| Course | ADC 605 Substance Abuse Prevention |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Framework paper with data |
| Length | About 1,034 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 2
Reading a County's Risk Profile: Prevention Science and the Risk and Protective Factor Framework
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
ADC 605: Substance Abuse Prevention
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Reading a County's Risk Profile: Prevention Science and the Risk and Protective Factor Framework
Tomas, the composite staff member at a prevention coalition in eastern Wisconsin, received the county's results from the state's youth survey, which asks middle and high school students about substance use and about risk and protective factors. The coalition wanted to know where to focus. County and coalition alike are fictional, but the research behind the coalition's next step is real and is laid out below.
Prevention Science
Prevention science applies research methods to understand why problems such as substance use develop and to design and test ways to prevent them. It draws on epidemiology, developmental psychology and intervention trials. Its central idea is that by identifying factors that raise or lower the likelihood of a problem, and changing them, communities can reduce how often the problem occurs.
Risk and Protective Factors
Hawkins et al. (1992) pulled together what was then known about the conditions that make teenage and young adult substance problems more or less likely. They identified risk factors in several domains. Community factors included laws and norms favorable to use, availability of substances, extreme economic deprivation and neighborhood disorganization. Family factors included family history of alcoholism, poor family management practices, family conflict and parental use or favorable attitudes. At school, the warning signs were misbehavior that starts young and keeps going, falling behind in class and caring little about school. On the individual and peer side, the list included starting young, feeling alienated or rebellious, having friends who used and holding favorable views of use. They also described protective factors that reduce risk even in its presence, including strong bonds with family and school, clear standards against use and recognition for positive involvement. They argued that prevention should reduce multiple risk factors and strengthen protective ones, starting early.
The Framework in Action
Hawkins et al. (2009) tested Communities That Care, a prevention system built on this framework, in a randomized trial in twenty-four small towns. In the intervention communities, coalitions surveyed young people to identify their communities' most elevated risk factors and lowest protective factors and then selected tested programs to address them. By eighth grade, fewer students in the towns using the system had tried alcohol or cigarettes than in the comparison towns, and fewer reported delinquent acts. The trial showed that a community-driven process, grounded in local data and tested programs, can reduce youth substance use across a population.
Standards of Evidence
Choosing tested programs requires a way to judge evidence. Flay et al. (2005), writing for the Society for Prevention Research, set out standards. A program meets standards for efficacy when rigorous studies, usually randomized trials, show beneficial effects under well-controlled conditions, with at least one replication. It meets standards for effectiveness when it shows benefits under real-world conditions, delivered by ordinary providers. It is ready for dissemination when, in addition, materials, training and evaluation tools are available to support wide use. The standards help coalitions distinguish programs with strong evidence from those with only promise or popularity.
The County's Profile
| Factor | County | State average | Domain |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived availability of alcohol | 68 percent of tenth graders say it is easy to get | 57 percent | Community |
| Parental attitudes favorable to drinking | 34 percent | 29 percent | Family |
| Low commitment to school | 41 percent | 33 percent | School |
| Early initiation of alcohol, before age thirteen | 18 percent | 15 percent | Individual |
| Opportunities for prosocial involvement in school | 61 percent report them | 64 percent | Protective, school |
| Family attachment | 72 percent | 74 percent | Protective, family |
Protective Factors
Protective factors deserve as much attention as risks. The county's young people report family attachment and opportunities for involvement in school close to state averages, which gives the coalition something to build on. Hawkins and colleagues emphasized that bonding to family and school, together with clear standards against use and recognition for positive behavior, can buffer the effects of risk. Programs that strengthen these bonds may reduce several risks at once.
Setting Priorities
The profile shows several elevated risk factors, with the largest gaps in perceived availability of alcohol and low commitment to school. Following the Communities That Care approach, the coalition chose two priorities. For availability, it will consider environmental strategies such as compliance checks on alcohol retailers and education for adults who might supply alcohol to minors. For school commitment, it will look for tested programs that strengthen students' bonds to school and recognition for positive involvement. The coalition will use Flay and colleagues' standards when selecting programs, favoring those with evidence of effectiveness in settings like its own.
Sharing the Profile With the Community
Data alone do not move a community. Tomas planned to present the profile at a coalition meeting and then at a school board meeting, showing the county's numbers beside state averages and inviting questions. Students from the high school's leadership council would be asked what they thought explained the high perceived availability of alcohol; their answers, such as older siblings and parties at homes without adults, would help the coalition choose strategies that fit. Involving young people in interpreting the data also builds the protective factor of recognition for positive involvement.
From Profile to Programs
A risk profile does not choose programs by itself. After identifying priorities, a coalition must find tested programs that target those particular factors, check that they fit its population and resources and plan for delivering them well. The modules that follow take up these steps, from levels of prevention to school, family, community and environmental strategies.
Limits of the Framework
Risk factors predict probabilities across populations, not individual outcomes, and many young people with several risk factors never develop problems. Survey data reflect students who were present and willing to answer honestly. And some risk factors, such as economic deprivation, lie beyond a coalition's reach, though the coalition can partner with others who address them.
Conclusion
Prevention science identifies risk and protective factors, as Hawkins, Catalano and Miller described, and uses them to guide action. Communities That Care shows that communities using local data and tested programs can reduce youth substance use, and Flay and colleagues' standards help identify tested programs. The county's profile points the coalition toward alcohol availability and school commitment.
References
Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., MoĊcicki, E. K., Schinke, S., Valentine, J. C., & Ji, P. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6(3), 151-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-005-5553-y
Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.64
Hawkins, J. D., Oesterle, S., Brown, E. C., Arthur, M. W., Abbott, R. D., Fagan, A. A., & Catalano, R. F. (2009). Results of a type 2 translational research trial to prevent adolescent drug use and delinquency: A test of Communities That Care. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163(9), 789-798. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.141
What the ADC 605 Module 2 instructions ask for
The second module of ADC 605 typically asks for a paper on prevention science and risk and protective factors. Follow the Module 2 instructions in your Aspen course; the county here is fictional. Explain prevention science and its use of evidence, from identifying risk factors to testing programs in trials. Describe risk and protective factors by domain, with sources. Show how communities use the framework to set priorities. Explain standards for judging whether a program is evidence-based, distinguishing efficacy from effectiveness. Apply the framework to local data. Give APA 7 references, and avoid treating any single risk factor as a cause. Show the comparison you used to decide which local factors are elevated, such as state averages.
How the ADC 605 Module 2 example is put together
Tomas, the composite coalition staff member, reviews the county's youth survey. Hawkins, Catalano and Miller's Psychological Bulletin review supplies risk factors such as availability, family conflict, early academic failure and early initiation, and protective factors such as bonding to family and school. In Hawkins and colleagues' randomized test of a community prevention system, towns that picked programs to fit their own risk data saw fewer young teens start drinking and smoking. Flay and colleagues' Prevention Science article defines efficacy, effectiveness and readiness for dissemination. A six-row table shows the county's elevated risks beside state averages, along with two protective factors. Priorities focus on perceived availability of alcohol and low school commitment, with environmental strategies and school bonding programs as the likely responses.
Reading the ADC 605 Module 2 grading rubric
Prevention science papers earn credit for an accurate framework, use of evidence standards and application to real or realistic data. This example explains risk and protective factors with their domains and sources. It shows the framework in action through a randomized community trial. Standards of evidence are explained so the reader can judge programs rather than relying on a vendor's description. The county profile turns data into priorities, and the plan to involve students in interpreting it shows data used with the community rather than about it. The paper avoids implying that risk factors are deterministic, noting that they raise probabilities across populations. The limits section names what the survey cannot show and which factors lie beyond a coalition's reach.
Common ADC 605 Module 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Prevention science papers often list risk factors without showing how communities use them. Show the step from data to priorities. Use standards of evidence to judge programs, not program websites. Remember that risk factors predict probabilities in populations, not individual outcomes. Include protective factors, which are as important for planning as risks. Compare local data with state or national benchmarks before deciding what is elevated. Involve community members in interpreting results, since they can explain patterns the numbers alone cannot. Report protective factors that are already strong too; building on strengths is often easier than repairing weaknesses.
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 1: History of Drug Abuse and Prevention
- 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
- ADC 510 Module 5: Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
- PAC 310 Module 5: Boundaries and Dual Relationships
- PAC 201 Module 2: Prenatal Development and Birth
- PSY 620 Module 8: Evaluating Consultation
ADC 605 Module 2 questions, answered
What does ADC 605 Module 2 usually ask for?
Aspen's ADC 605 covers prevention science and risk and protective factors in this module, so a paper on the framework and its use with community data is typical. Check your Module 2 prompt.
What are risk and protective factors for youth substance use?
Hawkins, Catalano and Miller described risk factors across community, family, school and individual domains, such as availability and family conflict, and protective factors such as strong bonds.
What is Communities That Care?
A prevention system in which community coalitions measure local risk and protective factors and choose tested programs to address them; a randomized trial found reduced youth initiation of substance use.
Where can I find a free ADC 605 Module 2 sample paper?
This page has the full paper: the risk and protective factor framework, the Communities That Care trial, standards of evidence and a county profile.
What makes a prevention program evidence-based?
Flay and colleagues set standards including rigorous trials showing effects, replication and, for dissemination, evidence that the program works in real settings.