Methamphetamine in the United States:

Perceptions and Educational Programming Needs in Extension Education

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctorate of Philosophy

in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Amy R. Beaudreault, BS, MS

Graduate Program in Agricultural Education and Extension

The Ohio State University

2009

Dissertation Committee:

Dr. Larry Miller, Advisor

Dr. Joe Donnermeyer

Dr. Scott Scheer

Copyright by

Amy R. Beaudreault

2009

ii

Abstract

Methamphetamine is a highly addictive drug that affects the human central

nervous system. The drug possesses an extensive U.S. history because of the ability to

produce the drug in clandestine laboratories using common household chemicals. From

the first “bathtub” laboratories of the 1960s to the introduction of the smokable form—

commonly known as crystal meth—in the 1990s, methamphetamine has remained a

threat despite the changing landscape in use, distribution, and production: and

presidential initiatives to combat the drug; media coverage and depictions in

entertainment; prevention education; and policy legislation.

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the perceptions of

methamphetamine, the role of the media, and the need for prevention and safety

education through survey methodology that employed a mixed-mode approach of an

online and mail questionnaire. The study focused on a random sample of U.S. states

(N = 44) and the Extension Directors (EDs) within each state (N = 207). A 70% response

rate was received (n = 134).

Findings revealed that 11% of EDs reported they had received methamphetamine

user prevention training and 23% had received safety training. EDs who had prior

training perceived their knowledge higher than those without prior use training,

iii

with a large effect (d = .72). Also, EDs who had prior methamphetamine safety training

perceived their knowledge higher than those without prior user training, with a large

effect (d = .93). Males perceived themselves as more knowledgeable about

methamphetamine with a small effect (d = .35). Yet, females perceived

methamphetamine education as more important with a medium effect (d = .44).

EDs who had high or medium community involvement perceived their knowledge

as higher than those with low or no community involvement with a small effect (f = .09).

The Midwest, West, and South regions perceived their knowledge of methamphetamine

higher than the Northeast region, with a medium effect (f = .29). The Midwest, West, and

Northeast regions perceived the importance of methamphetamine education as higher

than the South region, with a medium effect (f = .27). The Midwest, West, and South

regions perceived the threat of methamphetamine as higher than those in the Northeast,

with a medium effect (f = .31). Lastly, EDs in the West, South, and Midwest perceived

their media dependency as higher than the EDs in the Northeast, with a medium effect

(f = .33).

EDs learned the most from the news with 44% ranking the media as where they

obtained the most methamphetamine information. Seventy-nine percent reported they had

read or watched local news coverage on a methamphetamine lab seizure. Eighty-five

percent of EDs agreed that the media was their primary source of methamphetamine

information and 93% possessed inaccurate methamphetamine use perceptions; therefore,

supporting the Media Dependency and Moral Panic theories.

iv

This research is the first national study that evaluated methamphetamine

programming needs related to user prevention and community safety. Results provide

justification for the implementation of methamphetamine education and farm safety

programming. Research also supports the Media Dependency and Moral Panic theories.

However, because of the limited research available, opportunities for additional social

science methamphetamine research exist.

v

Dedication

Dedicated to my loving parents, Linda and Thomas Beaudreault.

vi

Acknowledgments

I thank my advisor, Larry Miller, PhD, for guiding me through this research

process and for the countless hours he spent answering my questions and editing my

drafts. His knowledge, encouragement, and honesty were invaluable resources. His

wisdom will follow me throughout my life. Dr. Miller was an integral part to my decision

to pursue a PhD.

I thank my other committee members, Joe Donnermeyer, PhD, and Scott Scheer,

PhD, for their helpful suggestions and input throughout my studies.

I thank my dear friend, Cub Barrett, MS, and Dr. Larry Miller, Ralph Weisheit,

PhD, and Dr. Joe Donnermeyer, who served as questionnaire validity experts. Their input

influenced and aided in the development of a better instrument.

I also thank my family, friends, and colleagues at The Ohio State University and

Nationwide Children’s Hospital who supported me throughout my studies.

vii

Vita

2001 ....................................................BS, Journalism, Ohio University 2006........................................................... MS, Human and Community Resource

Development, The Ohio State University 2007........................................................... The Ohio State University Lois Simonds

Hungate Scholarship in Extension Education and the George Gist Scholarship in Extension Education

2003-2005 ................................................. Faculty Support, The Ohio State University

Moritz College of Law 2005-2008 ................................................. Program Coordinator, Ohio State University

Extension Agricultural Safety and Health Program

2008-present.............................................. Research Communication Specialist,

Nationwide Children’s Hospital

Publications Beaudreault, A. (2009). Natural: Influences of students’ organic food perceptions.

Journal of Food Products Marketing, 15, 379-391. Beaudreault, A., Jepsen, D., & Dellinger, W. (2009). Designing an agricultural safety

intervention program for Ohio Amish youth. Cases in Public Health Communication and Marketing, 3, 38-58.

Beaudreault, A. (2006). Students’ taste for organic food: A look into perceptions.

(Master’s thesis, The Ohio State University, 2006).

Fields of Study

Major Field: Agricultural Education and Extension

viii

Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................ii Dedication ..............................................................................................................................v Acknowledgements................................................................................................................vi Vita.........................................................................................................................................vii List of Tables .........................................................................................................................xi List of Figures ........................................................................................................................xvi Chapter 1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................1

Purpose of Study ..................................................................................................5 Research Objectives.............................................................................................8 Significance of Study...........................................................................................10 Limitations ...........................................................................................................11 Definition of Terms..............................................................................................12

Chapter 2. Literature Review.................................................................................................14

The History of Methamphetamine .......................................................................14 Methamphetamine and World War II ............................................................14 The Surge of the 1960s ..................................................................................15

The Current State of Methamphetamine in the United States .............................17 Production Trends..........................................................................................17 Use of Methamphetamine ..............................................................................20

Extension Education in the United States............................................................22 Drug Coverage and the Media .............................................................................24

Media Dependency ........................................................................................25 Moral Panic....................................................................................................28

Methamphetamine Safety ....................................................................................30 Methamphetamine Prevention Education ............................................................32

ix

Importance of Subject Characteristics .................................................................34 The Media and Geographic Location, Gender, and Age of Subjects ............35

Summary ..............................................................................................................36 Chapter 3. Methods................................................................................................................38

Research Design...................................................................................................38 Subject Selection..................................................................................................39 Instrument Validity and Reliability .....................................................................40 Conditions of Testing...........................................................................................41 Timeline for Data Collection ...............................................................................43 Controlling Nonresponse Error............................................................................43 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................46

Chapter 4. Results ..................................................................................................................49

Overall Results.....................................................................................................50 Results by Objective ............................................................................................53

Objective 1 .....................................................................................................53 Objective 2 .....................................................................................................57 Objective 3 .....................................................................................................65 Objective 4 .....................................................................................................68 Objective 5 .....................................................................................................70 Objective 6 .....................................................................................................71 Objective 7 .....................................................................................................74 Objective 8 .....................................................................................................77 Objective 9 .....................................................................................................81 Objective 10 ...................................................................................................83

Chapter 5. Discussion ............................................................................................................113

Summary of Conclusions.....................................................................................115 Recommendations and Implications ....................................................................118 Implications to Knowledge ..................................................................................120 Implications for Further Study.............................................................................122

References..............................................................................................................................124 Appendix A. Professional Titles of Sample and Blocking ...................................................131 Appendix B. New York Times Article....................................................................................132 Appendix C. Nebraska Department of Roads Brochure........................................................135 Appendix D. Instrument.........................................................................................................137 Appendix E. Mailed Postcard ................................................................................................149

x

Appendix F. Perceived Knowledge of Methamphetamine ....................................................150 Appendix G. Past Employment of Sample ............................................................................152 Appendix H. Groups that Need Methamphetamine Training................................................155 Appendix I. Initial and Additional Methamphetamine Training Topic.................................156

xi

List of Tables

Table 1. Economic Costs of Methamphetamine in the United States in 2005 ......................10 Table 2. Selected Methamphetamine Headlines in U.S. Media ............................................29 Table 3. Independent Group t-tests on Summated Rating Scales between Early and Late Respondents ......................................................................................................43 Table 4. Magnitude of Correlation.........................................................................................48 Table 5. Age and Years in Current Extension Title...............................................................54 Table 6. Demographic Characteristics of Gender, Education Level, Geographic Information, and Current Community Involvement ........................................................56 Table 7. Personal Experience with Methamphetamine Lab Seizures Nationally..................58 Table 8. Methamphetamine Clandestine Lab Information Sources by Region .....................60 Table 9. Rating (in percent) of Methamphetamine Information Sources ..............................61 Table 10. Other Media Sources of Methamphetamine Information ......................................62 Table 11. Methamphetamine User Prevention and Safety Training Nationally and

Blocked by Region ..........................................................................................................64 Table12. Knowledge of Methamphetamine Production Labs ...............................................65 Table 13: Knowledge of Methamphetamine Physical Effects...............................................65 Table 14. Knowledge of Environmental Effects....................................................................66 Table 15. Knowledge of Methamphetamine Use ..................................................................66 Table 16. Aggregated Responses Blocked as Perceived Low and High Knowledge............67

xii

Table 17. Perceived Threat of Methamphetamine in Area of Extension Directors...............69 Table 18. Perceived Trust and Accuracy of the Media..........................................................72 Table 19. Perceptions of the Media Regarding Stereotypes, Sensationalism, and Emotions ...................................................................................................................74 Table 20. Perceptions of Methamphetamine Safety and Health............................................76 Table 21. Perceived Importance for Others in Methamphetamine Education.......................78 Table 22. Community Groups that Need Methamphetamine Training .................................79 Table 23. Current Methamphetamine Programming in Extension Systems..........................80 Table 24. Association (Cramer’s V Statistic) among Gender, Location of Residence,

Location of Extension Area, U.S. Region, Prior Meth Training with Threat, Media Dependency, Media Portrayal, Safety and Health, Perceived Knowledge, and Perceived Importance.......................................................................................................82

Table 25. Correlation Coefficients for the Relationships among Gender, Location of Residence, Location of Extension Area, U.S. Region, Prior Meth Training with

Threat, Media Dependency, Media Portrayal, Safety and Health, Perceived Knowledge, and Perceived Importance ...........................................................................83

Table 26. Independent Group t-test Between Male and Female Extension Directors...........85 Table 27. Independent Group t-test Between Extension Directors Who Have Had Training in Methamphetamine User Prevention..............................................................86 Table 28. Independent Group t-test Between Extension Directors Who Have

Had Training in Methamphetamine Safety (Including Anhydrous Theft and Lab Detection).........................................................................................................................87

Table 29. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores by Age .......................................88 Table 30. ANOVA of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores by Age ..................88 Table 31. ANOVA of Perceived Media Portrayal and Mean Scores by Age........................89 Table 32. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores by Age .....................89 Table 33. ANOVA of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores by Age ...............................90

xiii

Table 34. ANOVA of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores by Age ...............................90 Table 35. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores by Education Level....................91 Table 36. ANOVA of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores by Education Level ..........................................................................................................92 Table 37. ANOVA of Perceived Media Portrayal and Mean Scores by Education Level ....92 Table 38. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores by Education Level .93 Table 39. ANOVA of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores by Education Level............93 Table 40. ANOVA of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores by Education Level............94 Table 41. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores by Years in Current Extension Title....................................................................................................95 Table 42. ANOVA of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores by Years in Current Extension Title....................................................................................................95 Table 43. ANOVA of Perceived Media Portrayal and Mean Scores by Years in Current Extension Title....................................................................................................96 Table 44. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores by Years in Current Extension Title....................................................................................................96 Table 45. ANOVA of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores by Years in Current Extension Title....................................................................................................97 Table 46. ANOVA of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores by Years in Current Extension Title....................................................................................................97 Table 47. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores of Residence Location Description........................................................................................................98 Table 48. ANOVA of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores of Residence Location Description........................................................................................................99 Table 49. ANOVA of Perceived Media Portrayal and Mean Scores of Residence

Location Description........................................................................................................99 Table 50. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores of Residence Location Description........................................................................................................100

xiv

Table 51. ANOVA of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores of Residence Location Description........................................................................................................100 Table 52: ANOVA of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores of Residence Location Description........................................................................................................101 Table 53. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores of Extension Area Location Description...............................................................................................102 Table 54. ANOVA of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores of Extension Area Location Description...............................................................................................102 Table 55. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Media Portrayal Scores of Extension Area Location Description...............................................................................................103 Table 56. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores of Extension

Area Location Description...............................................................................................103 Table 57. ANOVA of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores of Extension Area Location Description...............................................................................................104 Table 58. ANOVA of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores of Extension Area Location Description...............................................................................................104 Table 59. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores of Community Involvement ......105 Table 60. ANOVA of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores of Community

Involvement .....................................................................................................................106 Table 61. ANOVA of Perceived Media Portrayal and Mean Scores of Community Involvement .....................................................................................................................106 Table 62. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores of Community Involvement .....................................................................................................................107 Table 63. ANOVA of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores of Community Involvement .....................................................................................................................107 Table 64. ANOVA of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores of Community Involvement .....................................................................................................................108 Table 65. ANOVA and Effect Size of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores of U.S. Region .109

xv

Table 66. ANOVA and Effect Size of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores of U.S. Region......................................................................................................................110

Table 67. ANOVA of Perceived Media Coverage and Mean Scores of U.S. Region...........110 Table 68. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores of U.S. Region.........111 Table 69. ANOVA and Effect Size of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores of U.S.

Region ..............................................................................................................................111 Table 70. ANOVA and Effect Size of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores of U.S.

Region ..............................................................................................................................112

xvi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Total of All Clandestine Laboratory Incidents in 2008 .........................................7 Figure 2. Commercial Pseudophedrine Imports into Mexico, in Killograms, 2004-2008 ....18 Figure 3. Methamphetamine Laboratory Seizures in the United States, 2000-2008 .............19

Figure 4. Methamphetamine Seized in the United States, in Kilograms, 2005-2008............19

Figure 5. Past Year Methamphetamine Initiates among Persons Aged 12 or Older and Mean Age at First Use of Methamphetamine among Past Year Methamphetamine Initiates Aged 12 to 49: 2002-2008 ..................................................21

Figure 6. United States by Region .........................................................................................51 Figure 7. Percentage of Respondents by Region ...................................................................52 Figure 8. Response Rate by Region.......................................................................................53 Figure 9. Involvement with Community Members in Past Year ...........................................57 Figure 10. Level of Agreement to Statement: The Media Is My Primary Source of

Information Regarding Methamphetamine......................................................................71

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The War on Drugs is a war in which most Americans have experienced, whether

directly or indirectly. The drug war, like the War on Terror, is one that has no boundaries

and has the capability of affecting everyone from the rural farmer to the urban housewife.

In recent years, methamphetamine—popularly known as crystal meth or meth—has

emerged as an enemy in that war. Not only does methamphetamine affect the individual

addict, but the drug also compounds environmental, legal, social, and medical problems.

Through presidential drug war declarations, news stories and dramatizations in

entertainment, crime prevention initiatives, education, and policy legislation, the War on

Drugs is one battle that is constant, and one that continually possesses endless enemies.

The United Nations World Drug Report (2006) called methamphetamine the most

abused hard drug on earth, and the number of global methamphetamine addicts—26

million—equals the number of cocaine and heroin users combined. The United States has

an estimated 1.4 million users, and according to a National Association for Counties

survey (2006), 47% of emergency room officials reported that methamphetamine is the

top illicit drug blamed for emergency department visits.

Methamphetamine is a highly addictive drug that affects the human central

nervous system. The drug can be injected, snorted, smoked, or ingested orally. Because

2

of methamphetamine production trends, and the increase in domestic drug distribution by

Mexican and Asian criminal groups in the United States, more potent forms of

methamphetamine are available, creating new challenges for law enforcement officials,

policy-makers, and prevention educators who attempt to decrease methamphetamine drug

use (U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA], 2007).

President George W. Bush proclaimed November 30, 2006, as National

Methamphetamine Awareness Day. Also, the Bush Administration set goals of a 15%

decrease in methamphetamine use and 25% reduction in the number of domestic

methamphetamine laboratories (labs) by 2009. The Bush Administration budget included

$25 million to implement and continue effective methamphetamine abuse recovery

services and programs (Bush, 2006). The Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 was

signed, which made manufacturing the drug more difficult and imposed tougher penalties

on those who smuggled or sold the drug.

However, even with an increased amount of legislation, the unique problem with

methamphetamine is ease of production. The Internet offers an ideal location for

directions and for cyber communities to share production ideas and strategies on how to

avoid law enforcement. Methamphetamine production labs are found across the United

States in small towns, rural farms, and cities. Labs even are found on Department of

Interior lands and National Forest Service lands: From 2001 to 2003, labs discovered on

Department of Interior lands increased from 28 to 83, and in 2002, National Forest

Service lands had 187 lab discoveries (National Drug Intelligence Center [NIDA], 2005).

The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 is found in Title VII of the

3

USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3199). The legislation

provides minimum standards for retailers across the United States that sell products

containing ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, commonly used over-the-counter drugs used

for nasal congestion. The law limits sales to 3.6 grams of the base ingredient (the pure

ephedrine or pseudoephedrine) per day and 9 grams per 30 days, and requires that

purchasers provide identification and sign a sales log. Retailers must now keep these

products behind the counter or in a locked case and register online with the U.S. Attorney

General.

Another federal initiative against methamphetamine was the Congressional

Caucus To Fight and Control Methamphetamine that was established to: raise awareness;

advance policies against the manufacture, distribution, and use of methamphetamine;

educate others about the dangers of methamphetamine abuse; involve state and

community leaders, law enforcement, public health professionals, and advocacy groups

in efforts to reduce and prevent methamphetamine use; and, build congressional support

for anti-methamphetamine measures. These new laws make methamphetamine more

difficult to produce, but the laws do not prevent distribution from Mexico or aid

individuals who use or who are indirectly affected by the drug.

A distinct aspect of methamphetamine use is that white males abuse the drug

more than any other demographic group. Data about individuals sentenced to prison

reported that those imprisoned for methamphetamine-related crimes were 59% white and

86% male (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). Although these data imply white males are

the highest population at risk, other populations are now in danger as well.

4

Much of the research regarding methamphetamine has focused on homosexual

and bisexual men because of the drug’s popularity as a party drug that enhances sexual

pleasure (Reback, 1997). Yet, since 2000, the scope of methamphetamine abuse has

encompassed other populations. According to Morgan and Beck (1997), motivation for

methamphetamine use among females centered on weight loss, increased energy for

childrearing and household duties, enhanced self-confidence, and enhanced sexual

pleasure. According to the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 12.4 million

adolescents age 12 years and older have tried methamphetamine at least once in their

lifetime. Additionally, methamphetamine use has become a growing trend among

adolescent females, who use the drug as an appetite suppressant and weight-loss aid.

According to the NIDA Monitoring the Future Study (2008), methamphetamine

use in 2008 was reported by 1.2% of eighth graders, 1.5% of tenth graders, and 1.2% of

twelfth graders. The first measurement taken in 1999, use was 3.2%, 4.6%, and 4.7% for

eight, tenth, and twelfth graders. Perceived risk of methamphetamine has increased since

2004 and availability has decreased since 2004. The increase in perceived risk implies

prevention efforts are working.

One of the reasons for the popularity and growth of methamphetamine during the

1990s was because of the production of the smokable form of methamphetamine

commonly referred to as “crystal meth.” Mexico-based trafficking groups began to enter

the methamphetamine market and dominated the trade throughout the 2000s

(Donnermeyer & Tunnell, 2007). Clandestine "mom-and-pop" labs relocated to the

5

Midwest and, thus, geographically expanded the methamphetamine market and

introduced the drug to rural communities.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the methamphetamine

perceptions, the role of the media, and the need for prevention and safety education. The

study focused on a random sample of U.S. states and the Extension Directors within each

state (see Appendix A for complete list of professional titles sampled). The questionnaire

concentrated on perceived methamphetamine knowledge, the perceived threat of

methamphetamine, media dependency and involvement in methamphetamine

perceptions, methamphetamine safety and health perceptions, and prevention education

needs.

Along with exploring and describing the perceptions through survey

methodology, part of the study also was relational. The relational component identified

correlations among selected characteristics and obtained methamphetamine perceptions.

These relational aspects of the study further examined whether relationships existed

among the characteristics of: geographic area descriptions of the Extension area serviced

and residence of Extension Directors; gender; age; level of education obtained; years in

current Extension title; U.S. state region; and current community involvement.

The population described above was appropriate to be surveyed because

Extension Directors associate with diverse populations at the local level in safety and

health outreach programming, each state possesses an Extension System, and

6

methamphetamine has been identified as a rural problem under President Obama’s Rural

White House Agenda (2009). Extension Directors also work with youth populations, are

active in community engagement in rural areas, and many live in the communities they

service.

Methamphetamine use and production is widespread: Although the drug

originated in the Western region of the United States, clandestine labs are now in the

Midwest. According to the National Clandestine Lab Seizure System (DEA, 2008), the

state with the highest number of labs seizures was Missouri (1,368) and the second

highest was Indiana (701) (Figure 1). Labs relocated to the Midwest from the West Coast

because of the monopoly Mexican traffickers developed to provide the drug during the

2000s (Donnermeyer & Tunnell, 2007). The move east spread methamphetamine across

the United States and also introduced the drug to rural audiences and individuals who

recognized the profitability in methamphetamine production. However, because of recent

laws in Mexico regarding a ban on the importation of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in

2009, the production of methamphetamine in the United States most likely will change

again.

Figure 1. Total of All Clandestine Laboratory Incidents in 2008

Weisheit and Wells (2008) found that counties that had the highest seizure rates

of methamphetamine labs also had a larger farm population. Rural areas are ideal

environments for methamphetamine labs because of the limited law enforcement, open

land (specifically large areas between residents), and access to anhydrous ammonia.

Methamphetamine production produces strong odors that can be detected easily.

For all the reasons stated above, Extension Directors were an appropriate population

to study because they are embedded in the communities that most likely contain

7

8

methamphetamine use and production. Like embedded journalists who are attached to

military units during times of war, Extension Directors are on the frontline of the

methamphetamine drug war.

The results of the study will provide a better understanding of the influence and

power the media has on methamphetamine perceptions and the education needs for

methamphetamine prevention and safety. The findings can be used in Extension

programming, as well as other drug prevention and public health programs. The media

effects findings add to the knowledge base of media dependency and can aid prevention

educators in learning about the role of media in social marketing campaigns.

Research Objectives

The objectives of this study were to determine perceived methamphetamine

knowledge, the perceived threat of methamphetamine, media involvement in

methamphetamine perceptions, methamphetamine safety and health perceptions, and

prevention education needs. The results will assist U.S. educators in the development of a

methamphetamine curriculum as well as help them identify effective communication

channels and target audiences for public health campaigns.

Questionnaire responses can supply an enhanced understanding of the current

state of the problem and needs for prevention education at both aggregate and regional

levels in the United States. Specific objectives (O) of this study included:

O1: To describe Extension Directors in: (a) age, (b) gender, (c) level of education obtained, (d) years in current Extension title, (e) geographic location description of residence, (f) geographic location description of Extension territory, (g) U.S. state geographic description, and (h) current community involvement.

9

O2: To describe the methamphetamine information sources of Extension Directors.

O3: To describe the perceived methamphetamine knowledge of Extension Directors. O4: To describe the threat (related to crime, use, production, and violence) of methamphetamine as perceived by Extension Directors.

O5: To describe the perceived media dependency of Extension Directors for methamphetamine information.

O6: To describe the portrayal of methamphetamine in the media as perceived by Extension Directors. O7: To describe safety and health characteristics with methamphetamine production as perceived by Extension Directors. O8: To describe the perceived needs for methamphetamine prevention education. O9: To describe the relationships among selected demographic characteristics (gender, age, level of education obtained, years of Extension experience, geographic location description of residence and Extension territory, U.S state geographic description, years in current Extension title, and current community involvement) and: perceived methamphetamine threat, perceived media dependency, perceived methamphetamine media portrayal, perceived safety and health characteristics involved with methamphetamine production, and, perceived needs for methamphetamine prevention education.

O10: To identify significant differences in selected demographic characteristics (gender, age, level of education obtained, years of Extension experience, geographic location description of residence and Extension territory, U.S state geographic description, years in current Extension title, and current community involvement) and: perceived methamphetamine threat, perceived media dependency, perceived methamphetamine media portrayal, perceived safety and health characteristics involved with methamphetamine production, and, perceived needs for methamphetamine prevention education.

Significance of Study

Under President Obama’s Rural White House Agenda (2009), methamphetamine

was listed as the first priority under the subhead of “Improve Rural Quality of Life.” The

Agenda stated: “Combat Methamphetamine: Continue the fight to rid our communities of

meth and offer support to help addicts heal.” The reasons for this national emphasis on

methamphetamine included the costs of treatment, methamphetamine-related healthcare,

productivity loss, related crime, child maltreatment and foster care, and overall safety

associated with methamphetamine production and use.

Besides the societal health and safety costs of methamphetamine treatment and

production, methamphetamine has generated a severe economic burden on the already

strained U.S. economy. Nicosia, Pacula, Kilmer, Lundberg, and Chiesa (2009) found that

the economic cost of U.S. methamphetamine use reached $23.4 billion in 2005.

Cost Best Estimate (millions) Drug treatment 545.5 Healthcare 351.3 Intangibles/premature death 16,624.9 Productivity 687.0 Crime and criminal justice 4,209.8 Child endangerment 904.6 Production/environment 61.4 Total 23,384.4 Table 1. Economic Costs of Methamphetamine in the United States in 2005 ($ millions) (Nicosia, Pacula, Kilmer, Lundberg, and Chiesa, 2009)

10

11

Methamphetamine abuse affects all geographic locations, ages, ethnicities, races,

and socioeconomic statuses. Because methamphetamine addiction holds no biases,

research into the perceptions of the current state of the problem, the effects of media on

perceptions, safety and health, and need for education is necessary to develop strategic

prevention and educational programming. Methamphetamine is a drug that places severe

burdens on entire communities and limited research exists in methamphetamine

education.

Limitations

Utilizing survey research inherently has limitations, including memory effect

(Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinski, 2000), measurement error, and nonattitudes. Also, when

studying media effects, measuring whether the influence was from the media is difficult

to isolate.

Another limitation of the study was the lack of variability within the sample.

Although the sample was nationally representative, the ages of respondents ranged from

32 to 64, with a mean of 53, resulting in a relatively older sample. The sample also was

highly educated. Sixty-five percent of respondents had obtained a Masters in Science or

Arts (MS/MA) and 31% possessed a Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD).

Each state is diverse in their Extension System human resource structure.

Therefore, the number of Extension Directors included in the sample differed for each

state. The Southern region represented 29% of the total sample, the Midwest 41%, the

West 17%, and the Northeast was the least representative with 13%.

12

Definition of Terms (in alphabetical order)

Characteristic: a feature that helps in the identification of a distinguishing trait. Operationally defined as the following:

1. Geographic location description of Extension territory: Operationally defined as location subject reported as rural, suburban, or urban; nominal data. 2. Gender: The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones). Operationally defined as subject reported as male or female; nominal data. 3. Age: Operationally defined as subject reported years old; ratio data. 4. State Geographic Location: Operationally defined as the U.S. region state belongs in as West, South, Midwest, and Northeast (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009); nominal data. 5. Geographic location of residence: Operationally defined as location subject reported as rural, suburban, urban, rural/suburban, and suburban/urban; nominal data. 6. Level of education obtained: Operationally defined as amount of education the subject reported as some high school, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, some graduate school, MS/MA, and PhD; ordinal data. 7. Current community involvement: Operationally defined as individual contact with Extension territory community members. Subjects reported as high (weekly), medium (monthly), low (yearly), and none; nominal data. 8. Prior experience with methamphetamine training: Operationally defined as whether the subjects had attended methamphetamine education training; nominal data. 9. Years in current Extension title: Operationally defined as the number of years subject reported as serving in present Extension title; ratio data.

Media: The selected media for this study consisted of: news, fictional television, reality television, and social media; nominal data.

13

Media dependency: Operationally defined as subjects reported media as his or her primary source for methamphetamine information on a six-point Likert scale; interval data. Media portrayal: Operationally defined as a summation of each subject’s answer across items on a six-point Likert scale that measured methamphetamine media accuracy and trust of media; interval data. Media stereotype: Operationally defined as subjects reported agreement or disagreement to statements related to media stereotypes; nominal data. Methamphetamine information sources: The selected methamphetamine information sources for this study consisted of the following community members: media, public school official, law enforcement, state public health employee, Extension colleague, methamphetamine user, and family member or friend of methamphetamine user; nominal data. Method of Methamphetamine Information: Operationally defined as method subjects reported to have received methamphetamine information. Method was defined as on a rating scale including news media, word of mouth, public health campaign, entertainment media, law enforcement, formal education, and Extension education; interval data. Methamphetamine knowledge: Operationally defined as correctly answered items with the possible answers of yes, know, and don’t know; nominal data. Methamphetamine prevention education: Operationally defined as a summation of each subject’s answer on a six-point Likert scale related to the survey subjects’ perceived knowledge and importance of methamphetamine production signs, use, state and federal laws, and prevention and education resources; interval data. Safety and health characteristics of methamphetamine: Operationally defined as a summation of each subject’s answer across items on a six-point Likert scale involving the issues of safety and health methamphetamine programming; interval data. Threat of methamphetamine: Operationally defined as a summation of each subject’s answer across items on a six-point Likert scale involving the issues of crime, use, production, and violence relating to methamphetamine in the area of survey subject; interval data.

14

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Seven sections comprise this literature review. The literature review is divided

into the following sections: (a) history of methamphetamine; (b) methamphetamine in the

United States; (c) Extension education in the United States; (d) drug coverage and the

media (with a focus on Media Dependency and Moral Panic theories); (e)

methamphetamine safety; (f) methamphetamine and prevention education; and (g) the

importance of the characteristics of subjects related to study objectives.

The History of Methamphetamine

Methamphetamine is not a new drug. The active ingredient in amphetamine is

ephedrine and was first synthesized in 1887 by German chemist Lazar Edeleano.

Methamphetamine later was developed in Japan in 1919. In the 1930s, the drug was

introduced in bronchial inhalers and as a tablet known as Benzedrine in the United States.

The drug was legal with a prescription and was used as treatment for conditions such as

fatigue and obesity (Hunt, Kuck, & Truitt, 2006).

Methamphetamine and World War II

Methamphetamine was used by German, Japanese, and American military

throughout World War II for performance enhancement. The Imperial Japanese Armed

15

Forces used methamphetamine, also know as Philloppon, in special operations such as

the kamikaze (Sato, 2008). The drug, in tablet form, was mixed with green tea powder

and stamped with the crest of the emperor. The Armed Forces dispensed the remaining

stockpiles of the drug at the end of the war and use flourished in a devastated Japan.

Twenty-four different types of medication, containing either methamphetamine or

amphetamines existed in Japan (Ikuta, 1951). Several high-profile deaths in Japan from

methamphetamine led to the Stimulant Control Law (1951) and later to the 1954

campaign to eradicate methamphetamine.

In Germany, methamphetamine was manufactured under the name Pervitinor or

Isophan. Between April and July 1940, approximately 35 million tablets were shipped to

the German air force and army (Ulrich, 2005). Under Germany’s Opium Law, the drug

was restricted; however, the law had little effect and in 1941, 10 million tablets were

distributed to the German military.

The U.S. military was no different. An estimated 200 million amphetamine pills

were given to U.S. soldiers during World War II. The United States experienced the same

surge in drug sales after the war when the troops came home (Grinspoon & Hedblom,

1975). Use continued to increase throughout the 1950s and the drug also was used

intravenously (Klee, 1997).

The Surge of the 1960s

The United States experienced a surge in amphetamine and methamphetamine use

during the 1960s in California. The drug subculture that developed in the Haight-Asbury

area in San Francisco welcomed the intravenous use of methamphetamine.

16

Pharmaceutical production demand increased at a rate that far surpassed medical use and

a black market for the drug developed (Klee, 1997).

The Department of Justice took notice and pressured the pharmaceutical

companies to stop production of methamphetamine ampoules. Without a supply, the

beginning of home labs, otherwise known as “bathtub” labs, began. The potency was

much less than the pharmaceutical products; only 30% of street methamphetamine was

truly methamphetamine. However, the potency changed with time. From 1975 to 1983,

street methamphetamine increased from 60% to more than 90% in methamphetamine

content (Lake & Quark, 1984).

The biker subculture was attuned to methamphetamine during the Haight-

Ashbury, San Francisco scene of the 1960s. The high-risk lifestyle of the biker—

unlawful, heavy drinking, and partying—was similar to the lifestyle of methamphetamine

users. Bikers also recognized the financial opportunity in methamphetamine distribution.

The bikers diffused the drug north through Oregon and Washington and south throughout

California.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classified methamphetamine as a

controlled substance, which placed restrictions on the manufacturing and distribution of

amphetamine-related drugs. Criminal sentencing included mandatory-minimum and

quantity-based penalties. For trafficking methamphetamine, mandatory federal sentences

include a minimum of five years in prison and fines of $2 million for individuals and $4

million for more than one individual (Covey, 2007).

17

The Current State of Methamphetamine in the United States

Each year, methamphetamine use and production can change drastically because

of increased law enforcement, government legislation, and prevention education. An

estimated 6,335.66 kilograms of methamphetamine were seized in 2008, according to the

National Drug Threat Assessment (2008). Since 2005, 24,146.93 kilograms of

methamphetamine were seized in the United States. And, according to the National

Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System, 3,390 methamphetamine labs incidents

(including labs, dumpsite, and chemical, glass, and equipment) were reported in 2008

(Figure 1). Lab seizures increased 873 incidents in 2008, compared to 2007 (DEA, 2009).

However, since 1999, 2003 had the most lab seizures with 17,356 reported nationally.

Production Trends

The landscape of methamphetamine production is changing in the United States.

The National Drug Threat Assessment (2008) reported that Mexican methamphetamine

production decreased in 2007 because of the ephedrine and pseudoephedrine import

restrictions the government of Mexico (GOM) introduced (Figure 2). In 2007, the GOM

introduced a ban on ephedrine and pseudoephedrine imports for 2008 and a ban of the

chemicals in 2009. This decrease in Mexican-produced methamphetamine resulted in less

methamphetamine availability in the United States. A slight decrease in use was revealed

in the national drug-prevalence data. Yet, methamphetamine treatment admissions were

stable.

Figure 2. Commercial Pseudophedrine Imports into Mexico, in Killograms, 2004-2008 (National Drug Threat Assessment, 2008)

Methamphetamine production in the United States increased and is expected to

surpass 2007 levels, according to the National Drug Threat Assessment (2008). Lab

seizure data showed a decrease from 2003 to 2007 (Figure 3); however, because of the

decrease in Mexican-produced methamphetamine in 2008 and additional decreases

expected for 2009, domestic production is forecasted to increase (Figure 4). Producers are

evading U.S. ephedrine and pseudoephedrine purchasing restrictions through a term

called “smurfing.” Smurfing is when small groups or individuals purchase ephedrine and

pseudoephedrine in small quantities from multiple retailers. Methamphetamine producers

pay individuals to make the purchases and develop “smurfing” networks.

18

Figure 3. Methamphetamine Laboratory Seizures in the United States, 2000-2008 (National Drug Threat Assessment, 2008)

Figure 4. Methamphetamine Seized in the United States, in Kilograms, 2005-2008 (National Drug Threat Assessment, 2008)

19

20

Also new to methamphetamine producers are novel production methods that are

faster and easier. The one-pot lab, or shake and bake, method uses a combination of

available chemicals to synthesize the anhydrous ammonia (National Drug Intelligence

Center [NDIC], 2008). The one-pot method takes only 30 minutes. The ingredients

usually are mixed in a 2-liter soda bottle. This allows producers to make

methamphetamine literally “on the go” in cars. The waste, which may carry toxic,

explosive, or flammable chemicals, is discarded along roadways.

Use of Methamphetamine According to the 2007 National Meth Use & Attitudes Survey, 24% of

adolescents said it would be “very easy” or “somewhat easy” for them to acquire

methamphetamine and 10% of adolescents have been offered methamphetamine at some

time. Three percent of adolescents admitted to trying methamphetamine: The majority of

those adolescents said they had taken methamphetamine in the past month.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) 2008 reported that

95,000 Americans, ages 12 to 49, initiated use of methamphetamine (Figure 5). This is

the lowest estimate since data were first collected in 2002. The average age of first use

was 19.2 years in 2008. However, the first use age ranged from 18.6 to 22.2 since 2002

(Figure 5).

Figure 5. Past Year Methamphetamine Initiates among Persons Aged 12 or Older and Mean Age at First Use of Methamphetamine among Past Year Methamphetamine Initiates Aged 12 to 49: 2002-2008 (NSDUH, 2008)

Overall, NSDUH 2008 findings are positive regarding methamphetamine.

Between 2006 and 2008, the number of past month methamphetamine users decreased by

more than one-half. In 2006, an estimated 731,000 people 12 and older in the United

States were methamphetamine users. In 2008, the estimated number was 314,000. From

2002 to 2008, the past month use of methamphetamine decreased for young adults (from

0.6% to 0.2%). Among adults age 26 and older, .03% use methamphetamine.

Although research identified males as being more likely to be methamphetamine

21

22

users (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005), in 2008, males and females had similar rates of

past month use (NSDUH, 2008). However, for adolescents, nonmedical use of

psychotherapeutic drugs among 12- to 17-year-olds was more prevalent among females

(3.3%) than males (2.5%). Psychotherapeutic drugs included prescription-type pain

relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, or sedatives.

Extension Education in the United States

The United States developed Extension education as the third partner, along with

teaching and research, in the Land-Grant University model to disseminate agricultural

research into practice. Since the U.S. transformation from a predominately rural society

to mostly urban, Extension has placed greater emphasis on health, family, youth, and

community issues rather than solely focusing on agriculture. Unlike large-scale

marketing campaigns, Extension utilizes social marketing philosophies to teach

communities at the grassroots level. Extension now serves individuals in rural, urban, and

suburban settings—allowing the states to be the campuses of the universities.

Extension’s philosophy is grounded in the principles of pragmatism among which

are active, applied learning to fulfill the needs of the participants, and the “workability”

and relevance of the content. In the Extension model, practitioners inform researchers of

their need for new knowledge. Researchers discover the new knowledge that is

appropriate for the practitioner; then the knowledge is translated and delivered through

Extension agents.

23

The Morrill Act was the first initiative to legitimize formal agricultural education

in 1862, and subsequently began the American public university tradition. Before then,

upper-class Americans went to Ivy League institutions of European thought—no other

options for the “common” people existed. These new universities, also known as Land-

Grant Universities, broadened educational opportunities for those who did not have prior

access. The United States divided the 17,430,000 acres of land in the public domain to

finance the Land-Grant Universities (McDowell, 2002) that would emphasize agricultural

and mechanical arts education. These universities also were required to have applied

research, a ROTC program, and a combination of vocational and liberal educational

opportunities. Land-Grant Universities were created for the purposes of serving states and

their people.

Then, in 1887, the Hatch Act added to agricultural education by expanding the

functions of the Morrill Act to include research. The Act created agricultural

experimental stations that were supervised by the United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA). Three years later the second Morrill Act instituted Land-Grant

Universities for black students. The Morrill Act did not change for the next 100 years—

until 1994, when the Improving America’s Schools Act identified 30 Tribunal colleges

and, later in 1998, when Hispanic colleges were added to the original Morrill Act.

The Extension System started in 1914 in the Smith-Lever Act. The Act

established the Cooperative Extension Service and provided federal funds for cooperative

Extension activities. Extension is considered to be the third partner in agricultural

education and the System is an expansive network of non-formal education. The role of

24

the Extension System is to link the research units affiliated with the Land-Grant

Universities to the local communities. The term “Cooperative” is used in the act because

Extension is a partnership between federal, state, and county governments.

Drug Coverage and the Media

Dependency is a part of human nature. Therefore, the construct that humans

become dependent on media for information is not surprising. Like the effects of a drug,

individuals become dependent on the media for their daily doses of information

pertaining to the environment and issues that surround and affect them. Price and Roberts

(1987) explained that the media operates to disseminate information about events, ideas,

and social movements beyond the limits of personal experience and association. The

result is that individuals use the media to assess the broader social implications of the

news. Intuitively, this means the majority of the U.S. population learns about

methamphetamine through the media and would include incorrect stereotypes or

sensational events.

Citizens obtain news through the mediums of print, radio, television, personal

communication, and the Internet. Audience members of the news are exposed to the

decisions of editors and journalists about what makes news, what issues are important,

and how policy debates are portrayed, often referred to in communication research as

agenda setting (McCombs & Shaw, 1972) and framing (Scheufele, 1999). Early research

concluded that the media simply reinforced perceptions (Lazarfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet,

25

1948). However, subsequent research debated that media has greater power and the

ability to select and arrange issues.

Media Dependency

The Media Dependency theory is one formulation that attempts to explain why

the mass media has powerful and direct effects on individuals and societies at the micro

and macro levels. Media dependency relies on the goals and resources of an individual—

under the assumption that individuals rely on the media to meet the goal of being

informed on certain chosen topics (Defleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). Mass media makes

information accessible to attain understanding and orientation.

The policy process and the role of the media is a relationship that is based on

needs and goals, and is supported by the Media Dependency theory. Media is an

institution that informs citizens of the political responses to problems. According to

Krivanek (1988), the media depicted the drug problem and focused on consumption

while ignoring other aspects of the story, such as economic, political, and historical

implications of the production and marketing of the drug. Some drug policy researchers

actually included media as a component of the drug problem (Bell, 1982; Fox &

Matthews, 1992).

Part of the difficulty with media portrayal is the use of stereotyping. Bell (1982)

examined the way the media portrayed the drug problem and focused on recurring

language. Much of the stereotyping, Bell concluded, was the identification of victims,

villains, and the proclamation of war on the problem by the government.

Fox and Matthews (1992) strongly disagreed with the media presentation of

26

illegal drugs and how community interaction with the media thwarts policy responses.

Fox and Matthews stated:

The media has been a mirror of society’s attitude towards the drug issue. But it

has been a distorting mirror, giving warped and false images to the public at large.

It has been distorted images that much of society’s views have been based. The

media, in all its forms, has not served the public or governments well by its

largely unchallenging performance (p. 173).

The mass media has been used greatly in drug abuse communication. However,

the drug information campaigns of the 1970s found little evidence that the media

possessed effects on drug prevention (Leshner, 2002). Some believed these campaigns

actually were wasteful because the campaigns introduced children to drugs long before

they would encounter them in their lives. Leshner also concluded that these campaigns,

often times, suggested drug use to be much greater that what was actually occurring.

In the 1990s, research about media effects grew and attention turned to how to

measure the impact of media in preventing substance abuse behaviors. In 1997, the

National Institute on Drug Abuse was asked to evaluate the Office of National Drug

Control Policy (ONDCP) National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. This media

campaign had the goal of eliminating illicit drug use in adolescents and was one of the

most ambitious social intervention campaigns of the time.

Since 2001, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has aided in the

27

decline of adolescent drug use. The Media Campaign’s marijuana initiative showed

declines in adolescent marijuana use (Palmgreen, Lorch, Stephenson, Hoyle, &

Donohew, 2007). Research also found that adolescents exposed to the Media Campaign’s

messages, along with an in-school program, were significantly less likely to smoke

marijuana as adolescents exposed to the in-school program alone (Longshore, Ghosh-

Dasidar, & Ellickson, 2005).

The U.S. government and the media form relationships to spread a message and to

set the agenda with the ultimate goal of informing citizens. Yet, if the media is the sole

provider of information to citizens, then that information is the only representation of the

issue. Consequently, the media agenda has effects on not only communities, but

government initiatives and policies.

Although research is limited concerning media dependency and drugs, in

particular methamphetamine, studies do support media dependency in similar social

topics. News dependency elevates during times of intense conflict or change. During

these times, media responds with additional coverage to interest audiences. Research has

found positive relationships between health and other general risk situations and media

exposure (Coleman, 1993; Loges, 1994).

Tucker, Whaley, and Sharp (2006) researched consumer perceptions of food-

related risks and found the media does play a positive role in perceptions. In this study,

the strongest predictor of perceived food risk was biotechnology, yet media dependency

was second. In support of Tucker et al.’s research, Nelkin (1987) stated dependence on

28

the media assists in defining the public’s sense of reality and its perceptions of risks and

benefits.

By extrapolating research findings (Tucker, Whaley, & Sharp, 2006; Nelkin,

1987) to methamphetamine, an assumption would be the perceived risks and description

of a drug user and the drug (i.e., recovery, arrests, and user descriptions) are learned

through the media. If there is a media blitz on methamphetamine-related arrests and lab

seizures, then the public would infer that the current legislation works and the drug is a

threat. Conversely, if the media is not accurately portraying the events and information

about the drug, then individuals dependent on the media are creating their own reality of

the drug threat in the community.

Moral Panic

In 2005, 90 leading doctors, scientists, psychological researchers and treatment

specialists joined together and released a letter requesting the media to stop using the

negative terms such as “ice babies” (Lewis, 2005). The stigmatizing labels lacked

scientific basis. The New York Times methamphetamine story (2004; Appendix B)

provided an example of how law enforcements officials were asked to describe the

effects of methamphetamine exposure to youth rather than a medical expert.

The theory of moral panics began during the 1970s in the sociology of deviance

(Zajdow, 2008). Cohen (1972) identified a moral panic conceptually as when the majority

of society views a social group or activity as threatening to that society. Young (1973)

added to moral panic with deviance amplification spiral theory; when the media becomes

29

involved, public reaction causes deviant behavior to increase, which ultimately amplifies

media attention.

Moral panics assist the news industry in developing emotional appeal to content

(McRobbie & Thornton, 1995). The emotional involvement of an audience intensifies

interest. Many times, Shoemaker and Reese (1996) explained, the more deviant the

content, the more likely the media will pickup the story, and the more likely the content

will be stereotyped. Stereotyping is one way the media connects unrelated events.

Zillmann (1999) formed the exemplification theory to identify the concept that isolated

events—when aggregated in the media—imply trend presence; however, from a

statistical standpoint, a trend may not be supported. Weisheit and White (2009) described

that using words like epidemic inflame the public rather than inform them.

Media Source Headline Date

First 12 News KXII-TV “Meth Epidemic Continues to Plague Oklahoma”

7/13/2009

Associated Press “Two Texas Sheriff's Deputies Charged in Meth Ring”

7/10/2009

WVLT-TV “Is the War on Meth Being Won?” 7/15/2009

Fox News “Former Figure Skating Champ Nicole Bobek Charged in Meth Bust”

7/07/2009

Table 2. Selected Methamphetamine Headlines in U.S. Media

30

Methamphetamine Safety

The environmental dangers and health risks associated with methamphetamine are

serious, especially to unsuspecting victims such as public safety for first responders and

community members who may accidentally come across a methamphetamine

manufacturing operation. Unlike most drugs, which have to be imported into a region,

methamphetamine can be manufactured in a home operation or mobile lab using regular

household chemicals purchased from pharmacies and hardware stores.

The danger is that the individuals processing the chemical components used in

making methamphetamine are not skilled chemists and thus create a situation with high

potential of explosion and contamination during the manufacturing process. Toxic gas

leaks, chemical fires, and explosions often occur, putting the entire community at risk.

Contaminated ground resulting from a methamphetamine lab is considered so dangerous

that the area is treated as bio-hazardous waste scene.

Methamphetamine can be produced almost anywhere with limited supplies, and

commercial buildings, houses, apartments, hotel rooms, trailers, barns, vans, and storage

units are just some of the structures used for labs. Although many labs are located in rural

areas because the privacy and distance help to hide production smell, labs can be found in

urban and suburban areas as well. Among individuals at risk of exposure are

unsuspecting children, real estate agents, landlords, property managers, prospective

renters and homebuyers, garbage collectors, utility workers, plumbers, social service

agents, law enforcement, and first responders. According to the National Drug Threat

31

Assessment (2008), more than 1,100 children were killed at, removed from, or injured at

a methamphetamine lab from 2007 to September 2008.

Martyny, Arbuckle, McCammon, Esswien, Erb, and Van Dyke (2007) conducted

a study measuring the chemical exposure associated with methamphetamine

manufacturing. The researchers found high concentrations of phosphine, iodine,

anhydrous ammonia, and hydrogen chloride in the lab during the cooking process.

Anhydrous ammonia and hydrogen chloride were detected at levels that exceeded

Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) levels designated by the National

Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health.

Education about the safety concerns involving methamphetamine is necessary to

all community members. Appendix C represents a Nebraska Department of Roads

brochure that focuses on methamphetamine lab litter safety precautions.

The process of methamphetamine lab risk assessment is complicated because

solid research is not available regarding: impact on human health from exposures within

a meth-contaminated structure; absorption by skin or distribution of methamphetamine

throughout the body; levels of methamphetamine in air of former methamphetamine labs

that may be harmful; and, an established safe level for methamphetamine in the

environment. Chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine vary, based on the

recipe, cooking process used, and availability of ingredients. Labs often contain a variety

of chemicals including (but not limited to) toluene, denatured alcohol, ether, freon,

hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide. Other poisons such as mercury and lead also

may be present. Chemicals continue to be a threat after the methamphetamine production

32

has stopped because the toxins permeate the air inside the home and chemical residue

settles on any surface, including walls, carpeting, furniture, and fabric. The chemical

residue remains a toxic hazard long after the methamphetamine lab has been shut down.

An essential strategy in successful law enforcement response to addressing

methamphetamine labs is the involvement and education of the entire community. Law

enforcement needs to take a leadership role in assembling relevant information and

getting the message out to the masses. Collaboration among law enforcement, their

communities, and the mass media is required to combat clandestine drug labs. The

education must implement proactive measures that help identify clandestine lab operators

and methamphetamine trafficking.

Methamphetamine and Prevention Education

The historical function of Extension is to bring research-based knowledge in a

useable form to groups, families, and individuals in local communities. Extension

personnel provide an important bridge between university researchers and community

knowledge-users by being able, first, to identify community needs, and second, to select,

translate, and transmit relevant, research-based information to help address those needs

(Russell, 1991). Extension educators recognized they have a contribution to make in the

drug war and have identified drug education as a high priority. Griner and Parker’s

(2005) study on the attitudes toward both prevention programs serving youth and families

found that 70% of Extension educators sampled perceived a local need for prevention

programs addressing adolescent substance use.

33

Across the United States in state Extension Systems, methamphetamine

prevention education programs are starting. However, no need assessments have been

conducted to identify what types of structure, content, or delivery methods are required or

a national aggregated study on those needs. Many states, like Ohio, have not initiated any

programs, while other states, like Montana and its “Montana Meth Project,” have

extensive campaigns and materials available.

In 2003, Montana recognized the emerging methamphetamine problem in the

state and the Montana Department of Justice provided a grant to Montana State

University (MSU) Extension Housing and Environmental Health (Astroth & Vogel,

2008). The idea for the grant began when MSU Extension faculty received grassroots

input that methamphetamine was impacting young Montanans and the communities in

which they lived. The grant funded a diverse team of Extension agents to develop an

educational PowerPoint program that schoolteachers could use in the classroom. The 10

PowerPoints were included in the Meth Prevention—Tools for Schools CD-ROM.

To date (2008), Extension faculty have conducted 64 school and community workshops

using the toolkit, 4,000 copies of the toolkit have been distributed, and more than 269,000

Montanans have received the methamphetamine education materials.

Another state actively battling methamphetamine is Tennessee. A contributing

factor for the methamphetamine problem in Tennessee is the state borders eight states,

with interstate highways crisscrossing four major Tennessee cities—making interstate

drug trafficking inviting (Weinrauch & Liska, 2006). In 2007, Tennessee Governor Phil

34

Bredesen designated $1 million for after-school programs. The money was given to 17

agencies for three-year installment programs (Meth Destroys, 2006).

Through a 2009 Google Web search, the following Extension Systems had

educational materials posted online regarding methamphetamine: Nebraska, Missouri,

New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, California, West

Virginia, and Michigan. Of the states identified, Wisconsin and Indiana possessed the

most information. Wisconsin posted an online toolkit where visitors would be referred to

other resources available in the state. Purdue Extension developed a lesson plan on

methamphetamine, which is available online. Within the lesson plan, sample news

releases, program outlines, and a teaching preparation guide were included.

According to NIDA, prevention programs can be described by audience:

Universal, selective, and indicated (2007). Through this research project, respondents

identified what audiences are most in need for methamphetamine prevention education.

NIDA also provides three arenas in which prevention education takes place: In the

family, in school, and in the community. The best-suited arena for a prevention education

programs depend on the needs of the community. This exploratory study identified the

needs and also identified where communities currently are receiving information about

methamphetamine.

Importance of Subject Characteristics

The demographics of subjects are important variables when studying perceptions.

The characteristics hypothesized to compare with the study objectives are the gender,

35

age, and geographic area descriptions of the Extension area serviced and residence of

Extension Directors. These characteristics were included because the researcher believed

they would show relationships with the perceptions of methamphetamine safety,

educational needs, and media effects.

The Media and Geographic Location, Gender, and Age of Subjects

Mass media portrayals of rural life are inclined to use convincing stories and

dramatic effects. Since education levels are lower in rural areas (Bushey, 1998),

therefore, according to Alman (1993) and Loges (1994), rural area residents rely more on

the media and the media has more strength effecting perceptions. Implications for this

research involving methamphetamine are that rural residents learn most about

methamphetamine through the media and the effects of the media are stronger on those

citizens than those in urban or suburban areas.

Gender and age also play important roles in media consumption and dependency.

According to The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2008), 31% of U.S.

residents under the age of 50 followed crime news, while only 24% older than 50

followed crime. And, 34% of 18- to 24-year-olds have no daily news consumption.

Pew Research (2008) also found that 71% of males follow science and technology

news with 29% of females following the topic. However, 64% of women follow health

news, compared to 36% of men. These demographic statistics are important when

evaluating the perceptions of methamphetamine coverage in the news.

Although methamphetamine abuse is throughout the United States, the

geographic location of the Extension Director was important to identify and analyze

36

because methamphetamine has been characterized as a rural drug. Early outbreaks of the

drug initially began in western states but moved east of the Mississippi River (Rawson,

Gonzales, & Brethen, 2002; Donnermeyer & Tunnell, 2007; Weisheit & White, 2009).

However, because methamphetamine has the capability to affect the environment

as well as those who use the drug, Extension agents who focus on agricultural topics may

also be invested in methamphetamine education, as well as family, consumer, and health

specialties. The environmental impact of methamphetamine use and production currently

is being studied. Chemical residue from home labs remain a toxic hazard and can infect

the ground and nearby water supplies. Research showed that more than one-third of the

children found in a home laboratory tested positive for the drug because of environmental

exposure (Hohman, Oliver, & Wright, 2004).

Summary

Methamphetamine use and production is a drug problem that continuously is

changing. In the past two decades (1990-2009), methamphetamine production evolved

from being produced in clandestine labs in U.S. rural areas, to being supplied by Mexican

drug cartels, to production back in the United States using a new method that is both

quick and easier. Methamphetamine also is one of the rare drugs where the producers of

the drug serve a dual role as trafficker and user.

In many rural areas throughout the United States, Extension personnel are trusted

resources in the communities they serve and often inhabit. Extension personnel also may

discover clandestine labs themselves or notice unusual activity, such as higher traffic on

37

unpopulated roads or disturbances on absentee properties. Farmers may directly call their

agricultural Extension agent concerning anhydrous ammonia theft.

Although methamphetamine use has declined in the United States,

methamphetamine continues to be a problem because of the unique social factors

involved with the drug. Methamphetamine can be made almost anywhere using

household chemicals and the producers of the drug are mostly likely users.

Methamphetamine also affects all individuals exposed both directly and indirectly to the

chemicals. Among individuals at risk of exposure are unsuspecting children, real estate

agents, landlords, property managers, prospective renters and homebuyers, garbage

collectors, utility workers, plumbers, social service agents, law enforcement, and first

responders. According to the National Drug Threat Assessment (2008), more than 1,100

children were killed at, removed from, or injured at a methamphetamine lab from 2007 to

September 2008. The chemical residue from methamphetamine production remains a

toxic hazard long after the methamphetamine lab has been shut down.

Methamphetamine education is necessary because of the negative effects the drug

can impose on entire communities. The drug possesses a long history within the United

States and there are no indications that history methamphetamine use or production will

stop. Additional social science research is necessary to aid efforts in decreasing

methamphetamine use and production.

38

Chapter 3: Method

Chapter 3 provides an overview of the research methods used in this study. Topics

addressed in the chapter are research design, sample selection, instrument validity and

reliability, conditions of testing, timeline for data collection, controlling nonresponse

error, and data analysis. The instrument developed and used is Appendix D.

Research Design

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the perceived knowledge of

methamphetamine, methamphetamine information sources, the threat of

methamphetamine in communities, media dependency and portrayal of

methamphetamine, and the perceived need for prevention education in the United States

related to prevention and agricultural safety education. The study focused on a random

sample of U.S. states and the Extension Directors within each state (refer to Appendix A

for complete list of Extension titles). The instrument was an online survey that was

disseminated and collected through a mixed-mode approach of U.S. mail and e-mail.

Along with exploring and describing the perceptions, part of the study was

relational. The relational component identified correlations among selected

characteristics and obtained methamphetamine perceptions. These relational aspects of

39

the study were further examined by inferential analysis that identified whether there were

significant differences among the perceived geographic area descriptions of the Extension

area serviced and residence of Extension Directors, years in current Extension title,

geographic region of states sampled, current community involvement of the respondent,

level of education obtained, gender, and age of the subjects. The population described

above was appropriate to be surveyed because Extension Directors associate with diverse

populations at the grassroots level and each state possesses an Extension System.

To ensure the quality of survey research, Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2009)

identified four errors of survey research: sampling, nonresponse, coverage, and

measurement. Sampling error cannot be eliminated entirely unless a census is conducted.

However, using a large and national random sample of sufficient size, sampling error for

this study was low. Nonresponse error was controlled by utilizing the Dillman’s Tailored

Design Method (Dillman et al., 2009), which is identified in detail following “Timeline

for Data Collection.” Also, a method to control nonrepsonse was to compare early to late

respondents under the assumption that subjects who respond late are similar to those who

do not respond (Miller & Smith, 1983).

Subject Selection

Quantitative research, in the form of a survey, was used to conduct this study. The

study focused on a random sample of U.S. states and the Extension Directors within each

state (refer to Appendix A for complete list of titles). A random sample of 50 states

40

(n = 44) was calculated using Cochran’s formula (1977), with a confidence level of 95%

and risk level of 5%.

Using Microsoft Excel (2008), the 50 U.S. states were listed alphabetically, with a

numerical label of 1 through 50. Using the Excel random number generator tool, 44

numbers were randomly drawn from the 50 and paired to the numerical labels of

coordinating state. Extension Directors were identified through Web searches of each

state Extension Web site (N = 214). However, after the initial contact, the total N

decreased to 207 (because of employment retirements, vacant positions, and leave of

absences). After the selection of District Directors, each subject was given an

identification number for the purpose of preparing for the procedure of data collection

and anonymity. By random sampling the United States, results are nationally

representative.

Instrument Validity and Reliability

According to Groves, Fowler, Couper, Lepkowski, Singer, and Tourangeau,

(2004) the validity of survey research deals with “the extent to which the survey measure

accurately reflects the intended construct” (p. 254). To secure the content validity of the

instrument, a panel of experts (N = 4) reviewed the instrument. One expert in

methodology identified problems with research aspects of the questionnaire; two experts

in methamphetamine and rural crime assessed the methamphetamine-related portion; and

one media expert evaluated the media-related items of the questionnaire. A minimum of

41

three experts was needed to approve each questionnaire item for the instrument to be

considered valid. All four experts approved the questionnaire after several drafts.

Reliability refers to “the degree to which scores obtained with an instrument are

consistent measures of whatever the instrument measures” (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2000).

Reliability is the measurement of variability of answers (Groves, Fowler, Couper,

Lepkowski, Singer, & Tourangeau, 2004). After the expert questionnaire review

established validity, the questionnaire was pilot tested among Ohio State University

Extension agents (N = 24) who were not included in the sample of the study. If the

variance of the response deviations was low and the reliability coefficient approached

1.0, the questionnaire would have high reliability. For the purposes of this study, the

minimum reliability coefficient was established a priori as .7 (Nunnally & Bernstein,

1994) to be considered reliable.

Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess internal consistency of the domain of the

instrument for the items that used Likert-type scales. From the pilot test, the Cronbach’s

alpha yielded values of .92 for methamphetamine perceptions summated items, .80 for

media summated items, .78 for safety summated items, .89 for perceived knowledge

summated items, and .99 for perceived educational need summated items.

Conditions of Testing

In this study, the data were collected through a mixed-mode approach of Web and

U.S. mail questionnaires. The online survey company used was Survey Monkey

(www.surveymonkey.com). Advantages of a mixed-mode approach include lower costs,

42

improved timeliness, reduced coverage error, opportunity for incentive, improved

response rates, and reduced nonresponse error (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009).

Converse, Wolfe, Huang and Oswald (2008) found that mail followed by e-mail/Web

resulted in an 11.8% higher response rate compared to e-mail/Web followed by mail.

Since multiple contacts have demonstrated to be an effective strategy for higher

response rates by mail and Web surveys (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009), a series of

five contacts was implemented in the procedure of data collection. Tasks regarding the

five contacts are listed below.

1. First contact—Pre-notice postcard to sample (n = 215), which informed subjects of forthcoming Web questionnaire (sent July 6, 2009).

2. Second contact—Invitation letter sent through Survey Monkey, included

questionnaire instructions and link to Web questionnaire (n = 207; e-mailed July 14, 2009).

3. Third contact—Thank you/reminder e-mail was sent to all nonrespondent

subjects with questionnaire instructions. The additional mode of a paper questionnaire and regular U.S. mail was offered in this contact (e-mailed July 21, 2009.

4. Fourth contact—Second complete e-mail with a new cover letter was sent to

all nonrespondents. Additional mode was offered in this contact (e-mailed July 28, 2009).

5. Fifth and final contact—Reminder e-mail sent to all nonrespondents (e-mailed

August 4, 2009).

An individual identification number was given to each subject. The researcher

was able to use these numbers to follow-up with nonrespondents. To follow regulations

set by the Office of Responsible Research Practice at The Ohio State University, subjects

were informed that their participation was voluntary and their responses would be kept

43

strictly confidential. IRB approval was obtained and the research was concluded exempt

before commencement of the study (OHRP Federalwide Assurance #00006378).

Timeline for Data Collection

The period of data collection for the five contacts lasted approximately seven

weeks (commencing July 6, 2009 and concluding August 21, 2009). Seven days after

sending the initial mailing through U.S. mail (the first contact); an e-mail invitation with

the Survey Monkey Web link (the second contact) was disseminated to all subjects. Eight

days after sending the second contact, a thank you/reminder e-mail (the third contact) was

sent to all subjects (thank you message sent to respondents and reminder message to

nonrespondents). One week after sending the third contact, the second complete e-mail

(the fourth contact) was sent to nonrespondents. Approximately one week after sending

the fourth contact, the final reminder e-mail (the fifth and final contact) was sent to

nonrespondents. To increase the response rate, the data collection period was not held

during major U.S. holidays.

Controlling Nonresponse Error

The basic principle for controlling nonresponse error is to receive a high response

rate. To reach an ideal response rate, Linsky (1975) indicated that multiple follow-ups,

pre-contact with subjects, use of hand-stamped return envelopes, incentive distribution,

and institution sponsorship(s) with the title and signature of the responsible individual(s)

were effective strategies to maximize a survey response. Also, Dillman, Smyth, and

44

Christian (2009) suggested offering a second mode to nonrespondents. In this study, the

effective strategies available to implement were employed in the procedure of data

collection.

1. The pre-notice contact letter (first contact) was mailed to all subjects with the use of USPS commemorative stamps. The letter was in the form of a postcard with one side containing the text and the other side containing a photo and reminder to look for an e-mail from the researcher. (Refer to Appendix X for postcard sample.)

2. The pre-notice contact letter (first contact) contained the incentive of an

individually wrapped teabag. 3. The OSU logo was used in both mode options to represent visually

institutional sponsorship.

4. Each postcard was individually signed and accompanied with the business card of the investigator.

5. Included in Contacts 3 and 5, an additional mode option (U.S. mail) was

offered to complete the questionnaire. 6. The investigator served as the contact person if subjects had any questions

regarding the questionnaire or the study.

Nonresponse error occurs when the values based only on respondent data differ

from those data based on an entire sample (Groves, Fowler, Couper, Lepkowski, Singer,

& Tourangeau, 2004). To control sampling error, frames were complete and a 95%

confidence interval was identified for sampling. Early and late respondents were

compared for significant differences using t-tests for independent groups (Miller &

Smith, 1983). Subjects who returned their questionnaires before or on August 4, 2009

(the date of sending the second e-mail notification) were identified as early respondents.

Subjects were considered late respondents when the investigator received their

45

questionnaire response after August 4, 2009 (the date of the last e-mail notification).

Nineteen responses were received after August 4, 2009. A t-test for independent groups

was calculated on the summated rating scale variables (threat of methamphetamine,

media coverage, safety and health, and methamphetamine education [knowledge and

importance] needs) between early and late respondents. No significant differences were

found between the mean scores of satisfaction variables of early and late respondents

(Table 3).

N mean sd Df t Threat Early respondents Late respondents Media Coverage Early respondents Late respondents Safety and Health Early respondents Late respondents Meth Education Needs Knowledge Early respondents Late respondents Importance Early respondents Late respondents

109 19

109 18

104 17

108 18

108 18

2.77 2.65

3.94 4.20

4.98 4.86

2.63 2.60

4.20 4.27

.59 .57

.95 .72

.71 .85

1.14 1.23

1.20 1.27

125

125

119

125

124

.80

-1.15

.38

-.26

.12

Table 3. Independent Group t-tests for on Summated Rating Scales between Early and Late Respondents

46

Among early-returned questionnaires (n = 145), 11 were not usable, resulting in

n = 134. Therefore, the data collected would be representative of the target population

within the margin of error in sampling. The overall response rate was 70%.

Data Analysis

In this study, the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS 17.0 for Mac,

2009) was used for data analysis. The alpha level was set a priori at .05. Listed below are

the objectives and data analysis procedures of the study.

O1: To describe Extension Directors in: (a) age, (b) gender, (c) level of education obtained, (d) years in current Extension title, (e) geographic location description of residence, (f) geographic location description of Extension territory, (g) U.S. state geographic description, and (h) current community involvement. The analysis included frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations.

O2: To describe the methamphetamine information sources of Extension Directors. The analysis included frequencies and percentages.

O3: To describe the perceived methamphetamine knowledge of Extension Directors. The analysis included frequencies and percentages. O4: To describe the threat (related to crime, use, production, and violence) of methamphetamine as perceived by Extension Directors. The analysis included frequencies and percentages.

O5: To describe the perceived media dependency of Extension Directors for methamphetamine information. The analysis included frequencies and percentages.

O6: To describe the portrayal of methamphetamine in the media as perceived by Extension Directors. The analysis included frequencies and percentages. O7: To describe safety and health characteristics with methamphetamine production as perceived by Extension Directors. The analysis included frequencies and percentages.

47

O8: To describe the perceived needs for methamphetamine prevention education. The analysis included frequencies and percentages. O9: To describe the relationships among selected demographic characteristics (age, gender, level of education obtained, years in current Extension title, geographic location description of residence, geographic location description of Extension territory, U.S. state geographic description, prior experience with methamphetamine training, and current community involvement) and: perceived methamphetamine threat, perceived media dependency, perceived methamphetamine media portrayal, perceived safety and health risks involved with methamphetamine production, and, perceived need (knowledge and importance) for methamphetamine prevention education. For R x C contingency tables, Cramer’s V was computed to describe the association for the nominal variables of responses of gender, geographic location description of residence and Extension territory, prior experience with methamphetamine training, and U.S. state description. Spearman rank order correlations (rs) were computed for the ordinal variables of community involvement and level of education obtained. Pearson product-moment correlations (r) were computed for the ratio variables of respondents’ scores on age and years in current Extension title. The appropriate correlation for the scales of measurement of each variable was employed.

O10: To identify significant differences in selected demographic characteristics (age, gender, level of education obtained, years in current Extension title, geographic location description of residence, geographic location description of Extension territory, U.S. state geographic description, prior experience with methamphetamine training, and current community involvement) and: perceived methamphetamine threat, perceived media dependency, perceived methamphetamine media portrayal, perceived safety and health risks involved with methamphetamine production, and, perceived needs (knowledge and importance) for methamphetamine prevention education. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine whether significant differences existed in age, level of education obtained, years of Extension experience, geographic location description of residence and Extension territory, U.S state geographic description, years in current Extension title, and current community involvement. The post hoc Scheffe test was used to determine which mean or group of means is/are significantly different from the others. A t-test for independent groups was performed to determine differences in gender and prior experience with methamphetamine training (user prevention training and safety training). Assumptions for using ANOVA or a t-test were met.

For significant findings between two means for independent groups, Cohen’s

(1988) effect size is reported using the following scale: small effect (d = .20), medium

effect (d = .50), and large effect (d = .80). The following formula was used to calculate d.

For significant findings between k means (ANOVA), Cohen’s (1988) effect size

is reported using the following scale: small effect (f = .10), medium effect (f = .25), and

large effect (f = .40). The following formula was used to calculate f.

A multiple comparison statistical procedure, Scheffe’s post hoc test (Sw), was

used to determine where differences between groups existed after a significant F ratio

was obtained in a one-way ANOVA. In this study, Davis’ (1971) convention was used

for describing the magnitude of correlation coefficients (Table 4). Linear relationships

were identified.

r Adjective 1.0

.70 - .99

.50 - .69

.30 - .49

.10 - .29

.01 - .09

Perfect Very High Substantial Moderate

Low Negligible

Table 4. Magnitude of Correlation (Davis, 1971)

48

49

Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe methamphetamine

perceptions, the role of the media, and need for prevention and safety education among

Extension Directors. The study focused on a random sample of U.S. states and the

Extension Directors (refer to Appendix A for complete list of Extension titles) in the

states sampled. The survey concentrated on perceived methamphetamine knowledge, the

perceived threat of methamphetamine in the area of the Extension Director, media

dependency and portrayal of methamphetamine, methamphetamine safety and health

perceptions, and prevention education needs.

Along with exploring and describing the perceptions through a survey, part of the

study also was relational. The relational component identified correlations among

selected characteristics and obtained methamphetamine perceptions. These relational

aspects of the study further examined whether there were significant differences among

the variables. Chapter 4 presents the results of the data analysis. The findings of the data

analysis are presented in the order of study objectives.

Overall Results

A total of 207 Extension Directors were identified as the accepting sample through

randomly selected U.S. states (n = 44). Data collection lasted seven weeks: July 6, 2009

through August 21, 2009. Among the accepting sample, 145 subjects responded;

however, 11 of the returned questionnaires were not usable reducing the data sample to

134. The response rate was 70% for this study.

Of the randomly sampled 44 states, 42 states were represented with at least one

respondent. The states were blocked by region: West, South, Northeast and Midwest

(U.S. Census, 2009; Figure 6). Among all regions, the Midwest (35%) and the South

(35%) had the highest percentage of respondents (Figure 7).

50

51

Figure 6: United States by Region

51

Figure 7. Percentage of Respondents by Region

Within each region, response rates were above 50% (Figure 8). The Midwest had

the highest response rate at 75%. Although the South represented 35% of the overall U.S.

response rate, within the region, the South had the lowest response rate of 53%.

Minnesota represented the largest percentage of the states responding with 10.5%. Texas

and Missouri each represented 5.3% and New York, Ohio, Louisiana, and Iowa had 4.5%

each.

52

63.9%

75.0%

65.4%

53.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

West Midwest Northeast South

Region

Per

cent

of

n by

Reg

ion

Figure 8. Response Rate by Region

Results by Objective

O1: To describe Extension Directors in: (a) age, (b) gender, (c) level of education

obtained, (d) years in Extension title, (e) geographic location description of residence, (f)

geographic location description of Extension territory, (g) U.S. state geographic

description, and (h) current community involvement.

Ages ranged from 32 to 64, with an average age of 53 (Table 5). Years in current

Extension title ranged from less than six months to 40 years with a mean of 13 years.

Extension titles were blocked into five categories: Area Director, District Director,

53

Program Director, Regional Director, and Other (Appendix A). The majority of

respondents had “regional” in their job title (42%) and 34% had “district” in their title.

Respondents also were asked their prior employment position and industry (Appendix G).

Mean SD Range Age Year in current Extension title

52.9

13.4

7.0

10.6

33

41

Table 5. Age and Years in Current Extension Title

Of the Extension Directors, 56% were male and 44% were female (Table 6). The

majority of the sample possessed an MS or MA (65%) and 31% had earned a PhD. One

respondent did not possess a college degree (0.8%) and one Extension Director had a BS.

(0.8%).

Approximately 50% of Extension Directors live in a rural area and 34% identified

their Extension territory as rural (Table 6). Thirty-six percent responded that their

Extension territory was rural/suburban, making 80% of the Extension territories either

rural or rural/suburban. Only 16% of Extension Directors lived in an urban area and 5%

served an urban territory.

Although the sample was highly educated and held similar employment titles, the

Extension Directors varied with their individual community involvement. Often times,

Extension Directors are consumed with administrative duties and are not involved with

the daily programming in the communities. The community involvement of the sample

54

was blocked into four categories: high (weekly), medium (monthly), low (yearly), and

none. Twenty-six percent of the respondents had high involvement, which signified

weekly interaction. Medium involvement represented monthly interaction, with 31% of

Extension Directors in this category. The largest percentage, 34%, had low or yearly

involvement. Nine percent of Extension Directors reported no community involvement.

55

Frequency Percent Gender (n = 123) Male Female Educational level (n = 123) Some college College graduate Some graduate school MS/MA Doctorate Geographic location description of residence (n = 123) Rural Suburban Urban Geographic location description of Extension (n = 123) Rural Suburban Urban Rural/Suburban Suburban/Urban U.S. state geographic description (n = 134) West Midwest Northeast South Current community involvement (n = 123) High (weekly) Medium (monthly) Low (yearly) None

69 54

1 1 3 80 38

61 42 20

54 2 6 44 17

23 54 17 39

32 38 42 11

56.1 43.9

0.8 0.8

2.4 65.0 30.9

49.6 34.1 16.3

43.9 1.6 4.9 35.8 13.8

17.3 40.3 12.7 29.3

26.0 30.9 34.1 8.9

Table 6. Demographic Characteristics of Gender, Education Level, Geographic Information, and Current Community Involvement

56

O2: To describe the methamphetamine information sources of Extension Directors.

During the past year, 53% of Extension Directors reported no involvement with

the provided list of community members (Figure 9). However, Extension Directors

responded they experienced the most involvement regarding methamphetamine with

Extension colleagues (19%) and law enforcement (8%). Four Extension Directors filled

in the following answers: “Just hear it in the news,” “mental health professional,”

“Coalition for Drug Free Youth,” or “tribal official.”

7.5 7.5 8.12.5

18.6

03.1

52.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Med

ia

Public s

choo

l offi

cial

Law en

force

ment

State p

ublic

health

emplo

yee

Extens

ion c

olleag

ue

Meth

user

Family

mem

ber/fri

end o

f meth

user

None of t

he abov

e

Community member

Per

cent

Figure 9. Involvement with Community Members in Past Year

57

The Extension Directors were asked a series of yes or no questions related to

methamphetamine clandestine labs in their area. Seventy-nine percent had read or

watched news coverage about a local methamphetamine lab seizure (Table 7). Yet, only

16% of Extension Directors had seen a lab in their area. When asked about the thefts of

farm chemicals, 52% of Extension Directors were aware of thefts in their area.

Overall, Extension Directors from the Midwest had read or watched the most

news about lab seizures (34%), saw the most methamphetamine labs in their area

(29.1%), and were aware of farm chemical thefts that may have been used for

methamphetamine production (29%). The findings dispute stereotypes that

methamphetamine has been predominately a problem in the West region of the United

States.

Question or Statement

% of region

(n)

% of region

(n)

% of region

(n)

Answer Yes No Don’t know

In the past year, I have read or watched news coverage about a local meth lab seizure.

79.1 (106)

20.9 (28)

Not an option for

item

Have you ever seen a meth lab in your area?

15.7 (21)

83.6 (112)

0.7 (1)

Are you aware of thefts of farm chemicals that might have been used to make meth in your area?

51.5 (69)

47.8 (64)

0.7 (1)

Table 7. Personal Experience with Methamphetamine Lab Seizures Nationally

58

When responses were blocked by region, the South had the highest frequency

among the regions (87%) regarding if the Extension Directors had read or watched news

coverage about a methamphetamine lab seizure (Table 8). The Extension Directors in the

South had seen the most methamphetamine labs in their area (22%). Yet, Extension

Directors of the Midwest were aware of the most farm chemical thefts that may have

been used to make methamphetamine (72%).

Extension Directors in the Northeast region read or watched the least amount of

news coverage on lab seizures compared to the other U.S. regions. Approximately 41%

of Extension Directors indicated they saw or read about a lab seizure in their local news

(Table 8). Findings were similar with whether Extension Directors had seen a

methamphetamine lab (0%) in their area and if they were aware of thefts of the farm

chemicals used to make methamphetamine (29.4%).

The results also indicate that the news covers lab seizures in such a way that

Extension Directors are able to recall they had seen the topic in the past year. Except for

the Northeast region, the majority of Extension Directors remembered reading or

watching local coverage of a methamphetamine lab seizure. Yet in reality, less than 25%

of Extension Directors had seen a methamphetamine lab. Results are consistent with the

total clandestine lab incidents (National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System, 2009;

Figure 1).

59

60

Question or Statement Region

% of region

(frequency)

% of region

(frequency)

% of region

(frequency)

Overall Percent

Answer Yes No Don’t know Yes

In the past year, I have read or watched news coverage about a local meth lab seizure.

West Midwest South Northeast

82.6 (19) 85.2 (46) 87.2 (34) 41.2 (7)

17.4 (4) 14.8 (8) 12.8 (5) 58.8 (10)

Not an option for

item

14.2 34.3 25.4 5.2

Have you ever seen a meth lab in your area?

West Midwest South Northeast

21.7 (5) 16.6 (9) 17.9 (7) 0.0 (0)

73.9 (17) 83.3 (45) 82.0 (32)

100.0 (17)

4.3 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)

3.7 6.7 5.2 0.0

Are you aware of thefts of farm chemicals that might have been used to make meth in your area?

West Midwest South Northeast

17.4 (4) 72.2 (39) 51.3 (20) 29.4 (5)

78.3 (18) 27.8 (15) 65.5 (19) 70.6 (12)

4.3 (1) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0) 0.0 (0)

2.9

29.1 14.9 3.7

Table 8. Methamphetamine Clandestine Lab Information Sources by Region

Extension Directors were asked to rank various sources or methods of

methamphetamine information ranging from “obtained the most information to “obtained

the least or no information.” Extension Directors learned the most from the news with

44% ranking the media as the most information (Table 9). The second most informative

source was law enforcement at 22%. The least amount of methamphetamine information

was obtained from formal education (34%) and the entertainment media (24%).

Most

% (n)

Least % (n)

News media

44.0 (44)

23.0 (23)

13 (13.0)

11.0 (11)

4.0 (4)

3.0 (3)

2.0 (2)

Law enforcement

21.7 (20)

21.7 (20)

23.9 (22)

10.9 (10)

9.8 (9)

6 (6.5)

5.4 (5)

Public health campaign 16.1 (15)

15.1 (14)

24.7 (23)

17.2 (16)

12.9 (12)

5 (5.4)

8.6 (8)

Extension education

4.7 (4)

10.6 (9)

10.6 (9)

20.0 (17)

18.8 (16)

16.5 (14)

18.8 (16)

Word-of-mouth 3.4 (3)

16.1 (14)

18.4 (16)

17.2 (15)

13.8 (12)

17 (19.5)

11.5 (10)

Entertainment media

0.0 (0)

11.3 (9)

10.0 (8)

12.5 (10)

16.3 (13)

21 (26.3)

23.8 (19)

Formal education

1.2 (1)

5.9 (5)

5.9 (5)

12.9 (11)

20.0 (17)

20.0 (17)

34.1 (29)

61

Table 9. Rating (in percent) of Methamphetamine Information Sources

61

62

Although Extension Directors rated the news media as a major source of

methamphetamine information, they did not perceive the same when asked about

entertainment media, such as fictional and reality television. Twenty-nine percent

responded that they had seen a fictional television show that portrayed methamphetamine

and 13% watched a reality television show that included methamphetamine (Table 10).

Even with the explosion of social media (such as Facebook, blogs, YouTube, and

Twitter), only 5% of Extension Directors had read or watched social media that included

methamphetamine information.

Statement Yes %

(n) No %

(n)

In the past year, I have watched a fictional television show that portrayed methamphetamine.

29.1 (37)

70.9 (90)

In the past year, I have watched a reality television show that portrayed methamphetamine.

13.4 (17)

86.6 (110)

In the past year, I have read/watched methamphetamine information of a social media site (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, blogs, YouTube).

4.7 (6)

95.3 (121)

Table 10. Other Media Sources of Methamphetamine Information When asked if Extension Directors had received methamphetamine training, the

answers varied. Eleven percent received methamphetamine user prevention training and

23% had been involved with methamphetamine safety training that included anhydrous

ammonia theft and lab detection. However, 93% of Extension Directors wanted initial or

63

additional training (which will be reported further in the needs for methamphetamine

prevention education objective).

Extension Directors in the Midwest region received the most user prevention

training and safety training when the regions were blocked (Table 11). Six percent of

those who answered the question (n = 127) received user prevention training and 14%

possessed methamphetamine safety training.

The majority of the sample had not received methamphetamine prevention

training or methamphetamine safety (including anhydrous theft and lab detection)

training (Table 11). Eleven percent of Extension Directors responded they had previous

methamphetamine prevention education training. However, 24% of the sample had

methamphetamine safety training.

Of the Extension Directors who had received methamphetamine prevention

education training, 57% were located in the Midwestern region, 29% in the Southern

region, 7% in the Northeastern region, and 7% in the Western region. For

methamphetamine safety training, 60% were located in the Midwest region, 20% in the

South region, 17%in the West region, and 0% in the Northeast region.

64

West Region

Meth user prevention training Frequency % of

Region % of N

Yes 1 4.5 .78

No 21 95.5 16.5

Meth safety training

Yes 5 22.7 3.9

No 17 77.3 13.4

South Region

Meth user prevention training Frequency % of

Region % of N

Yes 4 11.4 3.1

No 31 88.6 24.4

Meth safety training

Yes 7 20.0 5.5

No 28 88.6 22.0

Midwest Region

Meth user prevention training Frequency % of

Region % of N

Yes 8 15.1 6.3

No 45 84.9 35.4

Meth safety training

Yes 18 34.0 14.2

No 35 66.0 27.6

Northeast Region

Meth user prevention training Frequency % of

Region % of N

Yes 1 6.3 .78

No 15 93.8 11.8

Meth safety training

Yes 0 0.0 0.0

No 16 100.0 12.6 c Frequency does not total 134 because of missing data

Table 11. Methamphetamine User Prevention and Safety Training Nationally and Blocked by Region

65

O3: To describe the perceived methamphetamine knowledge of Extension Directors.

To identify the general understanding of methamphetamine among the sample,

Extension Directors were asked to answer four yes or no items. Fifty-nine percent of

Extension Directors did not know if the majority of methamphetamine in their area was

produced in a U.S. clandestine lab (Table 12). Yet, 36% believed that methamphetamine

is made in clandestine labs in their area.

Statement Frequency Percent The majority of methamphetamine in your area is made in U.S. clandestine labs.

Yes No Don’t know Total

48 7

79 134

35.8 5.2 59.0 100.0

Table 12. Knowledge of Methamphetamine Production Labs

Extension Directors were more knowledgeable of the physical effects of

methamphetamine use (Table 13). Seventy-six percent did answer correctly that some

physical signs of methamphetamine use included rotting teeth, paranoia, scratching of

skin, and decreased appetite. Twenty-one percent did not know the answer.

Statement Frequency Percent Some physical signs of methamphetamine use include: rotting teeth, paranoia, scratching of skin, and decreased appetite.

Yes No Don’t know Total

102 4

28 134

76.1 3.0 20.9 100.0

Table 13: Knowledge of Methamphetamine Physical Effects

66

Extension Directors also were aware of the environmental hazards caused by

methamphetamine production (Table 14). Seventy-one percent were aware that the

materials used to make methamphetamine are not biodegradable. Yet, 28% did not know.

Statement Frequency Percent Methamphetamine production has little effect on the environment because the production waste is biodegradable.

Yes No Don’t know Total

2 95 37 134

1.5 70.9 27.6

100.0 Table 14. Knowledge of Environmental Effects

Lastly, Extension Directors were asked if more people are using

methamphetamine today, nationally, than in 2002 (Table 15). A surprising 90% answered

that users had increased. Although data were limited on actual methamphetamine use,

NSDUH 2008 findings revealed that between 2006 and 2008, the number of past month

methamphetamine users decreased by more than half. In 2006, an estimated 731,000

people 12 and older in the United States were methamphetamine users. In 2008, the

estimated number was 314,000. From 2002 to 2008, methamphetamine use among young

adults' decreased from 0.6% to 0.2%.

Statement Frequency Percent Nationally, more people are using methamphetamine today than in 2002.

Yes No Total

121 13 134

90.3 9.7

100.0 Table 15. Knowledge of Methamphetamine Use

67

As part of the needs assessment for future methamphetamine programming in

Extension, the sample was asked to rate their perceived knowledge on a six-point Likert

scale (Table 16; see Appendix F for full table). The scale was from low to high, with 1

representing low knowledge and 6 representing high knowledge. Ratings for all items

were less than 3.0, representing low knowledge on the items presented.

Extension Directors perceived they knew the least about current federal laws

regarding methamphetamine (80%), but were somewhat more familiar with current state

laws regarding the drug (74%). Perceived knowledge was not much higher for

identification of methamphetamine educational resources (72%) or methamphetamine

prevention resources (75%). Overall, Extension Directors perceived they were the most

familiar with signs of methamphetamine production (34%) and signs of

methamphetamine use (35%).

Low Perceived

Knowledge %

High Perceived

Knowledge %

Signs of meth production 65.4 33.9

Signs of meth use 65.4 35.4

Your current state laws regarding meth 74.0 25.2

Current federal laws regarding meth 79.5 19.7

Meth prevention resources 74.8 24.4 Identification of meth education resources 71.7 27.6

Table 16. Aggregated Responses Blocked as Perceived Low and High Knowledge

68

O4: To describe the threat (related to crime, use, production, and violence) of

methamphetamine as perceived by Extension Directors.

Methamphetamine involves entire communities because of the indirect effects of

the drug. Communities that have methamphetamine may experience violent, property,

and domestic crime increases. Extension Directors were asked to rate various aspects of

methamphetamine in their local area as “no problem,” “minor,” “serious,” or “very

serious” (Table 17).

The majority of Extension Directors responded that methamphetamine use (55%),

production (54%), property crime (49%), domestic violence (47%), and access to

methamphetamine in high schools (43%) were serious problems in their area.

Methamphetamine and violent crime (42%) and methamphetamine-related crime in high

schools (61%) were perceived as minor problems.

Overall, methamphetamine use was perceived as the most threatening aspect of

methamphetamine. Methamphetamine-related crime in high schools was perceived as the

lowest threat. Property crime was perceived as the most serious crime-related issue with

67% of Extension Directors responding that property crime was a serious or very serious

problem.

69

No Problem

% (n)

Minor % (n)

Serious % (n)

Very Serious

% (n)

Meth use

1.6 (2)

20.2 (26)

55.0 (71)

23.3 (30)

Meth production 1.6 (2)

28.9 (37)

53.9 (69)

15.6 (20)

Meth and violent crime

2.3 (3)

42.2 (54)

39.8 (51)

15.6 (20)

Meth and property crime

0.8 (1)

32.3 (41)

48.8 (62)

18.1 (23)

Meth and domestic crime 0.8 (1)

35.4 (45)

47.2 (60)

16.5 (21)

Access to meth in high schools

1.6 (2)

41.7 (53)

43.3 (55)

13.4 (17)

Meth-related crime in high schools

3.2 (4)

60.8 (76)

28.0 (35)

8.0 (10)

Table 17. Perceived Threat of Methamphetamine in Area of Extension Directors

69

70

O5: To describe the perceived media dependency of Extension Directors for

methamphetamine information.

The items measuring the dependency on the media for methamphetamine

information were threaded throughout the questionnaire and presented in the findings of

Objective 2. Extension Directors learned the most from the news with 44% ranking the

media as where they obtained the most information about methamphetamine (Figure 10).

Seventy-nine percent of Extension Directors reported they had read or watched local

news coverage on a methamphetamine lab seizure (Table 10). And in the past year, 29%

of Extension Directors reported they had watched a fictional television show that

portrayed methamphetamine; 13% reported they had watched a reality television show

that portrayed methamphetamine; 5% reported they had read or watched

methamphetamine information on social media site.

Extension Directors also were asked their level of agreement on a six-point

Likert scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree) to the following statement: “The

media is my primary source of information regarding methamphetamine.” Twenty-four

percent of Extension Directors strongly agreed, 39% agreed, and 22% somewhat agreed.

Overall, 85% perceived the media as their primary source of methamphetamine

information.

2.45.5

7.1

22

38.6

24.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

StronglyDisagree

Disagree SomewhatDisagree

SomewhatAgree

Agree StronglyAgree

Level of Agreement

Per

cent

age

Figure 10. Level of Agreement to Statement: The Media Is My Primary Source of Information Regarding Methamphetamine O6: To describe the portrayal of methamphetamine in the media as perceived by

Extension Directors.

Extension Directors were asked their level of agreement, on a six-point Likert

scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree), their agreement on three statements

relating to their perceptions of trust and accuracy of the media. Although findings from

Objective 5 suggest that Extension Directors are dependent on the media for

methamphetamine information, the majority of Extension Directors did not strongly

agree or agree on the media covering methamphetamine news accurately (Table 18). The

majority of Extension Directors also do not strongly trust their local or national news

portrayal of methamphetamine.

71

72

Forty-nine percent of Extension Directors somewhat agreed that the media covers

methamphetamine news accurately. Overall, Extension Directors trust their local media

portrayal of methamphetamine more than the national coverage of the issue. Seventy-

seven percent generally agreed they trusted their local news compared to 72% in

agreement that they trust the national news portrayal.

Disagreement Agreement

Statement Strongly Disagree

% (n)

Disagree % (n)

Somewhat Disagree

% (n)

Somewhat Agree % (n)

Agree % (n)

Strongly Agree % (n)

The media covers meth news accurately. 0.8 (1) 4.0 (5) 17.5 (22) 49.2 (62) 23.8 (30) 4.8 (6)

I trust my local news portrayal of meth. 0.8 (1) 7.9 (10) 14.3 (18) 44.4 (56) 27.8 (35) 4.8 (6)

I trust the national news portrayal of meth. 2.4 (3) 8.7 (11) 16.7 (21) 47.6 (60) 21.4 (27) 3.4 (4)

Table 18. Perceived Trust and Accuracy of the Media Extension Directors also were asked to agree or disagree with statements

regarding whether they perceived the media as stereotyping and sensationalizing

methamphetamine characteristics and if the media attempted to appeal to their emotions.

Sixty-seven percent of Extension Directors believed the media does not stereotype (Table

19). However, 53% of Extension Directors agreed that the media stereotypes

73

methamphetamine use as primarily a problem among individuals of low socioeconomic

status.

When asked if the media sensationalized methamphetamine use, 64% of

Extension Directors disagreed with the statement. That finding is interesting because 93%

of Extension Directors said they believe that methamphetamine use is higher today than

in 2002, which is incorrect according to the only available data sources on use.

The findings presented in this research and from previous studies present the

following question: If the news is the primary source for methamphetamine information,

why do Extension Directors believe methamphetamine use is higher today than 2002

when research supports otherwise? Despite the data, 64% of Extension Directors

perceived the news as not sensationalizing methamphetamine use.

Emotions and news content are important when studying moral panics. When the

news industry appeals to the emotions of an audience, the coverage inherently assists

moral panics (McRobbie & Thornton, 1995). The interest of an audience is intensified

when the audience becomes emotionally invested in the content. Fifty-six percent of

Extension Directors perceived that the media attempted to appeal to their emotions when

reporting methamphetamine-related stories (Table 19). Although the majority of

Extension Directors perceived the media as not sensationalizing methamphetamine

content, appealing to their emotions, in some aspects, is sensationalism.

74

Statement Agree % (n)

Disagree % (n)

The media stereotypes meth as primarily a rural drug. 33.3 (42) 66.7 (84)

The media stereotypes meth use primarily a problem to individuals of low socioeconomic status. 53.2 (67) 46.8 (59)

The media sensationalizes meth use. 35.7 (45) 64.3 (81)

The media attempts to appeal to my emotions when reporting meth-related stories. 56.0 (70) 44.0 (55)

Table 19. Perceptions of the Media Regarding Stereotypes, Sensationalism, and Emotions

O7: To describe safety and health characteristics with methamphetamine production as

perceived by Extension Directors.

Methamphetamine is a unique illicit drug that can be made with common

household items and be made in clandestine labs that have been found in such locations

as abandoned sheds to a lab found in a funeral home (United Press International, 2009).

Although the majority of Extension Directors agreed that methamphetamine production is

dangerous (95%) and that the production harms the environment (86%), 7% do not know

what to do and 17% do not know what to do if they suspected a methamphetamine lab in

their community (Table 20). An alarming 16% of Extension Directors did not know if

their state Extension Service offered methamphetamine safety programming, yet 91%

agreed that methamphetamine safety is an important aspect in drug education.

75

Another interesting finding involving the media was that 67% of Extension

Directors agreed that methamphetamine safety is not covered enough in the media. This

is important because as presented earlier, 79% had read or watched news coverage about

a local methamphetamine lab seizure. And, 85% agreed that the media is their primary

source of information regarding methamphetamine.

This section also concluded that farmers should be a primary audience for

methamphetamine safety programming (Table 20). Eighty-eight percent of Extension

Directors agreed farmers should be an audience and 87% agreed methamphetamine

safety should be taught in farm safety programs. At this time, more than one-half of

Extension Directors (58%) did not believe their state offered methamphetamine safety

programming.

Key: StD: Strongly disagree SA: Somewhat agree

Disagreement Agreement

Statement StD % (n)

D % (n)

SD % (n)

StA % (n)

A % (n)

SA % (n)

Don’t Know

% (n)

Meth production is dangerous.

3.2 (4)

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

0.8 (1)

15.9 (20)

77.8 (98)

2.4 (3)

Meth production harms the environment.

2.4 (3)

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)

3.2 (4)

23.0 (29)

59.5 (75)

11.9 (15)

My state Extension Service currently offers meth safety programming.

16.8 (21)

30.4 (38)

10.4 (13)

11.2 (14)

12.0 (15)

3.2 (4)

16.0 (20)

Farmers should be an audience for meth safety programming.

0.8 (1)

1.6 (2)

2.4 (3)

21.0 (26)

41.9 (52)

25.0 (31)

7.3 (9)

Meth safety is an important aspect in drug education.

1.6 (2)

0.8 (1)

3.2 (4)

9.5 (12)

39.7 (50)

41.3 (52)

4.0 (5)

Meth safety is not covered enough in the media.

1.6 (2)

4.8 (6)

12.8 (16)

24.8 (31)

31.2 (39)

11.2 (14)

13.6 (17)

Meth lab detection should be taught in farm safety programs.

1.6 (2)

0.0 (0)

1.6 (2)

19.4 (24)

45.2 (56)

22.6 (28)

9.7 (12)

I know what to do if I suspect a meth lab in my community.

4.0 (5)

6.3 (8)

6.3 (8)

14.3 (18)

38.1 (48)

23.8 (30)

7.1 (9)

D: Disagree A: Agree SD: Somewhat disagree SA: Strongly Agree Table 20. Perceptions of Methamphetamine Safety and Health

76

77

O8: To describe the perceived needs for methamphetamine prevention education.

Objective 2 described the perceived knowledge of methamphetamine

programming variables on a 6-point Likert scale of low to high knowledge. Following

those items on the questionnaire were the same items; however, Extension Directors were

asked to rate their perceived importance for others of the items in methamphetamine

education (Table 21).

The educational areas that received the highest perceived levels of importance

were: Identification of methamphetamine education resources (76%), signs of

methamphetamine use (76%), and signs of methamphetamine production (73%). These

findings are consistent with the previous findings presented in Objective 2 (Table 16).

Overall, perceived knowledge is low regarding methamphetamine production signs, use,

state and federal laws, prevention resources and identification of methamphetamine

education resources. Yet, perceived importance of the same topics is high.

Low

n (%)

Highn

(%)

Signs of meth production 2.4 (3)

8.7 (11)

15.9 (20)

27.0 (34)

25.4 (32)

20.6 (26)

Signs of meth use 2.4 (3)

7.1 (9)

14.3 (18)

25.4 (32)

31.0 (39)

19.8 (25)

Your current state laws regarding meth 1.6 (2)

13.6 (17)

18.4 (23)

32.0 (40)

22.4 (28)

12.0 (15)

Current federal laws regarding meth 3.2 (4)

12.7 (16)

21.4 (27)

27.8 (35)

23.8 (30)

11.1 (14)

Meth prevention resources 3.2 (4)

7.2 (9)

14.4 (18)

26.4 (33)

30.4 (38)

18.4 (23)

Identification of meth education resources

4.0 (5)

7.9 (10)

11.9 (15)

27.0 (34)

29.4 (37)

19.8 (25)

78

78

Table 21. Perceived Importance for Others in Methamphetamine Education

79

Extension Directors also were asked who they believed should receive training

about methamphetamine. Twelve groups were presented and each received more than

70% agreement the group should receive methamphetamine training (Table 22).

However, school officials topped the list with 98% of Extension Directors reporting they

need to receive methamphetamine training. Ninety-five percent of Extension Directors

believed parents and public health employees also should receive training. Extension

Directors also were asked to fill-in any additional groups. Responses ranged from

grandparents to agriculture chemical dealers (see Appendix H for full list).

Community Group Percent n

Farmers 84.9 107

Local Extension Directors 84.9 107

Law enforcement 91.3 115

School officials 97.6 123

Public health employees 95.2 120

Fire departments 85.7 108

EMTs 88.1 111

Judges 70.6 101

Doctors 80.2 89

Children (<12) 60.3 76

Adolescents (>12) 90.5 114

Parents 95.2 120

None of the above 0.8 1 Table 22. Community Groups That Need Methamphetamine Training

80

Objective 2 reported that 11% of Extension Directors responded they had

previous methamphetamine prevention education training and 24% possessed

methamphetamine safety training (Table 11). Of those who had general

methamphetamine training, 19 responded the hours of training. Reponses ranged from 1

to 10 hours with a mode of 2 hours and total of 55 hours.

Extension Directors also filled in what topics the initial training covered and what

additional training topics they would like (Appendix I). For Extension Directors who

have received training, common topics included signs of methamphetamine use and user

prevention. Areas for additional training identified lab detection, safety, and use

identification.

Objective 7 described if Extension Directors were aware if their state had

methamphetamine safety programming. Sixteen percent did not know and 58% did not

believe their state offered such programming (Table 20). When asked about general

methamphetamine programming, 84% answered “no” to their state currently offering

methamphetamine training (Table 23). When blocked by region, the East reported no

training and 20% of the Midwest, 15% of the South, and 22% of the West reported their

state did offer methamphetamine training.

Statement Frequency Percent My area Extension System currently has meth training.

Yes No Total

20 103 123

16.3 83.7 100.0

Table 23. Current Methamphetamine Programming in Extension Systems

81

O9: To describe the relationships among selected demographic characteristics (gender,

age, level of education obtained, years of Extension experience, geographic location

description of residence and Extension territory, U.S state geographic description, years

in current Extension title, and current community involvement) and: perceived

methamphetamine threat, perceived media dependency, perceived methamphetamine

media portrayal, perceived safety and health characteristics involved with

methamphetamine production, and, perceived needs for methamphetamine prevention

education.

Table 24 summarizes the associations found among gender, location of residence,

location of Extension area, U.S. region, prior methamphetamine training with perception

variables (i.e., threat, media dependency, media portrayal, safety and health, perceived

knowledge and perceived importance). For R x C contingency tables, Cramer’s V was

computed to describe the association for the nominal variables of responses of gender,

geographic location description of residence and Extension territory, prior experience

with methamphetamine training, and U.S. state description. Spearman rank order

correlations (rs) were computed for the ordinal variables of community involvement and

level of education obtained. Pearson product-moment correlations (r) were computed for

the ratio variables of respondents’ scores on age and years in current Extension title. The

appropriate correlation for the scales of measurement of each variable was employed.

The majority of the Cramer’s V values found moderate associations among

variables (values of .20 and less than .40). However, according to Davis (1971), gender

and perceived knowledge had a substantial association ( = .54); location of Extension

82

area and perceived knowledge had a substantial association ( = .50); and, prior

methamphetamine training and perceived knowledge had a substantial association

( = .62).

Thr

eat

Med

ia

Dep

ende

ncy

Med

ia

Por

tray

al

Saf

ety

&

Hea

lth

Per

ceiv

ed

Kno

wle

dge

Per

ceiv

ed

Impo

rtan

ce

Gender Location of Residence Location of Extension Area U.S. Region Prior Meth Training (user) Prior Meth Training (safety)

.35

.33

.35

.41

.40

.24

.20

.20

.20

.31

.18

.14

.33

.31

.32

.38

.42

.21

.39

.48

.41

.45

.46

.44

.54

.47

.41

.45

.49

.62

.49

.49

.50

.46

.30

.45

Table 24. Association (Cramer’s V statistic) among Gender, Location of Residence, Location of Extension Area, U.S. Region, Prior Meth Training with Threat, Media Dependency, Media Portrayal, Safety and Health, Perceived Knowledge and Perceived Importance

Table 25 summarizes the relationships found among age, educational level,

community involvement, and years in Extension title with perception variables (i.e.,

threat, media dependency, media portrayal, safety and health, perceived knowledge and

perceived importance). Negligible Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients (r)

and Spearman rank-order coefficients (rs) were obtained for all variables except for age

and perceived methamphetamine threat (r = .23) and level of education and perceived

methamphetamine threat (rs = .18). These findings can be interpreted using a coefficient

of determination (r2).

Squaring (r = .23) produced a value of .0529. When .0529 is multiplied by 100,

the value can be interpreted as 5.3%. This means that 94.7% of the variability (1-r2) in

83

perceived threat of methamphetamine in the area of Extension Director is “unexplained”

by knowledge of age. Although the correlation is low, a relationship does exist between

age and perceived methamphetamine threat. The older an Extension Director is, the more

likely he or she is to perceive methamphetamine as a threat in their Extension area.

For rs = .18, knowledge of level of education explains 3.2% of the variability in

their perceived threat of methamphetamine in their area. Education level and perceived

threat also has a low correlation coefficient. The more educated an Extension Director is,

the more likely he or she is to perceive methamphetamine as a threat in their Extension

area.

Thr

eat

Med

ia

Dep

ende

ncy

Med

ia

Por

tray

al

Saf

ety

&

Hea

lth

Per

ceiv

ed

Kno

wle

dge

Per

ceiv

ed

Impo

rtan

ce

Age Educational Level Community Involvement Years in Extension Title

.23

.18 -.14 .05

.11

.17

.01

.11

.13

.05

.03

.06

.10 -.17 -.06 .03

.01 -.07 -.27 .16

.06

.02

.01

.10

Table 25. Correlation Coefficients for the Relationships among Gender, Location of Residence, Location of Extension Area, U.S. Region, Prior Meth Training with Threat, Media Dependency, Media Portrayal, Safety and Health, Perceived Knowledge and Perceived Importance

O10: To identify significant differences in selected demographic characteristics (gender,

age, level of education obtained, years of Extension experience, geographic location

description of residence and Extension territory, U.S state geographic description, years

in current Extension title, and current community involvement) and: perceived

84

methamphetamine threat, perceived media dependency, perceived methamphetamine

media portrayal, perceived safety and health characteristics involved with

methamphetamine production, and perceived needs for methamphetamine prevention

education.

Independent group t-tests and One-Way Analysis of Variances (ANOVAs) were

performed to identify significant differences among dichotomous nominal variables (i.e.,

gender and prior methamphetamine user and safety training), multichotomous nominal

variables (i.e.,age, level of education obtained, years of Extension experience, geographic

location description of residence and Extension territory, U.S state geographic

description, years in Extension, and current community involvement), and the dependent

variables (perceived methamphetamine threat, perceived media dependency, perceived

methamphetamine media portrayal, perceived safety and health characteristics involved

with methamphetamine production, and, perceived needs for methamphetamine

prevention education.

A Likert scale, otherwise referred to as a summated rating scale, was used to

generate means summed across items. The sums are assumed to be internal in scale of

measurement. An alpha level of .05 was appropriate and is commonly used in social

sciences.

Gender

Table 26 presents the t-tests for the independent groups of male and female

Extension Directors and perception variables. No significant differences were found

among the mean scores of threat, media dependency, media portrayal, and safety and

health. Significant differences were found between perceived knowledge and perceived

85

importance by male and female groups. The results indicated that males perceived

themselves as more knowledgeable about methamphetamine (d = .35). Yet, females

perceived methamphetamine education as more important for others (d = .44).

n mean sd df t Threat Male Female Media Dependency Male Female Media Portrayal Male Female Safety & Health Male Female Perceived Knowledge Male Female Perceived Importance Male Female

62 60

64 60

64 60

60 58

64 60

64 60

19.29 19.42

4.72 4.63

12.75 12.45

39.52 39.55

16.88 14.48

23.66 26.77

3.90 4.13

1.05 1.28

2.33 2.91

5.41 6.08

6.13 7.41

6.92 7.36

120

122

122

116

122

122

-.17

.41

.64

-.03

1.95*

-2.42*

* Statistically significant at the .05 alpha level Table 26. Independent Group t-test Between Male and Female Extension Directors

Prior Methamphetamine User Education Training

Table 27 presents the t-tests for the independent groups of prior

methamphetamine user training and perception variables. No significant differences were

found among the mean scores of threat, media dependency, media portrayal, safety and

health, and perceived importance. Significant differences were found between perceived

86

knowledge and Extension Directors who had prior methamphetamine user training.

Results found those who had prior training perceived their knowledge significantly

higher than those Extension Directors without prior user training (d = .72)

n mean sd df t

Threat Training No Training Media Dependency Training No Training Media Coverage Training No Training Safety & Health Training No Training Perceived Knowledge Training No Training Perceived Importance Training No Training

14 111

14 113

14 113

14 107

14 113

14 112

20.00 19.22

4.57 4.66

12.14 12.58

37.71 39.93

22.29 14.92

24.79 25.24

5.13 4.00

1.34 1.17

4.04 2.48

7.04 5.66

5.51 6.59

6.70 7.33

123

125

125

119

125

124

.69

-.27

-.58

-1.34

4.00*

-.22

* Statistically significant at the .05 alpha level Table 27. Independent group t-test Between Extension Directors Who Have Had Training in Methamphetamine User Prevention

Prior Methamphetamine Safety Education Training Table 28 presents the t-tests for the independent groups of prior

methamphetamine safety training and perception variables. No significant differences

were found among the mean scores of threat, media dependency, media portrayal, safety

and health, and perceived importance. Significant differences were found between

87

perceived knowledge and Extension Directors who had prior methamphetamine safety

training. Results found those who had prior safety training perceived their knowledge

significantly higher than those Extension Directors without prior user training (d = .93).

n mean sd df t Threat Training No Training Media Dependency Training No Training Media Portrayal Training No Training Safety & Health Training No Training Perceived Knowledge Training No Training Perceived Importance Training No Training

29 96

30 97

30 97

29 92

30 97

30 96

19.79 19.16

4.87 4.59

13.13 12.35

39.28 39.80

20.93 14.12

23.37 25.76

3.58 4.29

1.00 1.23

2.49 2.72

7.96 5.05

5.61 6.43

7.67 7.04

123

125

125

119

125

124

.73

1.13

1.41

-.42

5.6*

1.13

* Statistically significant at the .05 alpha level Table 28: Independent Group t-test Between Extension Directors Who Have Had Training in Methamphetamine Safety (Including Anhydrous Theft and Lab Detection)

Age

Extension Directors ages were blocked into four categories (i.e., <30, 40-49, 50-

59, 60+). Tables 30 through 35 present the statistical findings of ANOVA regarding

perceived methamphetamine threat, media dependency, media portrayal, safety and

88

health, knowledge, and importance. No significant differences existed in regard to age.

Age does not play a significant role in the methamphetamine perceptions presented in

this study.

<30 40-49 50-59 60≥ n Mean Sd

5

18.00

2.83

24

18.04

2.87

65

19.57

4.76

33

4.84

4.84 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

123

126

58.94

2086.41

2145.35

19.65

16.96

1.16

Table 29. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores by Age <30 40-49 50-59 60≥ n Mean Sd

5

5.00

1.73

24

4.42

5.82

67

4.64

6.70

32

4.69

1.28 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

124

127

1.89

188.11

190.00

.630

1.52

.42

Table 30. ANOVA of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores by Age

89

<30 40-49 50-59 60≥ n Mean Sd

5

12.40

2.61

24

12.25

3.07

67

12.57

2.58

31

12.70

2.69 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

123

126

3.06

900.54

903.59

1.02

7.32

.14

Table 31. ANOVA of Perceived Media Portrayal and Mean Scores by Age <30 40-49 50-59 60≥ n Mean Sd

5

38.40

5.55

23

38.69

4.98

64

39.47

5.59

29

41.14

6.29 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

117

120

94.97

4009.45

4104.43

31.66

34.27

.92

Table 32. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores by Age

90

<30 40-49 50-59 60≥ n Mean Sd

5

17.20

5.67

24

14.21

5.82

67

16.18

6.70

30

15.71

8.16 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

123

126

79.90

5868.99

5948.89

26.63

47.72

.59

Table 33. ANOVA of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores by Age <30 40-49 50-59 60≥ n Mean Sd

5

23.60

5.13

24

23.63

6.38

67

26.02

7.20

31

24.83

8.22 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

122

125

122.49

6424.93

6547.43

40.83

52.66

.78

Table 34. ANOVA of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores by Age

91

Level of Education

The level of education obtained of Extension Directors is represented in five

categories; the categories of “some college,” “college graduate,” and “some graduate

school” were collapsed into <PhD. Tables 35 through 40 present the statistical findings of

ANOVA regarding perceived methamphetamine threat, media dependency, media

portrayal, safety and health, knowledge, and importance. No significant differences

existed in regard to education level. Education level does not play a significant role in the

methamphetamine perceptions presented in this study.

<PhD PhD n Mean sd

83

18.92

3.76

38

20.39

4.00

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

1

119

120

57.02

1869.50

1926.51

57.02

15.71

3.63

Table 35. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores by Education Level

92

<PhD PhD n Mean sd

83

18.92

3.76

38

20.39

4.00

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

1

119

120

57.02

1869.50

1926.51

57.02

15.71

3.63

Table 36. ANOVA of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores by Education Level <PhD PhD n Mean sd

85

12.55

3.76

38

12.79

4.00

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

1

119

120

57.02

1869.50

1926.51

57.02

15.71

3.63

Table 37. ANOVA of Perceived Media Portrayal and Mean Scores by Education Level

93

<PhD PhD n Mean sd

81

39.90

6.33

36

38.67

4.09

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

1

115

116

37.99

3793.21

3831.20

37.99

32.98

3.63

Table 38. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores by Education Level <PhD PhD n Mean sd

85

16.07

7.09

38

15.05

6.38

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

1

121

122

35.45

5733.47

5760.68

27.21

47.38

.57

Table 39. ANOVA of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores by Education Level

94

<PhD PhD n Mean sd

85

24.81

7.57

38

25.97

6.70

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

1

121

122

35.45

6485.96

6521.42

35.45

53.60

.66

Table 40. ANOVA of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores by Education Level

Years in Current Extension Title

The years in current Extension title were blocked into three categories (<15 years,

16-29 years, and 30+ years). Tables 41 through 46 present the statistical findings of

ANOVA regarding perceived methamphetamine threat, media dependency, media

portrayal, safety and health, knowledge, and importance. No significant differences

existed in regard to years in current Extension title. Experience in current employment

does not play a significant role in the methamphetamine perceptions presented in this

study.

95

<15 16-29 30+ n Mean sd

77

19.35

3.93

22

18.22

4.48

28

19.89

4.35

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

2

124

126

35.28

2110.07

2145.35

17.64

17.01

1.03

Table 41. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores by Years in Current Extension Title <15 16-29 30+ n Mean sd

78

4.63

1.16

22

4.68

1.21

28

4.57

1.42

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

2

125

127

.15

189.84

190.00

.07

1.51

.05

Table 42. ANOVA of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores by Years in Current Extension Title

96

<15 16-29 30+ n Mean sd

78

12.52

2.70

22

12.31

2.85

27

12.74

2.52

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

2

124

126

2.18

901.40

903.59

1.09

7.26

.15

Table 43. ANOVA of Perceived Media Portrayal and Mean Scores by Years in Current Extension Title <15 16-29 30+ n Mean sd

73

39.50

5.88

22

39.04

7.12

26

40.69

4.51

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

2

118

120

37.69

4066.74

4104.43

18.84

34.46

.54

Table 44. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores by Years in Current Extension Title

97

<15 16-29 30+ n Mean sd

78

14.94

6.48

22

16.54

7.76

27

17.33

7.11

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

2

124

126

131.64

5817.24

5948.89

65.82

46.91

.72

Table 45. ANOVA of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores by Years in Current Extension Title <15 16-29 30+ n Mean sd

78

24.58

7.22

22

25.95

7.11

26

26.34

7.46

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

2

123

125

75.71

6471.71

6547.42

65.82

46.91

1.40

Table 46. ANOVA of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores by Years in Current Extension Title

98

Location of Residence

Extension Directors described their area of residence as rural, suburban, or urban.

Tables 47 through 52 present the statistical findings of ANOVA regarding perceived

methamphetamine threat, media dependency, media portrayal, safety and health,

knowledge, and importance. No significant differences existed in regard to residence

description. The description of where Extension Directors reside does not play a

significant role in the methamphetamine perceptions presented in this study.

Rural Suburban Urban n Mean sd

60

19.06

3.53

40

19.62

4.09

22

19.63

5.04

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

2

119

121

9.64

1928.19

1937.84

4.82

16.20

.29

Table 47. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores of Residence Location Description

99

Rural Suburban Urban n Mean sd

61

4.57

1.17

40

4.73

1.13

23

4.87

1.18

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

2

121

123

1.59

163.50

165.09

.79

1.35

.59

Table 48. ANOVA of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores of Residence Location Description Rural Suburban Urban n Mean sd

61

12.09

2.93

40

12.85

2.14

23

13.52

2.27

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

2

121

123

37.38

808.24

845.63

18.69

6.68

2.79

Table 49. ANOVA of Perceived Media Portrayal and Mean Scores of Residence Location Description

100

Rural Suburban Urban n Mean sd

58

39.89

5.91

37

39.45

5.01

23

38.73

6.41

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

2

115

117

22.36

3811.00

3833.36

11.18

33.13

.33

Table 50. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores of Residence Location Description Rural Suburban Urban n Mean sd

61

16.09

6.37

40

14.77

7.18

23

16.34

7.63

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

2

121

123

53.51

5729.60

5783.12

26.75

47.35

.56

Table 51. ANOVA of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores of Residence Location Description

101

Rural Suburban Urban n Mean sd

61

26.62

6.17

40

23.62

8.00

23

23.95

8.19

Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

2

121

123

258.11

6264.65

6522.77

129.05

51.77

2.49

Table 52: ANOVA of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores of Residence Location Description

Description of Extension Area

Tables 53 through 58 present the statistical findings of ANOVA regarding

perceived methamphetamine threat, media dependency, media portrayal, safety and

health, knowledge, and importance. No significant differences existed in regard to

education level. Education level does not play a significant role in the methamphetamine

perceptions presented in this study.

102

Rural Suburban Urban Rural/

Suburban Suburban/

Urban n Mean sd

51

19.47

3.51

2

23.50

6.36

7

19.00

3.05

47

19.23

4.07

15

18.93

5.48 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

4

117

121

39.28

1898.56

1937.84

9.82

16.22

.60

Table 53. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores of Extension Area Location Description Rural Suburban Urban Rural/

Suburban Suburban/

Urban n Mean sd

53

4.75

.97

2

4.00

2.82

7

4.71

1.11

47

4.51

1.34

15

5.00

.92 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

4

119

123

4.11

160.98

165.09

1.02

1.35

.76

Table 54. ANOVA of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores of Extension Area Location Description

103

Rural Suburban Urban Rural/

Suburban Suburban/

Urban n Mean sd

53

12.20

2.61

2

12.00

2.82

7

13.42

2.43

47

12.61

13.66

15

13.66

2.43 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

4

119

123

30.76

814.87

845.63

7.69

6.84

1.12

Table 55. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Media Portrayal Scores of Extension Area Location Description Rural Suburban Urban Rural/

Suburban Suburban/

Urban n Mean sd

51

40.35

3.97

2

40.50

.70

6

43.50

3.67

46

38.91

6.70

13

36.53

7.57 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

4

113

117

264.83

3568.53

38.33.36

66.20

31.58

2.09

Table 56. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores of Extension Area Location Description

104

Rural Suburban Urban Rural/

Suburban Suburban/

Urban n Mean sd

53

16.88

6.35

2

15.00

12,72

7

14.57

7.13

47

15.12

6.64

15

14.06

8.64 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

4

119

123

139.91

5643.20

5783.12

34.98

47.42

.73

Table 57. ANOVA of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores of Extension Area Location Description Rural Suburban Urban Rural/

Suburban Suburban/

Urban n Mean sd

53

26.33

6.34

2

29.00

1.41

7

25.00

9.41

47

38.91

6.70

15

24.93

8.56 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

4

119

123

195.52

6327.24

6522.77

48.88

53.17

.91

Table 58. ANOVA of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores of Extension Area Location Description

105

Community Involvement

Extension Directors described current community involvement in their area as

low (yearly), medium (monthly), high (weekly), or none. Table 59 through 64 present the

statistical findings of ANOVA regarding perceived methamphetamine threat, media

dependency, media portrayal, safety and health, knowledge, and importance. Significant

differences were found between perceived knowledge and the community involvement of

Extension Directors. The effect size was small at f = .09 (Cohen, 1989). Scheffe post hoc

comparisons of pairs of means indicated that the means of high and medium community

involvement are significantly higher than the means of low or no community

involvement.

Low Medium High None n Mean sd

31

19.64

3.33

39

19.79

4.16

40

19.17

4.34

12

17.75

3.91 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

118

121

42.36

1895.48

1937.84

14.12

16.06

.88

Table 59. ANOVA of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores of Community Involvement

106

Low Medium High None n Mean sd

31

4.48

1.20

40

4.83

1.08

41

4.61

1.18

12

4.67

1.30 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

120

123

1.35

163.74

165.09

.45

1.36

.33

Table 60. ANOVA of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores of Community Involvement Low Medium High None n Mean sd

31

12.35

2.92

40

12.97

2.35

41

12.34

2.81

12

12.91

1.97 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

120

123

11.42

834.20

845.63

3.81 6.95

.54

Table 61: ANOVA of Perceived Media Portrayal and Mean Scores of Community Involvement

107

Low Medium High None n Mean sd

30

40.06

5.48

37

39.89

4.93

40

38.32

6.80

11

39.53

5.72 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

114

117

104.97

3728.39

3833.36

34.99

32.70

1.07

Table 62: ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores of Community Involvement Low Medium High None n Mean sd

31

18.74

7.53

40

15.45

6.06

41

14.76

6.55

12

12.08

6.35 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

120

123

482.80

5300.31

5783.12

160.93

44.16

3.64*

* Statistically significant at the .05 alpha level; effect size (f = .09) Table 63: ANOVA and Effect Size of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores of Community Involvement

108

Low Medium High None n Mean sd

31

25.70

8.25

40

24.32

6.39

41

25.14

7.24

12

26.58

7.28 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

120

123

61.57

6461.20

6522.77

20.52

53.84

.38

Table 64: ANOVA of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores of Community Involvement U.S. Region

The states Extension Directors were divided by region. Tables 65 through 70

present the statistical findings of ANOVA regarding perceived methamphetamine threat,

media dependency, media portrayal, safety and health, knowledge, and importance.

Significant differences were found among perceived threat, media dependency,

knowledge, and importance and the U.S. region of Extension Directors. Scheffe post hoc

comparisons of pairs of means indicate that the means of Midwest, West, and South

regions in perceived knowledge of methamphetamine are significantly higher than the

mean of the Northeast region, with a medium effect (f = .29). Scheffe post hoc

comparisons of pairs of means indicate that the means of Midwest, West, and Northeast

regions in perceived importance of methamphetamine education are significantly higher

than the mean of the South region, with a medium effect size (f = .27). Scheffe post hoc

109

comparisons of pairs of means indicate that the means of Midwest, West, and South

regions are significantly higher than the mean of the Northeast region in perceived

methamphetamine threat, with a medium effect (f = .31). Lastly, post hoc comparisons of

pairs of means indicate that the means of Extension Directors in the West, South, and

Midwest perceived their media dependency as significantly higher than the educators in

the Northeast, with a medium effect (f = .33).

West South Midwest Northeast n Mean sd

22

19.45

3.68

36

20.77

4.76

52

19.03

3.73

16

16.68

3.09 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

122

125

191.89

1935.03

2126.92

63.96

15.86

4.03*

* Statistically significant at the .05 alpha level; effect size (f = .31) Table 65. ANOVA and Effect Size of Perceived Threat and Mean Scores of U.S. Region

110

West South Midwest Northeast n Mean sd

22

4.73

1.07

35

4.94

.90

53

4.70

1.06

16

3.71

1.89 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

123

126

18.39

168.94

187.33

6.13

1,37

4.46*

* Statistically significant at the .05 alpha level; effect size (f = .33) Table 66. ANOVA and Effect Size of Perceived Media Dependency and Mean Scores of U.S. Region West South Midwest Northeast n Mean sd

22

12.86

2.64

35

12.77

2.50

53

12.73

2.36

16

11.31

3.45 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

122

125

30.03

830.50

860.54

10.01 6.80

1.47

Table 67. ANOVA of Perceived Media Coverage and Mean Scores of U.S. Region

111

West South Midwest Northeast n Mean sd

22

40.54

4.65

35

37.93

8.34

53

40.28

3.91

16

40.40

6.10 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

116

119

142.18

3955.01

4097.20

47.39

34.09

1.39

Table 68. ANOVA of Perceived Safety and Health and Mean Scores of U.S. Region West South Midwest Northeast n Mean sd

22

16.59

6.32

35

8.53

1.44

53

16.96

5.64

17

10.81

5.34 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

122

125

483.35

5405.28

5888.63

161.11

44.30

.01*

* Statistically significant at the .05 alpha level; effect size (f = .29) Table 69: ANOVA and Effect Size of Perceived Knowledge and Mean Scores of U.S. Region

112

West South Midwest Northeast n Mean sd

22

22.04

8.00

34

27.76

6.61

53

24.77

6.79

16

25.50

7.74 Source

df

ss

ms

F

Between groups Within groups Total

3

121

124

453.64

6092.35

6546.00

151.21 50.35

3.00*

* Statistically significant at the .05 alpha level; effect size (f = .27) Table 70: ANOVA and Effect Size of Perceived Importance and Mean Scores of U.S. Region

113

Chapter 5: Discussion

Methamphetamine is a drug that places severe burdens on entire communities and

limited research exists in methamphetamine education. Not only does methamphetamine

affect the individual addict, but the drug also compounds environmental, legal, social,

and medical problems. Since 2005, 24,146.93 kilograms of methamphetamine have been

seized in the United States. And, according to the National Clandestine Laboratory

Seizure System, 3,390 methamphetamine lab incidents (including labs, dumpsite, and

chemical, glass, and equipment) were reported in 2008 (Figure 1).

The purpose of this study was to explore and describe the methamphetamine

perceptions, the role of the media, and the need for prevention and safety education. The

study focused on a random sample of U.S. states (N = 44) and the U.S. Extension

Directors within each state (N = 207; n = 134). The questionnaire concentrated on

perceived methamphetamine knowledge, the perceived threat of methamphetamine,

media involvement in methamphetamine perceptions, methamphetamine safety and

health perceptions, and prevention education needs.

Questionnaire responses supplied an enhanced understanding of the current state

of the problem and the needs for prevention education at both aggregate and regional

levels in the United States. Specific objectives (O) of this study included:

O1: To describe Extension Directors in: (a) age, (b) gender, (c) level of education obtained, (d) years in current Extension title, (e) geographic location description

114

of residence, (f) geographic location description of Extension territory, (g) U.S. state geographic description, and (h) current community involvement.

O2: To describe the methamphetamine information sources of Extension Directors.

O3: To describe the perceived methamphetamine knowledge of Extension Directors. O4: To describe the threat (related to crime, use, production, and violence) of methamphetamine as perceived by Extension Directors.

O5: To describe the perceived media dependency of Extension Directors for methamphetamine information.

O6: To describe the portrayal of methamphetamine in the media as perceived by Extension Directors. O7: To describe safety and health characteristics with methamphetamine production as perceived by Extension Directors. O8: To describe the perceived needs for methamphetamine prevention education. O9: To describe the relationships among selected demographic characteristics (gender, age, level of education obtained, years of Extension experience, geographic location description of residence and Extension territory, U.S state geographic description, years in current Extension title, and current community involvement) and: perceived methamphetamine threat, perceived media dependency, perceived methamphetamine media portrayal, perceived safety and health characteristics involved with methamphetamine production, and, perceived needs for methamphetamine prevention education.

O10: To identify significant differences in selected demographic characteristics (gender, age, level of education obtained, years of Extension experience, geographic location description of residence and Extension territory, U.S state geographic description, years in current Extension title, and current community involvement) and: perceived methamphetamine threat, perceived media dependency, perceived methamphetamine media portrayal, perceived safety and health characteristics involved with methamphetamine production, and, perceived needs for methamphetamine prevention education.

115

Summary of Conclusions

The average age of Extension Directors was 53 and years in current Extension title

ranged from less than six months to 40 years, with a mean of 13 years (Table 6). Fifty-six

percent of Extension Directors were male and 44% female. The majority possessed an

MS or MA (65%) and 31% had earned a PhD. Approximately 50% of Extension

Directors lived in rural areas and 44% identified their Extension territory as rural.

Community involvement was spread across weekly (26%), monthly (31%), yearly (31%),

and no involvement (9%).

Seventy-nine percent of Extension Directors had read or watched news coverage

about a local methamphetamine lab seizure (Table 7). Yet, only 16% of Extension

Directors had seen a lab in their area. When asked about the thefts of farm chemicals,

52% of Extension Directors were aware of thefts in their area.

Methamphetamine training among Extension Directors was limited. Eleven percent

reported they had received methamphetamine user prevention training. Twenty-three

percent responded they had received safety training that included anhydrous ammonia

theft and lab detection (Table 11).

Extension Directors are dependent on the media for methamphetamine information.

Eighty-five percent strongly agreed, agreed, or somewhat agreed that the media was their

primary source of methamphetamine information (Figure 10). Extension Directors also

reported they learned the most information about methamphetamine from the media

(44%) (Table 9).

According to 49% of Extension Directors, the media covers methamphetamine

news accurately (Table 18). Extension Directors also trust their local news (77%) and

116

national news (72%). Sixty-seven percent reported they do not believe the media

stereotypes methamphetamine as a rural drug and 64% do not believe the media

sensationalizes methamphetamine use. However, 56% of Extension Directors do believe

the media attempts to appeal to their emotions when report meth-related stories. Sixty-

seven percent of Extension Directors reported that the media does not cover

methamphetamine safety enough (Table 19).

Seventy-nine percent of Extension Directors strongly agreed that

methamphetamine production is dangerous and 88% reported that farmers should be an

audience for methamphetamine safety programming (Table 20). Ninety-one percent of

Extension Directors also agreed that methamphetamine safety is an important aspect in

drug education. An alarming 24% reported they did not know what to do if they

suspected a methamphetamine lab in their community.

Perceived knowledge of methamphetamine topics was low (Table 16). Extension

Directors reported they knew the least about current federal laws regarding

methamphetamine (80%) and methamphetamine prevention resources (75%). Topics that

Extension Directors reported as high importance were signs of methamphetamine use

(96%) and methamphetamine production (73%) (Table 21).

According to Davis (1971), gender and perceived knowledge had a substantial

association ( = .54); location of Extension area and perceived knowledge had a

substantial association (( = .50); and, prior methamphetamine training and perceived

knowledge had a substantial association ( = .62) (Table 24). Negligible Pearson product-

moment correlation coefficients (r) and Spearman rank-order coefficients (rs) were

obtained for all variables except for age and perceived methamphetamine threat (r = .23)

117

and level of education and perceived methamphetamine threat (rs = .18) (Table 25).

These findings can be interpreted using a coefficient of determination (r2).

Significant differences were found between perceived knowledge and perceived

importance by male and female groups (Table 26). The results indicated that males

perceived themselves as more knowledgeable about methamphetamine with a small

effect size of d = .35. Yet, females perceived methamphetamine education as more

important for others with a medium effect size of d = .44. Significant differences were

found between perceived knowledge and Extension Directors who had prior

methamphetamine user training. Results found those who had prior training perceived

their knowledge significantly higher than those Extension Directors without prior user

training with a large effect size of d = .72. Significant differences were found between

perceived knowledge and Extension Directors who had prior methamphetamine safety

training. Results found those who had prior safety training perceived their knowledge

significantly higher than those Extension Directors without prior user training with a

large effect size of d = .93.

Significant differences were found between perceived knowledge and the

community involvement of Extension Directors (Table 27). Results found those who had

high or medium community involvement perceived their knowledge significantly higher

than those Extension Directors with low or no community involvement. The effect size

was small at f = .09 (Table 59).

Results found Extension Directors in the Midwest region perceived their

knowledge of methamphetamine significantly higher than those in other regions with a

medium effect (f = .29) (Table 68). The South and Midwest regions perceived

118

methamphetamine education as more significantly important than other regions with a

medium effect size (f = .27) (Table 70). The West, South, and Midwest Extension

Directors perceived methamphetamine as a significantly greater threat in their areas than

the Northeast with medium effect (f = .31) (Table 65). Lastly, Extension Directors in the

West, South, and Midwest perceived their media dependency as significantly higher than

the educators in the Northeast with a medium effect (f = .33) (Table 66).

No significant difference existed in regard to age, education level, years in current

Extension title, residence description, and description of Extension area. These variables

do not play a significant role in the methamphetamine perceptions presented in this study.

Recommendations and Implications

The findings presented revealed a strong need for methamphetamine training in

Extension education. Extension Directors perceived their knowledge as low and their

perceived need for that knowledge as high (Tables 16 and 21). Also, only 11% of

Extension Directors have received methamphetamine prevention education training and

23% reported they had received methamphetamine safety training (Table 11). New

methods of making methamphetamine, such as the “Shake and Bake” or the “One-Pot”

method have made methamphetamine production easier. Additionally, the 2009 ban in

Mexico on the importation of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine will inevitably change the

U.S. production trends.

The initial step in methamphetamine programming is training the Extension

personnel. Rural crime researchers or law enforcement should train Extension personnel

in all aspects of methamphetamine use and production. Training could be achieved

119

through a one-day conference or through videos, podcasts, or written materials accessible

through the Web.

Methamphetamine also is one of the rare drugs where the producers of the drug

serve a dual role as trafficker and user. In many rural areas throughout the United States,

Extension personnel are trusted resources in the communities they serve and often

inhabit. Extension personal also may discover clandestine labs themselves or notice

unusual activity, such as higher traffic on unpopulated roads or disturbances on absentee

properties. Farmers may directly call their agricultural Extension agent when anhydrous

ammonia is stolen.

Although a need for methamphetamine programming exists, each state and region

within larger states should evaluate the educational needs of their publics. The findings

in this study support prior research that methamphetamine is not a homogenous problem

geographically. Also, in an era of increased technology and limited financial and human

resources at the federal and state levels in Extension, state Extension Systems should

evaluate their current programming to identify if methamphetamine can be incorporated

into existing educational efforts.

Offering resources on the Web, holding seminars in pre-existing conferences, and

incorporating methamphetamine into successful drug prevention or agricultural safety

programming are low-cost tactics to increase methamphetamine awareness among

varying audiences. Extension personnel can tap into already-established community and

youth groups such as the Girl Scouts, Senior Citizen Centers, and agricultural groups

(i.e., Pork Producers Associations, 4-H, County Fair committees, Master Gardeners), and

offer to be a guest presenter at meetings.

120

Extension Directors trust their local and national media portrayals of

methamphetamine use. Also, Extension Directors received the most information about

methamphetamine from the media. Therefore, the prevention education initiatives should

partner with the media in disseminating education and messages. The media is a free

outlet for prevention messaging. Extension personnel should approach local radio and

television stations offering expertise on methamphetamine safety and prevention

education. Extension personnel also can approach local print and online publications

with safety tips for feature stories on detecting methamphetamine labs.

Extension personnel also could partner with local media or journalism college

students to produce educational videos that could be posted on YouTube. Today, low-

budget films are popular because of their easy production and quick turnaround. In 2009,

the necessary equipment to create a video is a flip video camera and a computer with

Internet access. A possible topic for a short educational video would be the signs of a

clandestine methamphetamine lab.

Implications to Knowledge

The findings of this research give justification for the implementation of

methamphetamine education programming. This study is the first research to evaluate

programming needs in regard to methamphetamine user prevention and safety. Because

of the national scope of the research, strategic education and messaging can be developed

to target areas that are most in need.

Findings support the media dependency theory (Defleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989)

in that Extension Directors rely on the media to meet their goal of being informed about

121

methamphetamine. News dependency increases during times of change and the responds

with additional coverage. This research found that 81% of Extension Directors recalled

reading or watching news coverage about a local methamphetamine lab seizure, while

only 14% reported that they actually had seen a methamphetamine lab in their area.

These findings support prior research that found positive relationships between health

and other general risk situations and media exposure (Coleman, 1993; Loges, 1994).

When discussing moral panic, the media coverage of methamphetamine supports

prior research. The news industry develops emotional-appeal content (McRobbie &

Thornton, 1995) and the resulting emotional involvement of an audience intensifies

interest. Fifty-six percent of Extension Directors agreed that the media attempts to appeal

to their emotions when reporting methamphetamine-related stories.

Stereotyping is one way the media connects unrelated events. Zillmann (1999)

formed the exemplification theory to identify the concept that isolated events—when

aggregated in the media—imply trend presence; yet, from a statistical standpoint, a trend

may not be supported. More than one-half (53%) of Extension Directors agreed that the

media stereotyped methamphetamine use primarily as a problem to individuals of low

socioeconomic status.

Ninety-three percent of Extension Directors reported that methamphetamine use

is higher today than in 2002, which is inaccurate. NSDUH (2008) reported that 95,000

Americans, ages 12 to 49, initiated use of methamphetamine (Figure 5). This estimate is

the lowest since data were first collected in 2002. From 2002 to 2008, the past month use

of methamphetamine decreased for young adults from 0.6% to 0.2%. Since 85% of

Extension Directors agreed that the media is their primary source of information

122

regarding methamphetamine and 93% possessed inaccurate methamphetamine use

perceptions, then the portrayal of methamphetamine in the U.S. media supports the moral

panic theory.

Implications for Further Study

Further study on methamphetamine is necessary. Limited research exists,

especially in the social sciences. This study can be replicated by using a different target

population, such as public health workers, drug prevention specialists, and law

enforcement.

The DEA tracks methamphetamine lab incidents and data are categorized by state

and county. The data collected in this research could be correlated at the county level to

further describe perceptions. The lab seizure data also could be compared with a content

analysis of media coverage on lab seizures.

Further research also could include an analysis of current methamphetamine

programming. Many of the educational resources available are accessible through the

Web. Web analytics would identify what about methamphetamine is being most

searched on the Web—for example, what keywords people are searching on Google

involving methamphetamine. Web analytics also would identify the geography of the

searches and give quantitative descriptions such as time spent on specific Web pages and

number of page views.

Within media studies, content analyses should be conducted for methamphetamine

media coverage. For media on the Web, web analytics could provide useful quantitative

123

data on how many people viewed the news story and how many posted the story to social

networking sites such as Facebook.

In criminology studies, rate of crime could be compared to state and/or county lab

seizure data. Treatment admissions also could be correlated to crime data. Law

enforcement, like Extension Directors, is a population that is embedded in local

communities. However, unlike Extension personnel, law enforcement officials most

likely experience methamphetamine issues first-hand.

Because methamphetamine research is limited or non-existent in many academic

disciplines, the opportunity for further research is endless. Methamphetamine use,

production, perceptions, treatment, legislation, and education cross both the soft and the

hard sciences. Methamphetamine has been a part of the American drug culture since the

early 1900s and will continue to have a presence and be a topic for further research

indefinitely.

124

References Alman, K. C. (1993). The role of television advertising in acculturation: A media systems

dependency approach. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, AAT 9417950. Astroth, K. A., & Vogel, M. Methamphetamine prevention education: Extension

responds to a national issue. Journal of Extension, 46. Bell, P (1982). Headlining drugs: An analysis of newspaper reports of drug-related

issues in the NSW Press. Sydney: Drug and Alcohol Education and Information Centre.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2003. Bush, G. W. (November 28, 2006). National Methamphetamine Awareness Day, 2006.

Press release. Retrieved on January 4, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061128.html.

Bushey, A. (1998). Health issue of women in rural environments: An overview. Journal

of the American Medical Association, 53, 53-56. Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York:

Academic Press. Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devil and moral panics: Creation of mods and rockers. New

York: MacGibbon and Key Ltd. Coleman, C. (1993). The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on

societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research, 20, 611-628. Converse, P. D., Wolfe, E. W., Huang, Z., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Response rates for

mixed-mode surveys using mail and e-mail/Web. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 99-107.

Covey, H. C., (2007) The Methamphetamine Crisis: Strategies to Save Addicts, Families,

and Communities. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

125

Davis, J. A. (1971). Elementary survey analysis. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall. DEA Congressional Testimony. (2006). Retrieved on June 8, 2007, from

http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct040506_attach.html Defleur, M. L., & Ball-Rokeach, S. (1989). Theories of Mass Communication, 5th ed.

(Pp. 297-326). White Plains, NY: Longman. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New

York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, Mail, and

Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley.

Donnermeyer, J. F., & Tunnel, K. (2007). In our own backyard: The

danger of methamphetamine to rural communities. Rural Realities, 2, 1-12. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., &Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of

environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101-1108. Fox, R., & Matthews, I. (1992). Drugs policy: Fact, fiction, and the future. Sydney: The

Federation Press. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in

education. Boston, MA: The McGraw-Hill Companies. Griner, L., & Parker, L. A. (2005). Extension as a delivery system for prevention

programming: Capacity, barriers, and opportunities. Journal of Extension. Retrieved on June 7, 2007, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/a1.shtml

Grinspoon, L., & Hedblom, P. (1975). Speed Culture: Amphetamine Use and Abuse in

America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., & Tourangeau,

R. (2004). Survey methodology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience. Hohman, M., Oliver, R., & Wright, W. (2004). Methamphetamine abuse and

manufacture: The child welfare response. Social Work, 49, 373-382. Hunt, D., Kuck, S., & Truitt, L. (2006). Methamphetamine Use: Lessons Learned.

Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc, Analytic Support Program Contract, 99-C-008.

126

Ikuta, B. (1951). On stimulants. The Science and Crime Detection, 4, 28-53. Klee, H. (1997) Amphetamine misuse: international perspectives on current trends.

Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. Krivanek, J. (1988). Heroin: Myth and Reality. Boston: Allen & Unwin. Lake, C. & Quirk, R.. (1984) Stimulants and look-alike drugs. Psychiatric Clinics of

North America, 7, 689-701. Lazarfeld, P, Bernard, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The People’s Choice, 2d ed. New York:

Columbia University Press. Leshner, A. I. (2002). Foreword. Pp. ix-xii in Crano, W. D., & Burgoon, M. (2002). Mass

media and drug prevention: Classic and contemporary theories and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lewis, D. (2005). Meth science not stigma: Open letter to the media. The National Center

on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. Retrieved on November 25, 2009, from http://www.jointogether.org/news/yourturn/commentary/2005/meth-science-not-stigma-open.html

Linsky, A. S. (1975). Stimulating responses to mailed questionnaires: A review. Public

Opinion Quarterly, 39, 82-101. Loges, W. E. (1994). Canaries in the coal mine: Perceptions of threat and media system

dependency relations. Communication Research, 21, 5-23. Longshore, D., Ghosh-Dasidar, B., & Ellickson, P. L. (2005). National Youth Anti-Drug

Media Campaign and school-based drug prevention: Evidence for a synergistic effect in ALERT Plus. Addictive Behaviors, 31, 496-508.

Martyny, J. W., Arbuckle, S. L., McCammon, C. S., Jr., Esswein, E. J., Erb, N., & Van

Dyke, M. (2007). Chemical concentrations and contamination associated with clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 14, 40-52.

McCampbell, M. S. (2003). Clandestine laboratories: Lessons learned and

recommendations from the field. COPS National Clandestine Laboratory Training Project. Retrieved on June 8, 2007, from http://www.circsol.com/clanlab/articles/article1.htm

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.

127

McDowell, G. (2002, May 13-15). Land-Grant Universities and Extension into the 21st

Century: Taking back the system. Paper presented at the 2002 North Central Administrative Leadership Conference, East Lansing, MI.

McRobbie, A., & Thornton, S. L. (1995). Rethinking ‘Moral Panic’ for multi-mediated

social worlds. British Journal of Sociology, 46, 559-574. Meth Destroys. (2006). Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference. Retrieved on

November 25, 2009, from http://methfreetn.org/ Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. L. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension,

Sept./Oct., 45-50.

Monitoring the Future Study. (2008). National Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved on November 25, 2009, from http://www.drugabuse.gov/PDF/overview2008.pdf

Morgan, P., & Beck, J. E. (1997). The legacy and the paradox: Hidden contexts of

methamphetamine use in the United States. In Amphetamine misuse: International perspectives on current trends, ed, H. Klee 135-162. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.

National Association of Counties. (2006). The meth epidemic in America. Retrieved on

January 19, 2007, from http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section = Surveys&template = /ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID = 24797.

National Drug Threat Assessment. (2008). National Drug Intelligence Center. U.S.

Department of Justice. Document ID: 2008-Q0317-005 National Drug Intelligence Center. (2005). Marijuana and methamphetamine trafficking

on federal lands threat assessment. Retrieved on February 15, 2007, from http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs10/10402/index.htm

National Institute on Drug Abuse (2007). What is methamphetamine? Retrieved on

January 22, 2007, from http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/methamph/methamph2.html.

National Institute on Drug Abuse (2006). Monitoring the future. Retrieved on June 8,

2007, from http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/overview2006.pdf.

Nelkin, D. 1987. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. W.H.

Freeman and Company. New York.

128

Nicosia, N., Pacula, R. L., Kilmer, B., Lundberg, R., & Chiesa, J. (2009). The Costs of

Methamphetamine Use: A National Estimate (RB-9438-MPF/NIDA). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory, 3rd Ed., New York:

McGraw-Hill. Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E. P., Stephenson, M. T., Hoyle, R. H., & Donohew, L. (2007).

Effects of the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s Marijuana Initiative Campaign on high-sensation-seeking adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1644-1649.

Pew Research Center for the People and Press. (2008). Pew Research Center Biennial

News Consumption Survey. Washington, DC: The Pew Research Center. Price, V., & Roberts, D. F. (1987). Public opinion process (pp. 781-816) in C. R. Berger

and S. H. Chaffee (eds): Handbook of Communication Science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Police find meth lab in funeral home. (2009, Jan. 9). United Press International.

Retrieved on October 26, 2009, from http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/01/09/Police-find-meth-lab-in-funeral-home/UPI-14901231547868/

Rawson, R. A., Gonzales R., & Brethen, P. (2002). Treatment of methamphetamine use

disorders: an update. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 23, 145-50. Reback, C. J. (1997), The Social Construction of a Gay Drug: Methamphetamine Use

among Gay and Bisexual Males in Los Angeles. Los Angeles: City of Los Angeles, AIDS Coordinator’s Office.

Russell, M. M. (1991). Cooperative Extension and the land-grant university: A futures

history. Journal of Extension, 29. Sato, A. (2008).Methamphetamine use in Japan after the Second World War:

Transformation of narratives. Contemporary Drug Problem, 35, 717-745. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of

Communication, 49, 101-120. Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1989). Mediating the message: Theories of influences

on mass media content. New York: Longman.

129

Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Tucker, M., Whaley, S. R., & Sharp, J. S. (2006). Consumer perceptions of food-related

risks. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 41, 135-146. Ulrich, A. (2005). Hitler’s drugged soldiers. Speigal, May 6. U.N. World Drug Report (2006). Retrieved on February 15, 2007, from

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/world_drug_report.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Census Regions and Divisions of the United States.

Retrieved on October 26, 2009, from http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2008). National Survey on Drug Use &

Health. Retrieved on November 25, 2009, from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUHlatest.htm

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (2009). Maps of Methamphetamine Lab

Incidents. Retrieved on October 26, 2009, from http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/map_lab_seizures.html.

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (2005). National Drug Threat Assessment 2005.

Retrieved on February 15, 2007, from http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs11/12620/ U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (2007). National Drug Threat Assessment 2007.

Retrieved on February 15, 2007, from http://www.dea.gov/concern/18862/index.htm#Summary.

Young, J. (1973). The drugtakers: The social meaning of drug use. London, Paladin. Weinrauch, D. J. (2006). A social entrepreneurial and educational venture: a creative and

collaborative approach to address the methamphetamine epidemic. Academy of Healthcare Management Journal, 2, 51-74.

Weisheit, R., & Wells, E. L. Wells. (2008). Methamphetamine Laboratories: The

Geography of Drug Production. Presented at the 2008 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology in St. Louis, MO.

Weisheit, R., & White, W. L. (2009). Methamphetamine: Its history, pharmacology, and

treatment. Center City, MN: Hazelden. The White House. (2009). The Rural Agenda. Retrieved on January 18, 2009, from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/Rural

130

Zajdow, G. (2008). Moral panics: The old and the new. Deviant Behavior, 29, 640-664. Zillman, D. (1999). Exemplification theory: Judging the whole by the sum of its parts.

Media Psychology, 1, 69-94.

131

Appendix A: Professional Titles of Sample and Blocking

Area Directors Area Director Area Extension Director Area Extension Education Director District Directors District Director District Extension Administrator District Extension Director Associate District Director Program Directors Program Administrator Program Chair Program Director Regional Director Region Director Region Head Regional Chair Regional Director Extension District Director Extension Regional Director Associate Regional Director Other Senior Extension Director Assistant Director Associate Director Extension Center Coordinator County Director County Administrator

Appendix B: New York Times Article

132

133

134

Appendix C: Nebraska Department of Roads Brochure

135

136

Appendix D: Instrument

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

Appendix E: Mailed Postcard

149

150

Appendix F: Perceived Knowledge of Methamphetamine

151

Low % (n)

High% (n)

Rating average

Signs of meth production

29.4 (37)

19.8 (25)

16.7 (21)

33 (26.2)

5.6 (7)

2.4 (3) 2.7

Signs of meth use

21.4 (27)

21.4 (27)

21.4 (27)

30 (23.8)

8.7 (11)

3.2 (4) 2.9

Your current state laws regarding meth

26.2 (33)

27.0 (34)

21.4 (27)

23 (18.3)

4.8 (6)

2.4 (3) 2.6

Current federal laws regarding meth

27.8 (35)

29.4 (37)

23.0 (29)

19 (15.1)

2.4 (3)

2.4 (3) 2.4

Meth prevention resources

25.4 (32)

27.0 (34)

23.0 (29)

23 (18.3)

5.6 (7)

0.8 (1) 2.5

Identification of meth education resources

23.8 (30)

22.2 (28)

26.2 (33)

23.0 (29)

3.2 (4)

1.6 (2) 2.6

151

152

Appendix G: Past Employment of Sample

Attorney

Agric. Research At Land Grant University

Banker

County Extension Director

Kindergarten Teacher

Health Center Risk Manager

Extension Nutrition Specialist & Associate Professor, University Of Maryland

Area Director, Extension

Extension Director

County Director-Extension

County Agent

Extension Director

Extension

County Director

County 4-H Youth Development Educator

CEA, Ag , County Level.

County Extension Director

Department Head

Extension Specialist- Livestock

District Director For The Cooperative Extension Service

At-Home Mom And Community Volunteer

County Director Extension

Extension Director

Ag Extension Director For 16 Years

State Extension Program Leader

153

21 Years - Administrative Assistant

Extension Director -4-H Youth Development; Univ. Of KY•

Extension Beef Specialist

Head Start Services Manager

County Extension Agent Family & Consumer Sciences

19 Years In The Field

Extension Director

Middle School Teacher

County Extension Agent

County Extension Director

High School Teacher

Environmental Educator

County Extension Executive Director

Extension County Director

Education, Secondary Teaching

CD Educator

Farmer

Extension Administration

Agent In Another State--14 Years Prior

Farm Owner/Operator

Extension Specialist

Extension Director - County Based

Nutrition Consultant

Extension Agronomy Specialist

Area Extension Director

Professional Development

Extension Ag Agent

County Extension Agent

State Nutrition Specialist

Program Leader, UT Extension

154

Teacher

Other Extension Positions (total 27 years)

District Extension Administrator

High School Teacher

County Extension Agent - 30 Years

County Extension Agent

Business & Industry Specialist 16 Years

University Administrator - Not Extension

County Extension Director, In Another Location

County Extension Agent

Grad School

17 Years In Field Work With Extension

Extension Director

District Director In Another State

Extension Director/ANR/CED, Extension Director/4-H Youth

24 County Field Staff

155

Appendix H: Groups that Need Methamphetamine Training

Who do you believe should receive training about methamphetamine? (Please mark all that apply.)

I think all of the above, but especially where this is a major problem. Church members/congregations; youth camp directors and counselors Anyone involved with Adopt-a-highway projects Ministers Grandparents, agribusiness staff I am sure why there is a "farmer" connection unless it has to do with anhydrous. Ag Chemical Dealers Depends on the significance of the problem and I don’t know how significant it is.

156

Appendix I: Initial and Additional Methamphetamine Training Topics

Initial Training Hw meth is produced Methamphetamine user prevention Methamphetamine detection Basic issues, how to identify use and production, what do to and resources Overview Prevention Identifying labs Initial training Id of production and of use Prevention Update on laws and update on cases in my area. User prevention Meth user prevention Awareness and identification Detection Production; legal issues; addiction and treatment Signs of use User prevention User prevention and safety Prevention What it does to user and how to identify someone using Resources Signs of methamphetamine use General Effective resources for methamphetamine use prevention Signs of use - dangers of use - laws governing - chemicals used in meth More information about how serious the issue is in my area Signs of meth production and use Additional Training How to identify signs of meth use Methamphetamine Safety Safety

157

Need a review; it has been a couple years since training Identifying use How to recognize signs that someone is using it More on safety Safety Prevention and intervention strategies Laws and reporting problems Detection of use; lab detection How it is made and what resources for education are available Signs of Methamphetamine production Same Preventative measures Meth education resources