Our campaign was a drugs campaign our main aim was to inform people on drugs and what effects it can have and to not stereotype drug users as they can be anyone. M2- Positive influences I felt our group were very well prepared as we had a good use of resources. This included plenty of leaflets to give out on drugs to inform people on the effectiveness on drugs. We also had a laptop with the Talk to Frank game on it available for people to play, and other drugs game activities that were available for people to take part in. We also gave out questionnaires and cakes which rewarded those for taking part.
We also had plenty of space to set up the table and all the activities. This was important as not having enough space would have meant not being able to set up all the activities we made. We also, had plenty of time as we had a good time slot of 2 hours between 11 – 1 to implement the campaign. This gave more time for us to hand out questionnaires and inform and teach more people on the effects of drugs. We all took part equally in the campaign as we were involved in the stereotyping activity where we all attached signs to us asking “do you think I take drugs? where we asked people with regarding what we looked to like to whether we took drugs or not.
This involved us dressing up in particular clothes which seemed to be very effective rather than showing pictures of people. I believe we also taught lots to people as many people were shocked at the information gave to them especially about the “legal highs activity”. Negative influences I felt we didn’t all equally participate in preparation as the questionnaire and research I made were not used and a different questionnaire was made.
This in effect made it seem as if my contribution was not necessary. I also, felt that I didn’t take part in setting up the campaign as the presentation tasks went to other group members. However, the campaign involved dressing up as characters and I believe that we all did a good job of dressing up except certain members of the group didn’t dress up as they should of as originally, we had the plan of someone dressing up in a suit to show that your appearance doesn’t affect whether taking drugs or not.
This was important as not only were we raising awareness we were teaching about tereotypes. Also, the people that came to the campaign didn’t engage in all activities as we hoped as there was so many to take part in and so much information to give out. Also, our target audience were teenagers as there was evidence most drug users were around this age However, mostly adults came. I felt we had a limited audience and not as many people as we thought came to the campaign and a lot of the people had learning disabilities in which we weren’t prepared for and didn’t cater for.
M3 – Ethical issues One of the main ethical issues in our campaign was confidentiality. Confidentiality is important as during the campaign someone may come forwards and confide in you about drugs or there drug intake and it is important that confidentiality is not breached and that person’s name is not discussed and their privacy is kept. As we gave out questionnaires, they were kept anonymous so therefore, all information received from the campaign can be kept confidential as one of the questions was “Do you know anyone that takes drugs” which although this was a closed question it was quite personal and anyone answering might of felt uncomfortable if the questionnaire was to ask your name.
This then links to safe guarding. During the campaign no one came forward with any information that could of lead them to be unsafe However, it was important that information we gave out was correct and that we weren’t giving false information which could lead someone to danger when taking drugs. This I felt we did successfully as all research given out was from drug websites such as Talk to Frank. Also, other ethical issues include choice and own beliefs. I believe that when giving out information we didn’t preach any of our own beliefs to anyone. It was completely factual.
As this could of lead someone to feel uncomfortable as everybody has the right to choose whether they take drugs or not and if it is important that when teaching that you are not preaching your beliefs about people taking drugs as this could lead to offending someone who is taking them. Finally, it is important to not ask any inappropriate questions as this could lead to someone feeling uncomfortable. All personal questions that needed to be asked during our campaign were on an anonymous questionnaire which didn’t involve any questioning from anybody from our group.
Therefore, making people feel comfortable in answering. Other questions asked by us were “do you think I look like the type of person that takes drugs? ” as we were dressed up as characters. However, this question was asked after we explained that we were dressed up as characters as part of the campaign so people felt comfortable in answering without offending. Also, the question “would you like a cake? ” for those who didn’t want to take part in any of the activities. D2 – During our campaign we gave out questionnaires after people took part in the activities.
However, only 32 people answered the questionnaire. According to the questionnaire 22 people out of 32 knew someone who takes drugs that left only ten people who didn’t know anyone who took drugs. According to the Shropshire star “16 local Shrewsbury men had a powerful and overbearing’ influence on others in the drugs chain and was said to be taking ? 15,000 a month from the trade. ” “Phoenix Car centre was aware of the extent of drugs operation and played significant part in getting drugs to the street of Shrewsbury under orders from other people.
Some of these men are parents to teenagers in Shrewsbury and therefore, it is possible that some of the people that filled out the questionnaire knew these men. http://www. shropshirestar. com/news/2013/03/03/how-police-smashed-shropshire-drugs-cartel/ Also, 28 out of 32 people were made more aware of the effects of drugs after the campaign whereas only 4 people didn’t. This could of meant that they already knew about the effects drugs had on someone or they didn’t feel out campaign gave much information on the effects drugs have one someone. However, more than three quarters did find out more about the effects of drugs which is positive.
This could suggest that existing campaigns aren’t using the correct technique as we did to inform people on the effects of drugs. Talk to Frank is a website that only offers online information and a call centre in which people are able to access to talk about drugs. However, although our campaign used most of the Talk to Frank information we implemented it in a different way which was more effective to informing people on the effects of drugs. “Since 2011 the Talk to Frank website has had a 6% increase in feedback” Therefore, It could suggest that people are using the website a lot more than previously.
This could be why some people didn’t learn anymore about the effects of drugs and as our campaign was implemented directly through explaining we were able to teach more people about the effects. http://www. clear-uk. org/talk-to-frank-is-back/ 29 out of 32 people found out more information about drugs after the campaign was implemented. This meant that only 3 people didn’t learn anything from the campaign. This could have meant that they already knew or that our campaign wasn’t very informative. However 29 people did find it informative, which is more than 3 quarters of the people that were involved.
Therefore, I feel as though our campaign did inform people well. Also, when questioned how useful the campaign was statistics show that 19 people thought our campaign was really good 11 people thought it was good and only 2 people thought it was average. And nobody felt our campaign was poor or really poor. Therefore, more than half thought out campaign was really good and useful and the rest thought it was good or average. This is positive results. Overall, our campaign results are very positive. This means that our campaign was very beneficial.
I feel that our campaign went really well due to the positive feedback that we got of the audience. This is proved with results from our questionnaire which we gave to the audience to get their personal opinions on how well our campaign was to them. When giving out the questionnaire I felt we were present and observant when the questionnaire was filled out. Therefore, I feel that the results we got back from the questionnaire may be slightly warped due to people not wanting to be judged or questioned about their answers if they were negative as although it was anonymous it was very overt.
Other campaigns use the questionnaire online and get feedback from the public, such as the Talk to Frank website and if I were to do the campaign again I would allow people to step aside to fill in their questionnaire and ask them to put it into a box I feel this covert way of gathering information is much better as it gives the public privacy which makes them able to write down their real thoughts and opinions about the campaign and not put answers to be polite. However, I felt our campaign nformation was as good as Talk to Frank as we had the talk to Frank games available and we were able to use a good range of information from the Talk to Frank website to bring awareness about the effects of drugs. http://www. talktofrank. com/? &gclid=CLf-1dOy6bcCFQ3KtAod_Q4AnA A National campaign launched by the Australian government in 2011-2012 also used public speaking and posters to communicate to the public about the awareness of drugs and it was also very effective for them.
They also collected results from their campaign on how it affected certain people and how it has made a difference for these certain people, how they’ve become more aware of drugs and the dangers, how they now feel about drugs and if they would ever attempt to take drugs. Which is slightly different from our campaign questionnaire but it is still the same method of gathering information and still very similar to the way in which we implemented our campaign. http://www. drugs. health. gov. au/internet/drugs/publishing. sf/content/campaign4 This proved very good in some aspects as there has been an increase in showing that drugs are harmful and helping people avoid using drugs which is very similar to our campaign in the fact it is bringing awareness by showing that drugs are bad and harmful by looking and there effects. Also, other statistics show that more adults are talking more to their children about substances after the campaign which again is bringing awareness and also promote two way communications.