Better Living Through Advertising?

[pzarquon]

Anti-poverty money used to buy ads
Legislators question whether a $1 million anti-drug campaign is proper use of funds
Richard Borreca, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Tuesday, January 18, 2005

State legislators are questioning whether $1 million originally intended for anti-poverty programs was properly spent in an anti-drug and alcohol abuse publicity campaign being run out of Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona's office. But the Lingle administration contends federal funding guidelines allow the money to be used for the anti-drug campaign, which features decathlete Bryan Clay, singer Jasmine Trias and surfer Bethany Hamilton...

"Are you saying that advertising is better than programs?" [Sen. Willie] Espero said. "Why aren't we putting more counselors in the schools instead of having a nice, slick Madison Avenue campaign? We don't need to pat ourselves on the back like the lieutenant governor."

Actually, there's a lot of detail in the story, but I'm having trouble sorting it out. (Though overall it's just another case of bureaucratic bungling, but what else is there to expect of government?) I think what I'm reading is, federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds - up to $98 million a year - are being used in ways that may not "help poor families, promote self-sufficiency through job training and marriage, prevent unwanted pregnancies and encourage the formation of two-parent families."

Lingle previously put $500,000 of TANF money into the state's culture and the arts program, after an outcry over her cutting the Legislature's budgeted $1 million in half. While some of the funds went to "youth service centers," now we're learning that TANF funds are also being used for the $1 million ad campaign.

Even if you can say an "anti-drug and alcohol abuse publicity campaign" serves TANF goals (Communications Pacific and the local media are sure less poor), I think it's interesting that it's the state Department of Human Services that's involved here, and not the state Department of Health (which is already active in similar campaigns).

Obviously, $1 million could have gone pretty far for IHS and other programs already feeling the crunch. And those programs are proven to have improved real people's lives, compared to the effectiveness of anti-anything ad campaigns.

[Miulang]

Re: Better Living Through Advertising?

When I first read that story this morning, I too, went "huuuh?!" But then I thought that the one way Lingle could "defend" this expenditure is by assuming that the majority of substance abusers are "poor", then spending $1 million on an anti-drug campaign could be justified.

Except maybe the ads could have said something like, "Drugs cost a lot of money. Use your money to help your family buy food, not to shoot up". And haven't you ever heard the phrase, "It pays to advertise?"

Of course it's a fallacy to believe that only poor people use drugs and alcohol.

Miulang