| Course | ADC 605 Substance Abuse Prevention |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | History paper with application |
| Length | About 1,043 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for ADC 605 Module 1
Lessons From the Past: What a Century of Drug Prevention Teaches a Coalition Today
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
ADC 605: Substance Abuse Prevention
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Lessons From the Past: What a Century of Drug Prevention Teaches a Coalition Today
Tomas, a graduate student in Aspen University's prevention coursework, works part time for a substance use prevention coalition in a county in eastern Wisconsin. He and the coalition are invented for this course. At a coalition meeting, several members, including a retired sheriff's deputy and two parents, proposed bringing back the police-led drug education program they remembered from elementary school. "It worked for us," one said. Tomas was asked to look into its history and evidence. This paper traces the history of drug prevention to answer that request.
Changing Views of Drug Use
How a society tries to prevent drug use depends on what it believes drug use is. In the early twentieth century, as narcotics laws were passed, drug use was framed mainly as a moral and criminal problem, and prevention meant prohibition and punishment. Mid-century public messages relied on fear, warning that drugs led quickly to madness or death. As drug use spread among young people in the 1960s and 1970s and those warnings proved exaggerated, prevention turned to providing information, on the theory that people who knew the facts would choose not to use. When information alone did not change behavior, programs turned to self-esteem and values. From the 1980s, research on why adolescents begin using drugs pointed to social influences, such as peers, media and perceived norms, leading to programs that taught refusal skills and corrected beliefs that drug use was common.
Eras of Prevention
| Era | Main approach | Assumption | What was learned |
|---|---|---|---|
| Early to mid twentieth century | Prohibition, punishment, moral warning | Drug use is a moral or criminal failing | Laws reduced some use but did not address demand |
| 1950s to 1960s | Fear-based messages | Frightening young people prevents use | Exaggeration lost credibility |
| 1970s | Information only | Knowledge leads to better choices | Knowledge rose; behavior often did not change |
| 1970s to 1980s | Affective education | Building self-esteem and values prevents use | Little effect on drug use |
| 1980s onward | Social influence and life skills | Young people need skills to resist pressure and accurate norms | Interactive programs show modest but real effects |
The Program the Coalition Remembers
Project DARE, in which police officers taught a drug education curriculum in schools, became the most widely used school-based prevention program in the United States. Ennett et al. (1994) pooled the published outcome studies of the program's original lessons. They found that it improved students' knowledge about drugs and some social skills but had small effects on drug use, smaller than those of interactive programs evaluated in similar ways. They suggested that its popularity reflected its appeal to communities, schools and police rather than evidence of effectiveness.
West and O'Neal (2004) updated the analysis with additional rigorous evaluations. They found that the overall effect of DARE on drug use was close to zero and concluded that the evidence did not support its use. The program was later revised, but the version coalition members remembered was the one evaluated.
Interactive Versus Didactic
Tobler et al. (2000) conducted a large meta-analysis of school-based drug prevention programs. They classified programs by content and by delivery. Interactive programs, in which students practiced skills, discussed with peers and participated actively, produced larger effects on drug use than noninteractive programs, in which teachers or officers delivered information through lectures. Among interactive programs, those addressing social influences and life skills performed best. Program size and setting mattered too: larger programs and those delivered in less controlled conditions tended to produce smaller effects.
The finding helps explain why the original DARE curriculum underperformed: much of it was delivered didactically, by uniformed officers to large classes.
Why Popular Programs Persist
If evaluations found DARE ineffective, why did it remain so widely used for so long? Ennett and colleagues suggested several reasons: it was well organized and easy for schools to adopt, it built relationships between police and communities, it was popular with parents and officers and it offered a visible response to public concern. These are real benefits, but they are not reductions in drug use. Prevention programs can persist because they satisfy the adults who choose them rather than because they change what young people do.
What Changed in Prevention Science
The disappointing results of early approaches pushed the field toward rigorous testing. Programs began to be developed from theories of why young people start using drugs, tested in randomized trials and refined. Registries of tested programs emerged to help communities choose. The shift from intuition to evidence is perhaps the most important lesson of prevention's history.
Lessons for the Coalition
History offers three lessons. First, approaches that seem obviously right, such as fear, information or a trusted authority figure, often do not change behavior. Second, how a program is delivered matters as much as what it says; interactive skill practice outperforms lectures. Third, evaluation should guide choices, since popularity and good intentions are not evidence.
A Caution About the Present
History can make past approaches look foolish and current ones look certain. Prevention researchers of each era believed they were applying the best available knowledge. Today's evidence-based programs have modest effects, and some may look different in twenty years. The lesson is not that the present has all the answers, but that programs should be tested, evaluated and revised as evidence changes.
The Coalition's Decision
Tomas presented the history and evidence to the coalition, taking care not to dismiss members' memories or the officers who taught the program. He explained that many programs of that era were well intended but that the evidence pointed elsewhere. The coalition agreed to work with the school district to adopt an evidence-based interactive program taught by trained teachers. Members who valued police involvement proposed a different role for officers: supporting environmental strategies, such as checks on alcohol sales to minors, which later modules will examine.
Conclusion
Drug prevention has moved from moral warning and fear through information and self-esteem to social influence and skills. Ennett and colleagues and West and O'Neal showed that the most popular program of its time had little effect on drug use, and Tobler and colleagues showed that interactive programs work better than lectures. For the coalition, history pointed to an interactive, evidence-based program and a better use of police involvement.
References
Ennett, S. T., Tobler, N. S., Ringwalt, C. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (1994). How effective is drug abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluations. American Journal of Public Health, 84(9), 1394-1401. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.84.9.1394
Tobler, N. S., Roona, M. R., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D. G., Streke, A. V., & Stackpole, K. M. (2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. Journal of Primary Prevention, 20(4), 275-336. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021314704811
West, S. L., & O'Neal, K. K. (2004). Project D.A.R.E. outcome effectiveness revisited. American Journal of Public Health, 94(6), 1027-1029. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.6.1027
ADC 605 Module 1 instructions, in plain terms
The first module of ADC 605 usually asks for a paper on the history of drug abuse and prevention. Use the Module 1 instructions in your Aspen course; the coalition here is invented. Trace how views of drug use and prevention have changed over time. Describe the main approaches of each era and why they were adopted. Report what evaluations found about their effectiveness, citing meta-analyses where they exist. Draw lessons that apply to current practice. Apply them to a realistic decision. Cite every source in APA 7, and distinguish popularity from effectiveness. Where a program has been revised since it was evaluated, say which version the evidence concerns, since critics and defenders often talk past each other on this point.
How this ADC 605 Module 1 example is built
Tomas, a composite graduate student working with a coalition in a Wisconsin county, hears members propose reviving a police-led school program. A five-row table traces eras from fear-based messages to social influence and life skills approaches. Ennett and colleagues' American Journal of Public Health meta-analysis reports small effects of Project DARE on drug use. West and O'Neal's updated analysis in the same journal finds effects close to zero. Tobler and colleagues' Journal of Primary Prevention meta-analysis shows interactive programs outperforming noninteractive ones. The coalition chooses an evidence-based interactive program and invites police officers to support it in other ways, such as compliance checks on alcohol sales to minors.
Reading the ADC 605 Module 1 grading rubric
A history paper does well when it shows how approaches changed and why, evidence on effectiveness and lessons applied to present practice. This example organizes history into eras with their assumptions. It distinguishes a program's popularity from its effects, using two meta-analyses. Tobler and colleagues' finding about interactive delivery explains why some programs work better than others, which turns history into a principle for choosing programs now. The application handles a sensitive local issue respectfully, finding a role for police that does not depend on an ineffective curriculum. It also notes that the evaluations concerned the original curriculum, which keeps the critique precise.
ADC 605 Module 1 help: mistakes that cost marks
History papers often list events without explaining why approaches changed or what was learned. Organize by eras and assumptions. Report evaluation evidence for major programs. Distinguish what was popular from what worked. Draw specific lessons, each tied to evidence from the era it comes from. Apply them to a current decision. Be respectful of programs people remember fondly; many were well intended, and dismissing them can alienate community members whose support a coalition needs. Present evidence as a shared discovery rather than a correction, and offer people who championed an old program a meaningful role in the new one. Coalitions run on volunteers, so the manner of a change often decides whether it sticks.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More ADC 605 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- ADC 605 Module 2: Prevention Science and Risk and Protective Factors
- ADC 605 Module 3: Universal, Selective and Indicated Prevention
- ADC 605 Module 4: School-Based Prevention
- ADC 605 Module 5: Family and Community Prevention
- ADC 605 Module 6: Environmental Strategies and Policy
- ADC 605 Module 7: Planning a Prevention Program
- ADC 605 Module 8: Evaluating Prevention
- PAC 240 Module 1: The Helping Relationship in Addiction Work
- ADC 660 Module 1: Addiction in the Family Context
- PAC 102 Module 7: Collegiate Recovery Communities
- PAC 414 Module 5: Mandated Reporting
ADC 605 Module 1 questions, answered
What does ADC 605 Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's ADC 605 opens with the history of drug abuse and prevention, so a paper on changing approaches and what evaluations showed is typical. Look at your Module 1 prompt.
Did Project DARE work?
Ennett and colleagues' meta-analysis found small effects on drug use, and West and O'Neal's updated analysis found effects close to zero.
Do interactive prevention programs work better?
Tobler and colleagues found that interactive programs, in which students practice skills and discuss with peers, produced larger effects than lecture-based ones.
Where can I find a free ADC 605 Module 1 sample paper?
This page has the full paper: eras of drug prevention in a table, evidence on DARE and interactive programs and a coalition's choice.
Why did scare tactics fail in prevention?
Exaggerated warnings often lost credibility with young people who saw evidence contradicting them, and fear alone did not build skills to refuse drugs.