Using Community and Family Risk and Protective Factors for Community-Based Prevention Planning, Article Critique Example

The article suggests that the families and communities have significant impact on the likelihood of students engaging in substance abuse such as alcohol, smoking, and drugs. Thus, certain measures by the families and the community go a long way in decreasing the likelihood of substance abuse. The strong ties between the individuals and their families and communities, legal regulations that both make it difficult to obtain cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs as well as impose strict punishments and strong social and cultural values lower the instances of substance abuse. It seems logical because close ties between the individuals and the families will ensure that the young individuals have support and guidance as they deal with the struggles of life. Without a sense of love and belonging, an individual may be more likely to seek temporary refuge from stress through substance abuse. Behavioral science tells us that when individuals perceive less probability of being caught, they are more likely to engage in risky behavior and it also appears to hold true in case of both parents’ monitoring and law enforcement in the community.

Human beings naturally seek connections and associations and if they don’t get it at homes, they may seek it outside homes and join groups that engage in substance abuse. Even though the exact impact varies but various studies done in different U.S. cities such as New York, Chicago, and Denver confirm that when communities take active interest in the growth of young individuals, the young individuals are less likely to gravitate towards a life of violence and crime. Since most of the research in the past targeted the relationship between individuals and families/communities and the crime rates, this study (Fagan, Horn, Hawkins, & Arthur, 2007) investigates the likely impact of individuals’ relationships with families and communities on the likelihood of substance abuse.

The study found that the availability of drugs and alcohol had a positive relationship with the probability of potential substance use where as family conflict and family mobility were independent variables with no relation to the potential of substance abuse. In addition, those students that felt close to their families were also less likely to engage in substance abuse in the future. But the greatest contributors towards the increased risk of substance abuse were favorable community and family attitudes towards substance use, attachment to fathers, and ease of drugs and alcohol availability.

The study could have been improved by taking some additional factors into account that could help us better understand the characteristics of families and communities. The study didn’t take into account the wealth distribution as well as the education levels. The study also didn’t take into account the prevention education at schools. It may be reasonable to hypothesize that the communities with higher income levels can afford to provide more forms of entertainment outside homes and thus, decrease the probability of engagement in risky behavior. Similarly, education levels within families have significant impact on the values and upbringing of individuals. The study may have improved its quality by looking at the impact of the siblings, particularly older siblings. Risky behaviors are often perceived as ‘cool’ by young individuals. Having older siblings that live life in the fast lane may increase the probability of younger siblings following the footsteps.

The study was done in 41 communities in seven states. Without detailed information as to which states and communities were part of the study, it is difficult to conclude whether the states and communities were diverse enough in their characteristics for the study to reach reliable conclusions.

References

Fagan, A. A., Horn, M. L., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. (2007, May). Using Community and Family Risk and Protective Factors for Community-Based Prevention Planning. Journal of Community Psychology , pp. 535-555.