| Course | PAC 102 Substance Abuse in Educational Settings |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Screening and early intervention plan |
| Length | About 1,075 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PAC 102 Module 5
Six Questions and One Conversation: Screening and Brief Intervention for High School and Community College Students
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PAC 102: Substance Abuse in Educational Settings
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Six Questions and One Conversation: Screening and Brief Intervention for High School and Community College Students
The survey work earlier in this course found Lakeshore's students using more with each grade, most steeply in the first high school years, and still climbing at the college; the prevention modules then planned for every student. Most students will never need more. But some are already using in risky ways, and waiting until they are suspended, injured or failing classes means waiting too long. This paper plans how Lakeshore Unified School District and Lakeshore Community College can identify these students early and respond with something more than a pamphlet and less than treatment. The district, college and pathway are invented; the research is real.
Why Intervene Early
Screening and brief intervention rest on a simple idea. Many young people whose use is risky are not dependent and would not seek or need treatment, but a short, respectful conversation about their use, delivered at the right time, can change its course. Early intervention fills the gap between universal prevention, which reaches everyone, and specialized treatment, which reaches few. In a school or college, it can be offered wherever staff already meet students, such as health visits or counseling.
Choosing a Screening Tool
A screening tool for adolescents must be short, easy to answer and accurate for this age group. Knight et al. (2002) evaluated the CRAFFT, a screen of six yes or no questions whose initials form its name: whether the young person has ridden in a car driven by someone who was high or had been using; uses to relax or fit in; uses while alone; forgets things done while using; has had family or friends say to cut down; and has gotten into trouble while using. In a sample of adolescents at a hospital-based clinic, a score of two or more identified most of those with substance-related problems, abuse or dependence while correctly ruling out most of those without such problems. The screen took about a minute.
For college students, the same logic applies, and versions of brief screens are widely used in college health services. The plan uses the CRAFFT for high school students and a brief validated alcohol and drug screen in the college's health portal.
Do Brief Interventions Work?
Tanner-Smith and Lipsey (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of studies testing brief alcohol interventions with adolescents and young adults. Combining nearly two hundred study samples, they found that brief interventions, typically one to a few sessions, produced significant reductions in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems compared with control conditions. The effects were modest but persisted for up to a year. Interventions using motivational interviewing techniques, personalized feedback or decisional balance exercises, in which students weigh the pros and cons of their use, were among the more effective.
Marlatt et al. (1998) tested such an approach with college freshmen identified as high-risk drinkers. Students in the intervention group received a single individual session in which a trained provider gave personalized feedback on their drinking, compared it with campus norms and discussed the risks and the student's own goals in a nonjudgmental, motivational style, followed by mailed feedback the next year. Over two years, students who received the intervention reduced their drinking and harmful consequences more than students in a control group. The study became the basis for widely used college programs.
The Pathway
Counselors and college health staff will receive training in motivational interviewing and in delivering feedback. The district and college will share a list of community treatment providers who accept young people and families' insurance, so referrals do not stall.
| Setting and point of contact | Screen | Response by score |
|---|---|---|
| High school, ninth and eleventh grade nurse visit | CRAFFT | 0: praise and brief information; 1: brief advice; 2 or more: fifteen-minute motivational conversation with the counselor and a follow-up in a month |
| High school, counselor referral at any time | CRAFFT | Same, with referral to community treatment if use is severe or there is a safety concern |
| College, new student health portal | Brief alcohol and drug screen | Low: personalized feedback online; moderate: one motivational session with feedback; high: referral to counseling or treatment |
| Both, any safety risk, such as overdose or self-harm | Immediate assessment | Emergency procedures and parent or emergency contact notification as rules require |
Privacy and Trust
Screening depends on honest answers, and honest answers depend on students believing that what they say will help rather than hurt them. The plan follows federal and state privacy rules for school health services and for student health records at the college. Results will be stored in health records, not disciplinary files, and will not be shared with teachers or administrators except in a safety emergency. Students will be told this before they answer. Parental involvement for high school students will follow state law and the counselor's judgment about safety, with the goal of engaging families as partners rather than as enforcers.
Reaching Students Who Are Not Screened
Annual screening at two grade levels will miss students who start using between screens, and some students skip the nurse visit. The plan therefore lets any staff member refer a student to the counselor for a confidential screen, and lets students refer themselves through a simple online form. Teachers will receive a short guide on warning signs, such as sudden changes in attendance, grades or friendships, with the reminder that their role is to refer, not to diagnose. At the college, the screen will also appear in the learning management system's wellness page, where students can take it privately and receive feedback without seeing anyone. These routes widen the net without turning screening into surveillance.
Evaluation
The district and college will track how many students are screened, how many receive each response, how many referred students connect with treatment and, through follow-up screens a year later, whether scores decline among those who received a brief intervention. Students will also be asked whether they found the conversation respectful, since trust determines the program's reach.
Conclusion
Screening and brief intervention let Lakeshore reach students whose use is becoming risky before it causes serious harm. Knight and colleagues support a short, validated screen for adolescents, Tanner-Smith and Lipsey show that brief interventions reduce drinking among young people and Marlatt and colleagues show that a single motivational session can have lasting effects for college students. A pathway that matches responses to risk and protects privacy turns this evidence into a practical plan for both settings.
References
Knight, J. R., Sherritt, L., Shrier, L. A., Harris, S. K., & Chang, G. (2002). Validity of the CRAFFT substance abuse screening test among adolescent clinic patients. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156(6), 607-614. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.156.6.607
Marlatt, G. A., Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Dimeff, L. A., Larimer, M. E., Quigley, L. A., Somers, J. M., & Williams, E. (1998). Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: Results from a 2-year follow-up assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(4), 604-615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.4.604
Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Lipsey, M. W. (2015). Brief alcohol interventions for adolescents and young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 51, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2014.09.001
PAC 102 Module 5 instructions, in plain terms
Module 5 of PAC 102 deals with screening and early intervention; the paper usually asks for a plan to identify students at risk and respond early, grounded in evidence. Treat your classroom's own Module 5 instructions as the authority; the district and college are invented. Explain the purpose of screening and early intervention. Choose a screening tool and justify it with evidence. Review evidence on brief interventions, naming what they involve and how long their effects last. Lay out the steps from screening to response, including referral, so that no score is left without a next step. Address privacy, consent and trust, which determine whether students answer honestly, citing sources in APA 7 form.
How this PAC 102 Module 5 example is built
The plan screens every ninth and eleventh grader during the annual school nurse visit and every new community college student through the student health portal. Knight and colleagues (Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine) support the CRAFFT, whose questions ask about riding with a high driver, using to relax, using alone, forgetting, family or friends' concern and trouble while using. Tanner-Smith and Lipsey (Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment) show that brief interventions, especially motivational ones, reduce drinking. Marlatt and colleagues (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology) show the lasting effect of a brief motivational session with personalized feedback for college students. The pathway sets responses by score: praise and information for low scores, a fifteen-minute motivational conversation for moderate scores and referral for high scores. Privacy safeguards follow federal and state rules and keep results out of disciplinary files.
PAC 102 Module 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Early intervention plans earn credit when the screening tool is justified with validation evidence, the intervention with outcome evidence and the pathway with clear steps. This example selects a short, validated screen, matches responses to risk levels and uses a meta-analysis and a long-term trial to show that brief conversations can work. It treats privacy as central rather than an afterthought, explaining that students answer honestly only when they trust what will happen to their answers. The two-setting design reflects the course's view that high school and college serve the same young people at different points. Building in self-referral and staff referral shows awareness that annual screening alone will miss some students.
PAC 102 Module 5 help from the desk
Screening plans often choose a tool without checking whether it has been validated for the age group. Cite validation research. Another weakness is screening without a plan for what happens next; every score needs a response. Avoid linking screening to discipline, which destroys honest reporting. Explain who delivers brief interventions and how they will be trained. Include referral for students who need more than a brief conversation. Finally, address consent and confidentiality under the rules that apply to schools and health services. Explain to students before they answer exactly who will see their responses.
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 PAC 102 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PAC 102 Module 1: Substance Use Among Adolescents and Young Adults
- PAC 102 Module 2: Risk and Protective Factors
- PAC 102 Module 3: Prevention in High Schools
- PAC 102 Module 4: Substance Use on College Campuses
- PAC 102 Module 6: Recovery High Schools
- PAC 102 Module 7: Collegiate Recovery Communities
- PAC 102 Module 8: A Community Plan for Students in Recovery
- PAC 120 Module 2: Cultural Self-Awareness for Counselors
- SBS 200 Module 1: Theories and Methods in Human Development
- SBS 105 Module 4: Learning
- PAC 110 Module 4: Cognitive and Psychodynamic Approaches
PAC 102 Module 5 questions, answered
What does PAC 102 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's PAC 102 covers screening and early intervention in this module, so planning how to identify students at risk and respond early is typical. Read your Module 5 prompt.
What is the CRAFFT?
A six-question screen for adolescent substance use, validated by Knight and colleagues, covering car, relax, alone, forget, friends and trouble.
Do brief interventions work for young people?
Tanner-Smith and Lipsey's meta-analysis found brief alcohol interventions reduced drinking and related problems among adolescents and young adults.
Where can I find a free PAC 102 Module 5 sample paper?
This page has a free screening and early intervention plan for an invented high school district and community college.
Should screening results go to discipline?
No. Students answer honestly only when results stay confidential and are used for support, not punishment.