ADC 605 Module 5 Family and Community Prevention Example

Beyond the Classroom: Bringing Families and the Wider Community Into Prevention

Student Name

Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University

ADC 605: Substance Abuse Prevention

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Beyond the Classroom: Bringing Families and the Wider Community Into Prevention

The coalition in eastern Wisconsin that Tomas works for, invented for this course along with the families described here, had focused mainly on schools. Its county survey showed parental attitudes favorable to drinking above the state average, and a parent on the coalition asked, "What are we doing for families?" This paper reviews family and community prevention and plans the coalition's next steps.

Why Families

Hawkins et al. (1992) identified several family risk factors for adolescent substance problems: poor family management practices, such as unclear expectations, inconsistent discipline and little monitoring; high family conflict; parental drug use and favorable attitudes toward use; and low bonding between children and parents. Strong family bonds and clear family standards against use were protective. These factors are not fixed; parents can learn skills that change them. Family programs aim to strengthen parenting, improve communication and reduce conflict during the years before adolescents begin experimenting.

A Family Program That Worked

Spoth et al. (2001) conducted a randomized trial in rural Iowa schools of two brief family programs delivered to families of sixth graders. One had parents and their children attend seven weekly evenings, splitting into separate groups for the first hour and coming together for the second, learning skills such as setting clear rules, managing anger, resisting peer pressure and communicating. The other was a shorter program for parents alone. Four years later, when the students were in tenth grade, those whose families had taken part in the seven-session program were less likely to have started using alcohol, tobacco and marijuana than students in control schools, and effects were in some cases larger at later follow-ups than earlier. The parent-only program showed effects on some outcomes. The study demonstrated that a few weeks of family sessions in early adolescence could change behavior years later.

Why Early Adolescence

The family program targets sixth graders deliberately. Most young people have not yet begun using substances at that age, parents still have considerable influence and the transition to middle school brings new peers and pressures. Programs delivered before initiation can shape the norms and routines that young people bring into the years when experimentation typically begins.

Community-Wide Prevention

Hawkins et al. (2009) tested Communities That Care, in which coalitions of local leaders and residents measured risk and protective factors among their young people, chose tested programs to address them and monitored results. In the randomized trial, students in communities using the system were less likely to begin using alcohol and tobacco and engaged in less delinquency than students in comparison communities. The system worked partly by coordinating schools, families and community organizations around shared priorities, with family programs among the options many communities chose.

How Family Programs Work

Family programs like the one Spoth and colleagues tested are thought to work by changing the family factors Hawkins and colleagues identified. Parents learn to set clear rules about substance use and to monitor without hostility. Families practice communicating about difficult topics. Conflict decreases as parents and children learn ways to handle disagreements. And spending structured time together strengthens bonds. Because these changes occur before most adolescents begin experimenting, they shape the setting in which later decisions are made.

The Recruitment Problem

Family programs only work if families attend, and recruitment is their greatest practical challenge. Parents are busy, sessions take evenings and families who might benefit most, such as those facing conflict or stress, are often least able to attend. Tomas drew on the experience of the Iowa trial and of communities using the coalition model to plan around these barriers.

Who Facilitates

Facilitators matter. The coalition planned to train a pair of facilitators for each group, ideally one school staff member and one community member who is a parent, so that families see people like themselves leading sessions. Facilitators would follow the program's manual closely, since the Iowa results came from a structured program delivered as designed, while bringing local examples to discussions.

Roles for Community Partners

The coalition planned specific roles. Two churches would host sessions in their halls, which are familiar and accessible. A grocery chain would provide meals at cost. The school district would send invitations and arrange transport. The local youth sports league would announce the program at games and offer a small discount on registration fees to families who completed it. Recovery community members on the coalition would help facilitators address parents' own questions about drinking, sensitively and without singling anyone out.

Connecting Family and School Work

The family program complements the school program described in an earlier module. Students learn refusal skills and accurate norms at school; parents learn to set expectations and talk with their children at home. When both happen in the same year, messages reinforce each other. The coalition planned to schedule the family program in the spring of sixth grade, just before the school program begins in seventh, so that families would be prepared to support what their children learn.

Sustaining the Program

A family program run once with grant funds may disappear when the grant ends. The coalition planned for sustainability from the start: training school staff as facilitators so the district could continue the program, asking the churches and grocery chain to commit for three years and seeking a line in the school district's budget by the third year. Results from the first two years would be used to make the case.

Measuring Success

The coalition would track how many families enrolled and completed the program, compare participants' characteristics with the county's sixth-grade population to see who was reached and include questions on family rules and communication in the next youth survey.

Conclusion

Family risk factors, as Hawkins, Catalano and Miller described, can be changed. Spoth, Redmond and Shin showed that a brief family program for sixth graders reduced substance use initiation years later, and Hawkins and colleagues showed that coalitions can coordinate prevention across a community. The coalition's plan addresses the practical barriers that keep families from attending and gives community partners concrete roles.

References

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

Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2001). Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: Adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(4), 627-642. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.4.627