| Course | PAC 799B Addiction Studies Capstone |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Ethics and data plan |
| Length | About 1,090 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PAC 799B Module 2
Protecting People at the Edge of Custody: Ethics and Data Protection for a Jail Naloxone Project
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PAC 799B: Addiction Studies Capstone
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Protecting People at the Edge of Custody: Ethics and Data Protection for a Jail Naloxone Project
Introduction
Avery's capstone evaluates the naloxone offer at release from the Pine Hollow County Detention Center, an invented jail in Georgia. The project involves three kinds of activity with different ethical demands: a change in how a health service is offered to everyone eligible, interviews with people recently released and with nurses and the use of release and booking records. This plan describes how each is handled.
Why These Participants Need Particular Protection
People leaving jail may be on probation, awaiting trial or under other supervision, and many have reason to distrust anyone connected to the system. In its review of research involving prisoners, the Institute of Medicine recommended that protections apply not only to people inside prisons and jails but to anyone whose liberty is restricted by the criminal justice system, including people on probation and parole. It also recommended moving from rules based on categories of research toward a careful weighing of risks and benefits for the people involved, and ensuring that participation is genuinely voluntary despite the pressures of supervision (Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2007). Many of the people Avery will interview are on probation, so the plan treats them under these recommendations even after release.
Weighing Risks and Benefits
Emanuel et al. (2000) held that a study must offer enough social or scientific value to justify asking people to bear any risk, and that the risks must be minimized and outweighed by benefits to participants or to knowledge. The project's three parts differ.
On the offer itself, McDonald and Strang (2016) found that serious adverse events from take-home naloxone were rare and that bystander administration was usually followed by survival. The opt-out change therefore carries little risk and potentially large benefit.
| Activity | Main risks | How they are reduced | Benefits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Opt-out kit offer | Very low; a kit may be unwanted | Anyone can leave the kit at the desk; no penalty for declining | More people leave with an antidote during the riskiest weeks |
| Interviews with released people | Distress recalling custody; fear that what is said reaches courts or probation | Held away from the jail; no custody staff involved; voluntary; no questions requiring disclosure of drug use | A voice in how the service is designed; a small gift card for time |
| Records | Identification if data are mishandled | De-identified before reaching Avery; secure storage | Accurate measurement of uptake |
Benefits Weighed Against Burdens
The burden on interview participants is about forty minutes of their time and the discomfort some may feel in recalling their release. The benefit to them personally is modest: a gift card and a voice in how the jail offers kits. The larger benefit is to others leaving the jail later, if the findings improve the offer. Because the personal benefit is small, the plan keeps the burden small too, with short interviews held where and when participants choose.
Consent and Voluntary Participation
Consent for interviews is sought by peer recovery staff, not by Avery or jail staff, in the organization's office. The consent conversation covers the purpose, what the interview involves, that taking part or declining has no effect on any court, probation or jail matter, that participants may skip questions or stop at any time and that a small gift card is given whether or not the interview is completed. Participants are told that they need not mention drug use. Consent is written, and a copy is offered. Nurses give separate written consent, with assurance that their participation will not affect their employment and that the report will never name them.
Confidentiality and Its Limits
Interviews are confidential. Names are not recorded in transcripts, and quotations are reported without details that could identify a person, such as release dates. At consent, participants are told the one limit: if someone describes an immediate risk of serious harm to themselves or another person, Avery will act to keep them safe.
Disclosures of Risk
Because participants were recently released and many have used opioids, some may describe recent overdoses or current use. Describing past use requires no action beyond respectful listening. If a participant describes an immediate risk, such as plans to use alone that night or thoughts of suicide, Avery will stop the interview, talk with the person about safety, offer a naloxone kit and contact information for the peer organization's crisis line and, if the risk is to life and immediate, call emergency services. The peer organization's on-site staff will be available during interviews for support.
Data Handling
| Data | Collected by | Stored | De-identified | Destroyed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Release and booking extracts | Jail records officer | Encrypted jail drive | Before transfer, with study numbers | Five years after project end, per Aspen policy |
| Interview recordings | Avery | Encrypted recorder, then secure drive | At transcription | Within one week, after transcription is checked |
| Transcripts | Avery | Encrypted drive | Names and identifying details removed | With project data at five years |
| Consent forms | Peer staff | Locked cabinet at peer organization | Not applicable | At five years |
Nurses as Participants
The jail's two nurses are participants as well as partners. Because there are only two, anything they say could be traced to one of them by colleagues who read the report. Their quotations will therefore be reported without saying which nurse spoke, and any comment about supervisors or custody staff will be checked with the nurse before use. Their participation is separate from their work in making the offer, which continues whether or not they take part in interviews.
When the Project Ends
At the end of the project, Avery will give the jail administrator and nurses a summary of findings without any identifying information and will offer interview participants, through the peer organization, a one-page plain-language summary. Data will be kept for the period Aspen requires and then destroyed as the data table describes.
Approvals
The project was reviewed under Aspen's procedures for research involving human participants and approved, with the condition that interviews take place away from the jail. The jail administrator approved the service change and access to de-identified records in writing.
Conclusion
The plan treats people recently released, including those on probation, as a protected group, as the Institute of Medicine recommended, and weighs risks and benefits separately for each part of the project, following Emanuel and colleagues. The opt-out offer carries little risk and possible large benefit, consistent with McDonald and Strang's findings. Interviews are voluntary and independent of the justice system, confidentiality is explained with its one limit and every kind of data is handled from collection to destruction.
References
Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701-2711. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.20.2701
Institute of Medicine. (2007). Ethical considerations for research involving prisoners (L. O. Gostin, C. Vanchieri, & A. Pope, Eds.). The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11692
McDonald, R., & Strang, J. (2016). Are take-home naloxone programmes effective? Systematic review utilizing application of the Bradford Hill criteria. Addiction, 111(7), 1177-1187. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13326
What the PAC 799B Module 2 instructions ask for
The second module of PAC 799B typically asks for an ethics and data protection plan suited to your participants and data. Treat the Module 2 instructions in your Aspen course as the guide; the jail here is invented. Identify any protected or vulnerable groups and explain why. Weigh risks and benefits for each part of the project. Describe consent, voluntary participation and the right to withdraw. Explain how data will be collected, stored, de-identified and destroyed. State what you will do if a participant discloses risk of harm. Note the approvals obtained. Cite ethics sources in APA 7, and attach consent forms if allowed. Say who asks for consent and where, since in custody-related research the setting itself can feel coercive.
Inside the PAC 799B Module 2 example
The composite Pine Hollow project involves people recently released from jail, many on probation or awaiting court dates. The Institute of Medicine's report on research involving prisoners supports treating them as a protected group and weighing risks and benefits. The seven conditions proposed by Emanuel, Wendler and Grady give the plan its structure. McDonald and Strang's Addiction review supports the low risk of distributing naloxone. A risk table covers the opt-out change, the interviews and the records. A data table follows each kind of data from collection to destruction. A section on disclosures explains what Avery will do if someone describes an immediate risk of overdose or harm. Nurses' consent is handled separately, with assurances about employment.
Where the marks sit in the PAC 799B Module 2 rubric
Ethics plans earn credit for identifying real risks to these participants, responses proportionate to them and data handling specific enough to follow. This example recognizes that people on probation remain under justice supervision and face particular pressures. It distinguishes the service change, which carries little risk, from the interviews, which carry more. Consent is described in concrete terms, including the independence of participation from any legal matter. The data table covers every type of data through destruction. The disclosure section anticipates a likely situation in this population and gives a clear response. Staff participants are protected too, which plans often forget when the focus is on clients.
PAC 799B Module 2 help from the desk
Ethics plans often repeat general principles without applying them to the participants. Name the specific risks your participants face. Separate the parts of the project with different risks. Describe consent as it will actually happen, including who asks and where. Plan data handling step by step. Plan for disclosures before they occur. Check whether your participants are still under any justice supervision; probation and parole create pressures that a released status alone does not suggest. Keep copies of every approval letter with your project files, and note their dates in the manuscript so reviewers can see that data collection began only after approval. If a condition is attached to an approval, show in the plan exactly how you meet it.
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 799B and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PAC 799B Module 1: Chapter 3: Method
- PAC 799B Module 3: Carrying Out the Project
- PAC 799B Module 4: Organizing and Analyzing Data
- PAC 799B Module 5: Chapter 4: Results
- PAC 799B Module 6: Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications
- PAC 799B Module 7: Limitations and Recommendations
- PAC 799B Module 8: Final Manuscript and Presentation
- PAC 414 Module 4: Parental Substance Use and Child Maltreatment
- ADC 510 Module 6: Systems and Person-in-Environment Perspective
- PAC 410 Module 8: Disasters, Mass Violence and Community Prevention
- PSY 650 Module 4: Confidentiality and Privacy
PAC 799B Module 2 questions, answered
What does PAC 799B Module 2 usually ask for?
Aspen's PAC 799B covers ethics and data protection in this module, so a plan suited to your participants and data is typical. Check your Module 2 prompt.
Are people on probation considered prisoners in research ethics?
The Institute of Medicine recommended extending prisoner protections to anyone whose liberty is restricted by the justice system, including people on probation and parole.
Is giving out naloxone risky?
McDonald and Strang found few serious adverse events from take-home naloxone, and recorded administrations by bystanders were usually followed by survival.
Where can I find a free PAC 799B Module 2 sample paper?
The full ethics and data protection plan is here: risks and benefits, consent, data handling and what to do if a participant discloses risk.
What should a researcher do if a participant discloses risk?
Follow a plan set in advance: respond to immediate danger, offer help and referral and explain limits of confidentiality at consent.