has finished a report and he snaps that he doesn’t have it. The boss sees and beckons the man over into his office.
The
‘Family’ scene shows an adult son taking money from his mother’s purse while she tends to a small child. She begs him not to go out and he punches her.
9

The ‘Bugs’ scene describes how ice can make you feel as if bugs are crawling underneath your skin and shows a young woman digging into her forearm with a bobby pin, trying to get them out.
The ‘Hospital ED’ scene shows two police officers escorting a drug-affected young man into a hospital emergency department, where he suddenly and violently attacks hospital staff and the police.
10

There are forty-five and sixty second versions which incorporate all four scenes and open with an emergency doctor describing how he has seen what ice can do.
There are also fifteen second versions which show just one of the four scenes.
Further, there is a fifteen second ‘Taskforce’ TVC which features the Australian
Federal Police Deputy Commissioner of Operations describing that ‘In communities across the country, ice is destroying lives, that’s why we need coordinated action in the areas of health, education and law enforcement through a
National I ce Task Force’. Images from the ‘Hospital ED’ scene are shown as she talks.
The different length video advertisements were shown through different media channels including TV, cinema and digital. There are also digital advertisements based on stills from the overarching TVC shown online, on mobile and via social media.
The Campaign ran from 10 May – 27 June 2015. Television activity was weighted towards the start of the Campaign, with social media, online display, mobile, online video and cinema activity occurring from the second week of the
Campaign onwards.
Research was required to measure the impact of the Campaign against its objectives among the target audiences of young people and parents of young people. The research will be used by the Department to inform the planning of further Campaign activity, or to refine the types of activity used within the
Campaign.

Assess the level of Campaign awareness
 Assess the level of awareness of the Campaign’s key messages
 Assess the credibility of the Campaign’s key messages

Assess attitudes towards ice

Assess knowledge of information and support services
 Assess young peoples’ intentions and behaviours in relation to the use of ice and other illicit drugs

Assess p arents’ intentions and behaviours in relation to talking to their children about drug use
An internet-based survey was conducted among both the youth and parent target audiences of the campaign. The survey design was similar to that used in
11

previous waves of Campaign research (Phase Five (2011-2012) in particular) to allow for direct comparison of results where appropriate. A number of questions were modified to reflect the current Campaign objectives and creative, with some questions deleted and some new questions added. The sample included 2,126 young people aged 14-25 and 1,679 parents of 14-25 year-olds.
Respondents were recruited from online (research only) panels. Fourteen to seventeen year olds were recruited via their parents (who are members of the panel) and with parental permission, and 18-25 year-olds were recruited directly.
Parents of 14-25 year-olds was also recruited directly. In addition, 18-25 year olds were also recruited via their parents if they were still living at home.
Multiple panels were used to help meet quotas for the youth sample with deduplication measures in place to ensure that any respondents who are members of multiple panels may only answer the survey once (e.g. single response per IP address). The contributing panels included: Lightspeed Research/GMI (934 respondents), MyOpinions (643), BA (354) and Pureprofile (195). Similarly for the parent sample, multiple panels were used including: Lightspeed Research/GMI
(1066 respondents), MyOpinions (187), BA (161), Pureprofile (179) and
Research Now (86).
A pilot phase of fieldwork for both the youth and parent survey was conducted from 29-30 June 2015 and no changes were found to be required. The main fieldwork occurred from 1-12 July 2015 for the youth survey and from 1-16 July
2015 for the parent survey. The fieldwork was timed to occur towards the end of the majority of the campaign activity.
The samples for both 14-25 year olds and parents of 14-25 year olds were designed to be nationally representative (and therefore comparable to previous waves of research, albeit, with a broader age group represented than the previous wave in 2011-12 which focused on 15-21 year-olds and parents of 14-
17 year-olds). For both the youth and parent samples, quotas on gender, age, location in terms of state and metro/regional locations were achieved and no weighting was required. The samples also captured a representative proportion of Indigenous Australians, people from a culturally and linguistically diverse
(CALD) background and, among the youth sample, people identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI) (sexual orientation was not asked in the parent survey) (see tables 1 and 2).
12

Table 1: Youth sample structure
Total
Gender
Age
State
Location
Cultural and
Linguistic Diversity
Indigenous
Australians
Sexual Orientation
Female
Male
Other
14-17 years
18-25 years
ACT
NSW
NT
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA
Capital City
Regional
Language other than English spoken at home
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background
Heterosexual/straight
Lesbian/ gay/ bisexual/ transgender/ intersex/ queer/ other
Don't know/prefer not to say n=
2126
1085
1026
154
44
526
198
1432
694
521
15
647
1479
44
684
23
453
81
1770
224
132
%
100%
51%
48%
7%
2%
25%
9%
67%
33%
25%
1%
30%
70%
2%
32%
1%
21%
4%
83%
11%
6%
13

Table 2: Parent sample structure
Total
Gender
Age
State
Location
Cultural and
Linguistic Diversity
Indigenous
Australians
Female
Male
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
65+ years
ACT
NSW
NT
QLD
SA
TAS
VIC
WA
Capital City
Regional
Language other than English spoken at home
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background
108 6%
Both the youth and parent questionnaires were designed in close consultation with the Australian Government Department of Health.
The broad areas included in the youth questionnaire were:

Attitudes towards drugs;

Sources of information about drugs;

Risk of drug use;

Category advertising recall;

Campaign recognition and impact; and

Demographics.
The main areas covered in the parent questionnaire were: n=
1679
857
822
62
618
813
172
14
31
552
8
346
121
29
414
178
1140
539
355
%
100%
48%
51%
4%
37%
48%
10%
1%
2%
33%
0%
21%
7%
2%
25%
11%
68%
32%
21%
14


Discussions with children about illicit drugs;

Sources of information about drugs;

Attitudes towards drugs

Category advertising recall;

Campaign recognition and impact; and

Demographics.
Both questionnaires are available on request.
This report presents key findings from the evaluation of the National Drugs
Campaign 2015. The campaign has been evaluated in reference to its objectives and against some further metrics that did not comprise objectives but do provide additional insight into the Campaign’s impact, among the target audiences of young people and parents.
Statistical tests (one-tailed) were undertaken to establish whether differences between the responses of subgroups within each sample, as well as between the current 2015 phase and Phase Five (2011 –2012) survey, were statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. This means that the differences are not due to the random statistical variation inherent in all data, as they do not overlap within the ‘margins of error’ associated with the results.
In some tables and graphs, total figures shown and/or mentioned in the accompanying text may differ slightly from the apparent sum of their component elements. This is due to the effects of rounding.
15

This section of the report examines awareness of the 2015 National Drugs
Campaign advertising among young people aged 14-25 and parents of 14-25 year olds.
Both young people and parents were asked if they recalled seeing any advertising about illegal drugs since the beginning of 2015. Overall, 53% of young people and 56% of parents recalled any drug advertising, representing a significant increase among both sample groups since the previous wave of the
NDC, and the highest level of recall recorded through NDC evaluation research since 2010 (see Figure 1). It should be noted that, as well as the NDC, State government anti-drug advertising was being run concurrently or recently in a number of states.
Figure 1: Recall of recent illegal drug advertising
Youth 2015
Youth Phase Five - 2011/12
Youth Phase Five - 2010/11
Youth Phase Four - Jun 2010
Youth Benchmark - Feb 2010
35%
38%
44%
45%
53%
Parents 2015 56%
Parents Phase Five - 2011/12 36%
Parents Phase Five - 2010/11 34%
Bases: Youth Feb 2010 (933) Jun 2010 (934) 2010-2011 (1500) 2011-2012 (1500) 2015 (2126)
Parent 2010-2011(1000) 2011-2012 (1000) 2015 (1679)
Question: Have you seen any advertising about illegal drugs since the beginning of 2015?
Recall of anti-drug advertising was notably higher among young people who are classified as being ‘at risk’ of drug use (58% of those at risk cf 44% of those not
16

at risk), as well as young people in regional areas (59% in regional areas cf 51% in metro areas) and parents in regional areas (63% in regional areas cf 53% in metro areas), indicating that recent advertising is reaching at-risk groups.
Respondents who recalled seeing any advertising were asked if they could recall which drugs were mentioned. The vast majority of both youth (80%) and parents
(85%) stated that the advertising was about ice, with no other single drug mentioned by more than 2% of the sample (whether in addition to ice or instead of).
They were also asked to describe the advertising they had seen and, based on these descriptions, 42% of youth and 47% of parents who recalled any advertising positively identified the NDC creative. A further 48% of youth and
39% of parents gave descriptions that described an ice campaign but were not detailed enough to be attributed to a specific campaign. Nineteen per cent of youth and 14% of parents gave descriptions that can positively be attributed to a drugs campaign other than the NDC. These spontaneous recall results are markedly higher than the last wave of the NDC in 2011-2012 (8% of youth and
4% of parents), indicating very strong cut-through this wave.
The most common description of advertising can be attributed to the scene in the
NDC creative titled ‘Hospital ED’ (24% of youth and 34% of parents), though it was described by respondents as ‘violence’, ‘anger’ and ‘aggression’. This particular scene appears to have cut through more strongly than others, with the
‘Family’ scene described by 10% of youth and 12% of parents and ‘Bugs’ described by 6% of youth and 7% of parents.
Respondents who recalled seeing any advertising were also asked to describe the message they thought it had been trying to communicate. Both the youth and parent audiences tended to take out messages centring around associated ice and drug harms and not to do ice and drugs (see Figure 2). Notably, ice is mentioned more frequently than simply ‘drugs’ in general indicating that the messages around this specific drug are cutting through.
17

Figure 2: Spontaneous message takeout from recalled category advertising
Don't do ICE
Warning of ICE usage / Harmful /…
Don't do drugs / Don't do it / Not to…
Drugs are bad / Harmful / Dangerous…
ICE ruins lives
ICE makes you violent / Makes you…
ICE affects family / relationships
ICE is bad
Showing effects of ICE usage
Addictive
Drug affects family / relationships
Effects of drug usage (general)
Illegal drugs
Drugs make you unpredictable / violent
ICE controls you
Warns the society / Drugs are…
Drug controls you
Drug kills
ICE Kills
Report if someone is on drugs / ICE /…
NO / NA / Can't remember / Not Sure
Other
17%
12%
6%
8%
11%
13%
10%
12%
12%
13%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
4%
4%
3%
7%
6%
5%
6%
3%
6%
3%
9%
3%
1%
2%
6%
6%
3%
7%
6%
Youth
Parent
17%
19%
Bases: Seen any advertising since beginning of 2015 Youth 1132 Parent 947
Question: What was the ad trying to say?
Respondents who recalled seeing any advertising were also asked where they had seen it. Among both sample groups, the majority attributed the advertising to television, though there was also some recall associated with online, online TV, social media and catch-up TV, especially among the parent sample (see Figure
3 ). We note that it’s possible that young people don’t distinguish as clearly as parents between ‘TV’ and ‘online TV’ and ‘catch-up TV’ and use ‘TV’ as a generic
18

term, hence it’s possible that these results may mask some of the cut-through via digital channels among the youth audience.
Figure 3 – Channel of recalled advertising
83%
72%
Youth Parents
26%
14%
12%
6%
19%
14%
10% 10%
9% 8% 8% 9% 8% 9% 8% 8%
7%
5% 6%
9%
5%
8%
4% 3% 3%
2% 1% 2% 1% 1%
Bases: Seen any advertising since beginning of 2015 Youth 1132 Parent 947
Question: Where did you see, read or hear the advertising? Please select all that apply to you.
In addition to spontaneous recall of drugs advertising, prompted recognition of the Campaign was also measured; respondents were shown materials from the different advertising executions and asked if they had seen them since the start of 2015. The results indicate that the Campaign has high levels of recognition, with 76% of youth and 78% of parents recalling at least one Campaign element.
Both of these figures are significantly higher than Campaign recognition for the
2011-2012 phase (61% of youth and 62% of parents) and the 2010-2011 phase
(62% of youth and 57% of parents), indicting an effective media buy this year and a creative that is successful at cutting through.
In line with the overall category advertising recall, NDC advertising recognition is higher among youth classified as at-risk of accepting drug offers (80% among those at risk cf 67% of those not at risk) indicating that the Campaign has been successful in reaching this at-risk group. Further, recognition was higher in regional areas among youth (80% regional cf 74% metro) and parents (81% regional cf 77% metro).
19

There was one notable difference in recognition by state, in that it was slightly lower in South Australia/Tasmania 4 among both youth (72%) and parents (71%).
Different elements of the Campaign had differing levels of recognition, shown in
Figure 4. The forty-five second TVC had the highest level of recognition among both audiences (66% of youth and 70% of parents). This TVC is comprised of four scenes which separately form the fifteen second online videos. As such, the online videos aired via digital channels have levels of recognition that are likely to be overinflated due to the same scenes being used as in the TVC, and respondents being unable to distinguish between them. However, it is noteworthy that the scene titled ‘Hospital ED’ had markedly higher levels of recognition than the other online videos. Given that it had a slightly lower media weight than both the ‘Bugs’ and ‘Family’ scenes (though higher than ‘Office’), this particular execution component appears to have cut through more strongly.
Figure 4: Recognition of specific NDC elements
Youth Parents
45s TVC
15s Taskforce TVC
44%
44%
66%
70%
'Office' online video
'Family' online video
'Bugs' online video
'Hospital ED' online video
33%
40%
42%
39%
51%
51%
61%
63%
'Office' digital
'Family' digital
'Bugs' digital
'Hospital ED' digital
23%
21%
28%
25%
26%
24%
33%
30%
Bases: Total Sample Youth 2126 Parents 1679
Question: Have you seen this ad, or a shorter version of it, at any time since the beginning of
2015?
4 These states are combined for analysis purposes in order to produce large enough base sizes for reliable results.
20

Respondents were asked how frequently they consume different media channels, including those through which the Campaign was aired. Young people who recognised the Campaign were significantly more likely to watch free-to-air TV every day or every few days (72% saw Campaign cf 56% did not see it), to watch pay-TV every day or every few days (38% cf 26%); to watch YouTube videos every day or every few days (70% cf 62%), to watch on-demand TV every day or every few days (e.g. Netflix) (30% cf 23%) and to watch catch-up TV online every day or every few days (27% cf 21%). They were also more likely to browse the web via a mobile device every day or every few days (80% cf 70%) though no more likely to browse the web via a computer or to use social media sites.
Parents who recognised the Campaign showed similar media consumption patterns to young people who saw it, compared to those who did not. They were also more likely to watch free-to-air TV every day or every few days (86% saw
Campaign cf 75% did not see it), to watch YouTube videos every day or every few days (32% cf 25%), to watch on-demand TV every day or every few days
(e.g. Netflix) (17% cf 13%) and to watch catch-up TV online every day or every few days (19% cf 13%). They, too, were more likely to browse the web via a mobile device every day or every few days (52% cf 44%) though no more likely to browse the web via a computer and only slightly more likely to use social media sites every day or every few days (63% cf 59%). These results indicate that the ‘television’ and digital video components of the media buy are likely to have been most impactful in reaching both audiences.
In order to evaluate the impact of the Campaign, its perceived message, credibility, effectiveness, relevance and call to action were measured among both audiences. The results shown here are expressed as proportions of the groups who recognised the Campaign.
Respondents were asked to select statements from a list that they thought represented the message the Campaign was trying to communicate. They were able to select multiple statements and the list included the intended messages of the Campaign, as well as some more generic messages about drug use which were not specifically intended to be communicated by the Campaign. The campaign communicates a range of messages strongly, particularly that drawn from the tagline ‘ice destroys lives’ as well as the other key objectives of the campaign including that ice causes physical and mental harm and is addictive
(see Figure 5). The message ' ice is not just a city problem' was more strongly conveyed in regional areas for both youth (42% cf 35% in metro) and parents
(57% cf 45% in metro). There were no notable differences in message take-out according to which element of the Campaign was seen (likely due to the TVC
21

being the most-recognised element and covering the full range of Campaign messages).
Figure 5: Prompted message takeout from the NDC
Youth Parents
Ice destroys lives
89%
91%
Ice can impact your physical and mental health
Ice can damage relationships
Ice users can cause serious harm to others
Ice is addictive
Ice can affect your performance at work
Ice impacts communities
Ice use is not just a city problem
More and more people are taking ice
People should tell the police if they know someone is taking ice
Don’t know
1%
1%
38%
50%
35%
46%
33%
38%
61%
70%
57%
69%
75%
80%
74%
80%
74%
78%
71%
78%
Bases: Seen Campaign Youth 1612 Parents 1314
Question: Thinking about the ads we’ve just shown you, what do you think are the main messages they are trying to get across?
A range of statements were used to test the credibility, effectiveness and relevance of the Campaign, with respondents asked to agree or disagree with
22

them using a five point rating scale (see Figure 6). The campaign scores well on being clear (90% of youth and 92% of parents agree) and effective in getting its message across (87% of youth and 91% of parents agree). It is also held to be credible by the majority of both groups (84% of youth and 91% of parents agree)
It also has relatively high ratings in terms of capturing attention (66% of youth and 73% of parents agree) and imparting new information (64% of youth and
68% of parents agree).
While fewer among both groups found it personally relevant (35% of youth and
37% of parents agree), we note that actual ice use and risk of ice use are low comparatively low and so respondents likely do not perceive it to be personally relevant to themselves.
These results are in line with those for previous waves of the NDC (which used different creative).
Figure 6: Perceived effectiveness, credibility and relevance of the
Campaign
Youth Parent
Are easy to understand
90%
92%
Are effective in explaining how ice can harm you
Are believable
87%
91%
84%
91%
Made me stop and think
Taught me something new
66%
73%
64%
68%
Are relevant to me
35%
37%
Bases: Seen Campaign Youth 1612 Parents 1314
Question: Still thinking about all the ads we showed you, do you agree or disagree that they…
23

Among young people, females were more likely than males to find the Campaign believable (87% of females cf 81% of males) and effective in getting its message across (90% of females cf 83% of males) though males were more likely to find it relevant (39% of males cf 32% of females). There were no significant differences in believability or effectiveness between metro and regional locations, however, those in metro areas were slightly more likely to find the Campaign relevant (37% metro cf 32% regional). There were also some considerable differences in perceived relevance by state, with those in NSW/ACT finding it most relevant
(40%) and those in WA and SA/TAS the least (27% and 29% respectively).
There was little difference in these results between young people classified as at- risk of using drugs and those not at risk. The only significant difference was that those not at-risk of drug use found the Campaign more effective than those at risk (91% not at-risk cf 86% at-risk). There were a number of significant differences among young people who identified as LGBTI, particularly young males in this group. They were considerably less likely to find the Campaign believable (56%), to consider it effective (65%) and relevant (29%). LGBTI females were not significantly different to heterosexual females in terms of these ratings.
To further e valuate the Campaign’s impact, those who saw the Campaign were asked if they had taken any action as a result of having seen it, with appropriate lists of possible actions prompted for each audience. Overall, 94% of youth who saw the Campaign indicated that they had taken som e kind of ‘action’ (see
Figure 7). As is typically the case with public health campaigns, the main actions taken tend to be passive rather than active. In line with the Campaign’s objectives, it has both reinforced existing knowledge about ice and imparted new information, as well as encouraged consideration of the consequences of use and to avoid the drug. Young people considered at-risk of using drugs were more likely than those not at risk to say that they ‘will avoid using ice’ (51% at risk cf
46% not at risk) and that they ‘thought about the consequences of ice use’ (42% at risk cf 35% not at risk). Those not considered at-risk of drug use were more likely than those at risk to feel ‘better informed about ice’ (55% not at risk cf 47% at risk) and to have ‘learnt that ice can be harmful’ (40% not at-risk cf 33% at risk). They were also more likely to have carried out some of the more ‘active’ responses to having seen the campaign including
‘informed others about the dange rs of ice’ (34% not at-risk cf 29% at-risk) and ‘talked to your parents about ice’ (21% not at-risk cf 14% at-risk).
24

Figure 7: Action taken by youth as a result of seeing the Campaign
Reinforced what I already knew about ice
Will avoid using ice 50%
56%
48% Better informed about ice
Thought about the consequences of ice use
Learnt that ice can be harmful
Informed others about dangers of ice 30%
35%
40%
Talked to your parents about ice
Looked for more information or help about ice
Stopped or reduced ice use
16%
12%
9%
None of these 6%
Other 1%
Bases: Total Sample Youth 2126
Question: Thinking about when you saw this advertising, would you say it changed what you think or do about ice in any of the following ways?
Among parents who saw the Campaign, 69% took some kind of action, or intend to take action, as a result. This figure should not be directly compared to the proportion of youth who took action as a result of seeing the Campaign, as the list of actions prompted were notably more ‘active’ than the list for the youth sample (see Figure 8). Given this, the level of action among parents was high, particularly as behavioural outcomes were not an objective of the Campaign.
Most commonly, parents talked to their child about the Campaign (36%) with a significant proportion showing them the advertisements (23%).
25

Figure 8: Action taken by parents as a result of seeing the Campaign
Talked to my child about it
None of these
36%
28%
Showed my child the ads
Intend to talk to my child about it
Talked to my friends/other parents about it
Looked for more information about ice
23%
22%
21%
18%
Intend to show my child the ads
Intend to talk to my friends/other parents about it
Sought help with ice
17%
14%
8%
Don’t know 3%
Something else – please specify
2%
Bases: Seen Campaign Parents 1314
Question: Thinking about when you saw this advertising, would you say it prompted you to do any of the following?
The Campaign aimed to influence attitudes towards ice, particularly with regard to communicating the risks and harms associated with it. Respondents were asked to name (unprompted) the drug or drugs they believe to be most harmful.
A majority of both the youth and parent samples cited ice (or crystal meth) (59% and 60% respectively), which was the most common answer by a significant margin. The next most-cited drug among youth was heroin (23%) while for parents it was to state that ‘all drugs are harmful’ (19%), closely followed by
26

heroin (18%). Those who recognised the Campaign were more likely than those who did not to name ice among both young people (61% saw Campaign cf 52% did not see it) and parents (61% saw Campaign cf 55% did not see it). These results indicate that th ere’s a high level of community awareness of ice as a dangerous drug (likely due to the significant amount of media coverage it has received) and that the Campaign has served to increase this awareness.
Respondents were also asked to state their level of agreement with a number of statements about ice. These spanned possible ‘positive’ perceptions of the drug, its manufacture, and associated risks and harms. A ten-point agreement scale was used in order to replicate previous waves of research, with ratings of 1 to 4 classified as ‘disagree’, ratings of 5 to 7 as ‘neutral’ and rating of 8 to 10 as
‘agree’ (see Figure 9). In general, agreement with positive statements about ice was low among both sample groups though there was a higher level of agreement that ice ‘increases alertness and energy’ than with ‘ice is a fun drug’ or ‘a good drug to share with friends’. However, comparing these latter two statements with the 2011-2012 research for the youth sample shows an increase of 6 percentage points in agreement that ‘ice is a fun drug’ (from 3% to 9%).
While it was not a key message of the Campaign, there was a fairly strong perception among both groups that ice is ‘made using dangerous substances or chemicals ’ and that ‘you don’t know where it has been made’. These perceptions have decreased among youth since 2011-2012 by 6 and 10 percentage points respectively; during this phase of the Campaign these were key messages although were communicated about the drug ecstasy, though likely were inferred to ice as well. Similarly, the perception that ice ‘is a clean drug’, while still low, has increased slightly by 4 percentage points.
There is generally high agreement among both samples with statements relating to the risks and harms associated with ice. A number of these statements were introduced to the research this wave to reflect the Campaign’s messages, however, for those that were included in both the 2011-12 waves and the current wave (‘can lead to insomnia’, ‘can cause memory problems’, ‘is addictive’, ‘can lead to long-term health problems
’), there have been no significant changes in agreement among the youth sample at the overall level.
27

Figure 9: Agreement with attitudinal statements about ice
Youth
Increases alertness and energy
Parent
34%
39%
Is a fun drug
Is a good drug to share with friends
Is made using dangerous substances or chemicals
You don’t know where it has been made
9%
9%
6%
5%
76%
83%
70%
73%
Is a clean drug
7%
6%
Can lead to long-term health problems
Can cause serious harm to a person who takes it
Is addictive
Can make a person aggressive or violent
People who take it can cause harm to others
Can have unpredictable effects
Can make a person paranoid
Can trigger serious mental illness
Can make a person depressed
Can cause memory problems
Causes itching and scratching
Can lead to insomnia
81%
89%
80%
87%
80%
89%
79%
89%
79%
87%
78%
88%
76%
84%
75%
84%
66%
76%
56%
54%
61%
47%
57%
71%
Only causes problems if used regularly
24%
25%
Bases: Total Sample Youth 2126 Parents 1679
Question: Thinking about when you saw this advertising, would you say it changed what you think or do about ice in any of the following ways?
Across the range of statements, there are some notable differences between young people who recognised the Campaign and those who did not. There is greater disagreement that ice is ‘fun’ among those who recognised the Campaign
(68% cf 63%) and that ice is a ‘good drug to share with friends’ (80% cf 76%)
28

though no real difference in agreement with these statements. Those who saw the Campaign were also more likely to agree that ice ‘increases alertness and energy ’ (36% cf 29%). There was slightly more agreement among young people who saw the Campaign that ice
‘is made using dangerous substances/chemicals’,
(77% cf 71%), and a higher level of disagreement that ice is ‘a clean drug’ (77% cf 72%). While specific messaging around these areas was not part of the creative, it appears to have been inferred. Those who recognised the Campaign were more likely than those who did not to express agreement with all of the statements relating to risks and harms associated with ice, with differences in the proportion agreeing ranging between three and thirteen percentage points. The largest differences were observed for ‘causes itching and scratching’ (57% saw
Campaign cf 44% did not see it), ‘can make a person aggressive or violent’ (81% cf 72%) and ‘can trigger serious mental illness’ (77% cf 68%). Similarly, parents who saw the Campaign were more likely to disagree with ‘positive’ statements about ice, more likely to agree with all the statements relating to the harms associated with ice use and that it is made using dangerous substances or chemicals. These results clearly indicate that the Campaign has been effective in communicating the risks and harms associated with the use of ice to both the youth and parent audiences.
The youth sample is asked how likely they would be to accept different illicit drugs if offered them by a friend, in a situation where that friend was using the drug . Those who answer ‘definitely say yes’, ‘probably say yes’ and ‘probably say no’ are classified as ‘at risk’ of using that particular drug. The results for 2015 are shown for the full sample of 14-25 year-olds and also for 14-21 year-olds only, in order to be more directly comparable to previous waves (see Figure 10). The results show that there has been a notable increase in youth at risk of accepting offers of illicit drugs across the full range of drugs but most particularly cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine. The increase for ice is the least pronounced. These increases tend to come from an increase in people answering ‘probably say no’
(a lower level of risk). These results indicate that, while the National Drug
Campaign did not run any advertising between 2012 and the 2015 Campaign, risk of drug use has increased.
29

Figure 10: Risk of accepting offers of illicit drugs among youth
28%
35%
32%
25%
Phase Four (Feb 2010)
Phase Four (Jun 2010)
Phase Five (2010-2011)
Phase Five (2011-2012)
2015 (14-21 years)
2015 (14-25 years)
14%
13%
17%
15%
14%
11%
10%
9%
8%
9%
6%
4%
5%
6%
7%
9%
15%
12%
8% 8%
5%
4% 4% 4%
7%
8%
Cannabis Ecstasy Speed Ice Cocaine Heroin
Bases: Total Sample Youth Feb 2010 (933) Jun 2010 (934) 2010-2011 (1500) 2011-2012 (1500)
2015 (2126)
Question: For each drug please indicate whether, if a friend were to offer you this drug in a situation where they were using it, you would definitely say yes and take it, probably say yes, probably say no, or definitely say no? (‘At risk’ = definitely say yes and take it, probably say yes, probably say no)
Young males were at greater risk than females of accepting offers of ice (11% males cf 6% females) and those aged 18-25 were at higher risk than those aged
14-17 (10% 18-25 cf 6% 14-17). Notably, those in capital cities were at greater risk than those in regional areas of accepting offers of ice (10% capital cities cf
6% regional) indicating that it is important to continue targeting metro areas as well as regional with anti-drug messaging. Young people who identified as LGBTI were at greater risk than those identifying as heterosexual (11% LGBTI cf 8% heterosexual). However, there was a significant disparity between the genders within the LGBTI group with 17% of young men and 7% of young women at risk of taking ice, indicating that gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex men are an important group to target.
Across all drugs, there was a marked difference in risk of use by age group (see
Figure 11). Those aged 14-17 were at lower risk than those aged 18-21 and 22-
25 of accepting offers of all illicit drugs, as may be expected. For some drugs, there was little difference in the level of risk between 18-21 and 22-25 year-olds,
30

however, the latter group stood out as being at greater risk of using prescription drugs (not prescribed for them), speed, cocaine and ice. The 22-25 year-old age group has not been a primary target in previous waves of NDC advertising, but these results suggest that they are an important group to continue to target, particularly with messages relating to class A drugs.
Figure 11: Risk of accepting offers of illicit drugs by age group
51%
2015 (14-17 years)
2015 (18-21 years)
2015 (22-25 years)
25%
28%
22%
16%
14%
25%
22%
14%
21%
18%
11%
19%
13%
10%
20%
14%
9%
12%
6%
8%
5%
Bases: Youth Age 14-17yrs 647 Age 18-21yrs 730 Age 22-25yrs 749
Question: For each drug please indicate whether, if a friend were to offer you this drug in a situation where they were using it, you would definitely say yes and take it, probably say yes, probably say no, or definitely say no? (‘At risk’ = definitely say yes and take it, probably say yes, probably say no)
It was not an objective of this Campaign to encourage parents to discuss drugs with their children, however, behaviours and intentions pertaining to this were measured in order to provide continuity with previous waves of research. Overall
63% of parents of 14-25 year-olds said they have talked to their child(ren) about
31

drugs in the last 2 months. There was a relationship between age of parent and likelihood to have talked to their children about drugs, likely also related to the age of the children (72% aged 44 and under cf 59% aged 45-54 cf 50% aged
55+). Parents who recognised the Campaign were significantly more likely to have talked to their children about drugs (67% saw Campaign cf 52% did not see it). This indicates that the Campaign acted as a trigger for these conversations between parents and children; a positive if unintended effect.
Parents were also asked whether they intended to talk to their children about illegal drugs in the next 2 months. Half (50%) indicated that they did intend to, but a high proportion (26%) said that they ‘didn’t know’. This suggests that these conversations tend to arise naturally, rather than being planned, likely when something prompts them, including anti-drug advertising. Again, parents who recognised the Campaign were more likely than those who didn’t to intend to talk to their children about drugs in the next 2 months (52% saw Campaign cf 40% did not see it).
Parents were also asked whether their children had ever asked about illegal drugs and, if so, how they responded. Sixty percent of parents said that their child had asked about illegal drugs, which was also significantly higher among parents who recognised the Campaign than those who didn’t (63% saw
Campaign cf 47% did not see it). Assuming that families saw the advertising together, this suggests that the Campaign is effective in prompting conversations about drugs initiated by both parents and children.
The majority (79%) of parents whose children had asked about illegal drugs responded by explaining the risks to them and this was by far the most common response from a prompted list (see Figure 12). Around half (49%) told their children never to take drugs, with other common responses being to discuss the differences between different drugs (46%), to explain why some people choose to take them (44%) and to ask if they had tried them (41%). Those who recognised the Campaign were more likely to have explained the potential risks
(80% saw Campaign cf 72% did not see it), to have discussed differences between different drugs (48% cf 39%) and to have described their own experiences with illegal drugs (20% cf 15%).
32

Figure 12
: Parents’ response when child asked about illegal drugs
Explained the potential risks 79%
Told them never to take them
Discussed differences between different drugs
Explained why some people choose to take them
Asked if they had tried them
Described own experiences with illegal drugs
Felt unprepared/unable to respond
19%
41%
49%
46%
44%
5%
Referred them to someone else 4%
Avoided the conversation 3%
Something else – please specify
2%
Don’t know
1%
Bases: Total Sample Parents 1679
Question: How did you respond when your child asked about illegal drugs?
In order to understand the role that the Campaign has played in educating young people and parents about drugs, both audiences were asked about sources of information through which they find out about illegal drugs. For young people, the top three sources of information were lessons at school (57%), talking to friends
(54%) and anti-drug advertising (51%) (see Figure 13). For parents, they were anti-drug advertising (45%), media articles (43%) and government/official websites (40%).
33

Figure 13: Sources of information used to find out about illegal drugs
Youth Parent
57%
Lessons at school
54%
Talking to friends
32%
Anti-drug advertising
45%
51%
Media Articles
43%
40%
Talking to parents
TV shows & movies
Government / official websites
39%
29%
35%
40%
27%
Watching content online
15%
Personal Experience
Online forums & communities
25%
24%
20%
23%
Info leaflets / printed materials
38%
Other websites
20%
20%
Info sent from child's school
17%
Health Professional / Work related
3%
1%
News
Other
None of these
4%
2%
3%
4%
Bases: Total Sample Youth 2126 Parents 1679
Question: How do you find out information about illegal drugs, their effects and possible dangers?
Young people were also asked how influential each source of information they used was in terms of shaping their views and opinions about drugs. While talking to parents is not the most-used source of drug information, it is the most influential with 61% sa ying it has a ‘big influence’. Anti-drug advertising is also
34

felt to be influential
(49% say a ‘big influence), as much so as lessons at school
(51% say a ‘big influence’). These results serve to underline the importance of ongoing anti-drug advertising targeted at this cohort, and also the importance of encouraging conversations between children and parents about drugs.
One of the aims of the Campaign was to raise awareness of the Campaign website as a source of more information and links to support services. Both youth and parents were asked if they were aware of the National Drugs Campaign website; 39% of young people and 41% of parents had heard of it. For both groups, this was markedly higher among those who had seen the Campaign
(Youth: 45% saw Campaign cf 19% did not see it; Parents: 47% saw Campaign cf 20% did not see it), indicating that the Campaign has been broadly successful in this regard. Among parents, those in capital cities were more likely than those in regional areas to be aware of the website (45% cf 35%), despite the fact that recognition of the Campaign was higher in regional areas. It is not clear why this particular message did not cut through as strongly, but may be due to different weighting of the different Campaign elements between capital city and regional locations.
Both youth and parents were asked what types of information and resources about illegal drugs would be useful for people like themselves. Both groups showed an interest in a wide range of information and resources (see Figure 14) though with youth notably less interested in printed materials. Parents would most value signs/symptoms of drug use (65%) and factual information about different types of drugs (64%). While they are keen to access information online
(59%), many are also interested in printed materials (57%).
35

Figure 14: Information or resources about illegal drugs that would be useful
Youth Parent
Signs/symptoms that someone may be using drugs
How to help someone that is using drugs
Facts and figures about drug use
Factual information about the different types of drugs
Interviews/accounts of real life stories of drug users
Online information about the risks of drug use
Short videos (e.g. YouTube) about the risks of drug use
57%
65%
56%
59%
53%
54%
52%
64%
50%
52%
50%
59%
46%
41%
Printed information about the risks of drug use
29%
49%
Guidelines on talking to children about illegal drugs
57%
Something else
Don’t know
3%
2%
7%
4%
Bases: Total Sample Youth 2126 Parents 1679
Question: What types of information or resources about illegal drugs do you think would be useful to people like yourself?
Parents were also asked where they believe that young people access drugs.
Respondents cited a wide range of potential sources of drugs that young people might be exposed to, with parties (82%) being the area of most concern (see
Figure 15). Notably, the internet (32%) is considered significantly less likely to be a source of drugs than ‘real world’ events and connections.
36

Figure 15: Where parents believe young people access drugs
At parties
At clubs or pubs
From school friends
At music festivals/concerts
From friends outside school
On the street
On holidays/abroad
65%
63%
70%
68%
82%
46%
39%
Via the internet
Somewhere else – please specify 2%
32%
Don’t know 2%
Bases: Total Sample Parents 1679
Question: Where do you think young people are most likely to access or be offered illegal drugs?
37

Assess the level of Campaign awareness
The Campaign achieved a high level of recall at the category level and of prompted recognition among both youth and parents, particularly compared to previous waves of the NDC, likely due to the addition of TV media buy which had not been included in the Phase Five waves of the Campaign. The highest levels of awareness were among youth at-risk of drug use and also people in regional areas, in line with the critical target audiences for the Campaign. TV was the dominant medium through which people recalled seeing the Campaign but a positive level of cut-through of digital channels, particularly for parents, was also indicated. Results suggest that the TV media buy, particularly free-to-air but also including the digital TV media achieved the most cut-through, with web-based and social media placements having had limited impact.
Assess the level of awareness of the Campaign’s key messages
There was high awareness of the harms associated with ice among both youth and parents and these appear to have been increased by exposure to the
Campaign. The Campaign has served to maintain levels of awareness of the harms associated with ice measured in the previous waves at the overall level, with awareness having dropped among those who did not see the Campaign compared to the 2011-2012 research. The violence and aggression, in the
‘psychosis’ scene seems to have cut through particularly strongly to communicate the harms of ice use.
There is also a high level of understanding among both youth and parents that ice is addictive, which has also been lifted slightly by the Campaign.
Awareness of the Campaign website was moderate at the overall level but it was considerably higher among those who recognised the Campaign, indicating that it has increased awareness of it.
Assess the credibility of the Campaign’s key messages
The messages were felt to be credible and effective by both youth and parents though as is typical in NDC evaluation, fewer find them personally relevant. The ratings are in line with previous waves of the NDC.
38

Assess attitudes towards ice
The campaign has served to increase negative disposition towards ice among both youth and parents, though predominantly swaying those who were unsure towards a negative opinion. The Campaign also influenced attitudes that were beyond its objectives, such as reducing perception that ice is a fun drug and increasing perception that it is made using dangerous substances.
Assess knowledge of information and support services
Young people cite school lessons, talking to friends and anti-drug advertising as key information sources for finding out about illegal drugs. Parents also cite antidrug advertising, along with media articles and government/official websites.
Both groups showed significant interest in a wide range of types of information and resources about drugs, indicating that detailed and wide-ranging information is likely to be sought.
Assess young peoples’ intentions and behaviours in relation to the use of ice and other illicit drugs
A greater proportion of young people were at risk of accepting offers of a range of illicit drugs than in previous waves of the NDC, though this is less pronounced for ice. It is difficult to attribute the small increase in risk of ice use to the
Campaign as it tends to reach those at greater risk of drug use. This was particularly true of 22-25 year-olds who were at greater risk of using a range of class A drugs, including speed, cocaine and ice and also prescription medications.
Almost all young people reported positive actions and intentions as a result of seeing the Campaign, predominantly around reinforcing existing knowledge about ice and imparting new information, as well as encouraging them to avoid ice and think about its consequences.
Assess parents’ intentions and behaviours in relation to talking to their children about drug use
Almost two thirds of parents reported having spoken to their child about illicit drugs in the past two months (which was not an objective of the Campaign), with this proportion higher among those who recognised the Campaign. The results suggest that these conversations are likely to arise spontaneously, perhaps when triggered by something such as anti-drug advertising, rather than being planned.
A similar proportion of parents also reported that their children had asked them about illegal drugs at some point, and parents tend to explain the risks of drug use as the most common response.
39

Aside from achieving its specific objectives, a number of these research results have indicated the value and validity of the NDC as a component of the National
Drugs Strategy. The period between the 2012 ecstasy campaign and the 2015 ice campaign has been one of non-activity for the NDC and during that time the risk of drug use among young people has increased markedly and awareness of the harms associated with ice decreased (lifted again by the Campaign). While the NDC has tended to focus on one particular drug each wave, there are indications that the messages have a halo effect on other drugs, particularly those in the same class or those with similar effects. This research has also demonstrated that anti-drug advertising is an important and influential source of information about drugs for both young people and their parents, and can be as influential as school lessons.
The research showed a strong sentiment in the community that ice is dangerous and that it is causing concern. Given the reported increases in ice use, this was clearly the appropriate choice for this phase of the NDC. However, we note that the risk of drug use among young people has increased across a wide range of drugs and ice has seen one of the lowest increases in risk of use since 2012.
The risk of cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy use have increased considerably and the risk of use of prescription medications and synthetic cannabis (tested for the first time this wave) have been shown to be considerable.
In previous phases the NDC has not targeted the 22-25 year-olds age group, however the research this wave indicates that this group are at greater risk of drug use, particularly of class A drug use. While it is widely accepted that communicating the dangers of drugs to young people before they reach the age of greatest risk of use is beneficial, this research indicates that the effect of those messages may decrease over time when they are not reinforced (the current cohort of 22-25 yearolds would have been within the target age group of previous phases of the NDC).
The research has also shown that young men who identify as gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex are at significantly increased risk of using a range of drugs.
The inclusion of television in the media buy during this phase of the Campaign, in contrast to Phase Five (2010-2011 and 2011-2012), has boosted its reach and cut through considerably. B oth the ‘traditional’ and digital TV media buy has been shown to be effective in reaching both the youth and parent target audiences.
This research has demonstrated that discussions about illegal drugs between parents and children are highly influential i n the formation of young people’s attitudes towards drugs. The research further suggests that these conversations are not necessarily
‘planned’ by parents but (also) take place when they arise naturally, in some cases triggered by anti-drug advertising. Children also initiate these conversations and while most parents are able to respond, this research is unable to comment on the quality of those conversations. However, parents and young people showed considerable interest in further information resources, with parents tending particularly towards specific and detailed information.
40