Contracting Office Address: Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD), Division of Procurement, 200 Third Street, Avery 5F, Parkersburg WV, 26101. Description: National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Evaluation and Recommendations The Bureau of Public Debt, on behalf of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), seeks comments and recommendations regarding a strategy for evaluating the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign (the Campaign). Commentators are prohibited from communicating with ONDCP regarding this request for comments. Discussions with ONDCP may jeopardize any proposal submitted by or on behalf of your organization in response to future related solicitations. Interested parties are advised not to submit proposals in response to this RFI. The Government intends to release a request for proposals for the study in the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2008. The ONDCP Reauthorization of 2006, Public Law 109-469, Section 709 requires the Campaign to be evaluated in two ways. The “Testing and Evaluation of Advertising” is not part of this requirement. The second requirement is for evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the Campaign. The Campaign is to be evaluated in a manner that enables consideration of whether the national media campaign has contributed to reduction of illicit drug use among youth. The effectiveness of the national media campaign shall be evaluated based on data from— 1. The Monitoring the Future Study published by the Department of Health and Human Services; 2. The Attitude Tracking Study published by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PATS); and 3. The National Survey on Drug Abuse and Health (formerly National Household Survey on Drug Abuse). 4. Data from other relevant studies or publications, including tracking and evaluation data collected according to marketing and advertising industry standards, may be included if approved by the COTR. The Campaign has not had an overall evaluation since 2004. Many challenges are expected in evaluating the Campaign. These include: 1. The Campaign was launched before there was opportunity for a baseline measure and because this is a national campaign designed to reach youth and parents nationwide, no control group is feasible. 2. Other influences on youth drug-using behaviors, such as school-based drug education programs, community drug prevention efforts, the pro-drug movement and pro-drug influences on teens’ social and technological environment are difficult to measure, much less to control, therefore attribution of changes in behavior over time are difficult to attribute to the Campaign or to any other single strategy. 3. Although existing cross-sectional surveys are of value in tracking changes in youth knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, including expose to anti-drug messages over time, they do not include measures specific to this Campaign so they cannot be used to attribute attitudinal or behavioral changes to the Campaign. 4. As the annual appropriations for the Campaign have declined dramatically, the resources necessary to field a large-scale evaluation are rapidly diminishing. 5. The required methamphetamine campaign essentially adds a third target audience – youth adults – thus adding further complications to a comprehensive evaluation. 6. Measure of media exposure is increasingly complex. Self-reported exposure to anti-drug messages is known to be unreliable, especially because teens most interested in drugs are more likely to be attentive to both pro and anti-drug messages, and today’s media world is increasingly fragmented with dynamic shifts in use of the TV and the internet, with much simultaneous exposure (multi-tasking) occurring, especially among youth. In developing its strategy, the government would like comments on the following questions: (1) How can existing formative and process evaluation procedures be improved and possibly used to strengthen the overall evaluation? Are these the best formative and process evaluation procedures? Are there new procedures from either industry or academia that could improve the evaluation? (2) What improvement and/or expansion of the PATS should be considered for outcome evaluation purposes? (3) What are the best methods to measure actual advertising exposure, given apparent problems with self-reported media exposure? (4) What are the strengths and limitations of survey methods that rely on the Internet or other newer technologies? Are such methods appropriate evaluation tools for this campaign? (5) Given the congressional requirement that the campaign address methamphetamine use (which has declined rapidly among youth in recent years and is largely a regional problem), as well as the core target audiences of youth and parents, what should be the priority for evaluation, given limitations of funds? (6) What factors outside the campaign's control, such as exposure to other anti- and (especially) pro-drug messaging through the media (including internet, social networking sites and music) should be monitored? And if they should be monitored, what are the best methods? (7) What effects size over what timeframe should be expected from a campaign of this size and scope? What impact does that have on key issues such as sample size and statistical power and therefore on costs? (8) What safeguards against unintentional (undesirable) normative (counterproductive) effects should be included in evaluation design? What other theoretical "boomerang" results should be monitored (e.g., reactance)? How? (9) How should campaign success be defined? Should a sub-population of youth (e.g., high sensation seekers) be the target audience rather than all youth? Should youth be segmented by drug use intention status (e.g., committed users, committed non-users and non-committed youth) rather than by other variables? If so, should the evaluation instrument be able to capture such segments as well as the youth population as a whole? If so, what are implications for design, sampling and costs? (10) Should the underlying theory of the campaign, Theory of Reasoned Action, be reviewed or reconsidered? What competing theories are worthy of consideration as a basis for campaign operations and evaluations? (11) What additional recent literature should be reviewed? (12) Would your firm be interested in pursing a contract to provide the evaluation as described above? (13) Do you currently perform similar evaluation services for federal agencies and/or national campaigns? If so, please provide contract information. (14) Do you have suggestions concerning the language of the required services to improve clarity, streamline proposal preparation and promote interest from vendors in this acquisition approach? A website has been established to provide materials pertinent to this requirement, including future requests for proposals. To request a password, complete the form found at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/utilities/contact_rfc.html A logon id and password will be emailed to you. An expert panel will convene the week of June 23, 2008 to discuss the questions listed above. The names of the panel members and a transcript from the panel meeting will be posted on the website as soon as it is available. Responses: Responses shall include a cover sheet identifying your company’s name, address, telephone number, point of contact, email address, DUNS#, and whether your company is a large or small business. Identify if your company is an 8(a) concern, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business and/or women-owned small business. State if your company is interested in and has the capacity to conduct research of the type cited above. Responses shall be in Microsoft Office compatible documents and emailed to
[email protected] by 9:00 a.m. Eastern time July 24, 2008. The subject line shall be RFI-NDC-08-0033. Questions shall be directed to: Lisa Gossett, Contract Specialist
[email protected] Telephone: 304-480-7213 – Point of Contact Lisa Gossett, Contract Specialist, Phone 304-480-7213, Fax (304) 480-7204, Email
[email protected] Gina Hanna, Contracting Officer, Phone 304-480-7181, Fax (304) 480-7204, Email
[email protected] Place of Performance Address: Postal Code: County: USA