| Course | D624 Biostatistics and Analysis |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 1 |
| Paper type | Policy evaluation with quantitative data |
| Length | About 1,000 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 |
| School | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Program | Master of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for D624 Task 1
Did Raising the Age to 21 Work? Evaluating Tobacco 21 With Quantitative Research and State Survey Data, and Recommending the Data a Composite State Health Department Should Collect Next
Student Name
Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University
D624: Biostatistics and Analysis, Task 1
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
Did Raising the Age to 21 Work? Evaluating Tobacco 21 With Quantitative Research and State Survey Data, and Recommending the Data a Composite State Health Department Should Collect Next
The Policy and Its Logic
Tobacco 21 laws raise the minimum age for buying tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, from 18 to 21. The logic is about social networks: most people who become regular smokers start before 21, and 18-year-olds, many still in high school, often supply younger friends. Raising the age puts legal buyers further from younger students' social circles. States and cities began adopting such laws in the 2000s and 2010s, and a federal law raised the national minimum age to 21 in December 2019. The state health department in this paper, a composite, adopted its own law in 2018 and has been asked by its legislature whether the policy has worked and how it should be monitored.
Examining the Quantitative Research
Two national studies, each with a quasi-experimental design, give the strongest evidence. Friedman and Wu (2020) used a difference-in-differences approach with survey data from metropolitan areas from 2011 to 2016, comparing areas that adopted local Tobacco 21 laws with areas that did not. Current smoking among 18- to 20-year-olds fell from 16.5% to 8.9% over the period in all areas, but a Tobacco 21 policy covering an entire metropolitan area was associated with an additional reduction of about 3.1 percentage points in the likelihood of smoking. That design matters: because smoking was already falling everywhere, a simple before-and-after comparison would have credited the policy with the whole decline.
A later study linked state and local Tobacco 21 coverage to two national surveys and found that greater exposure to the laws was associated with reductions in cigarette and cigar use among 18- to 20-year-olds, and in e-cigarette use once policy details were accounted for; effects were weaker where laws included penalties on young people for possessing or using tobacco (Friedman & Pesko, 2024). The finding identifies a health risk in policy design itself: laws that punish youth rather than retailers may work less well.
Implementation is the weak point. In a study of 217 purchase attempts by 18- to 20-year-old buyers at 49 randomly sampled retailers in one North Carolina county in early 2022, retailers failed to ask for identification in 15.4% of attempts and sold to underage buyers 34.2% of the time (Lee et al., 2024). A law that is not enforced at the counter cannot reduce access. The North Carolina study's design, repeated purchase attempts at randomly sampled stores, is also worth noting because it measures behavior directly rather than relying on what retailers or young people report, which makes its estimates harder to dismiss.
What the State's Own Data Show
The state's surveillance data, shown below as composite figures, point in the same direction but cannot prove the law's effect on their own.
| Measure (source) | 2017 | 2023 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current cigarette smoking, ages 18 to 20 (adult risk factor survey) | 11.2% | 5.8% | -5.4 percentage points (-48%) |
| Current cigarette smoking, high school students (youth risk behavior survey) | 7.1% | 2.9% | -4.2 percentage points (-59%) |
| Current e-cigarette use, high school students (youth risk behavior survey) | 21.4% | 13.2% | -8.2 percentage points (-38%) |
| Retailer violation rate in the state's annual compliance survey | 14% | 19% | +5 percentage points |
Three cautions apply. First, the declines began before the 2018 law and mirror national trends, so without a comparison group, the state cannot separate the law's effect from everything else that changed, including the federal law in 2019, price increases and the pandemic. Second, percent and percentage-point changes must be kept apart: a fall from 7.1% to 2.9% is 4.2 percentage points but a 59% relative decline, and reporting only the larger number overstates the change. Third, the adult risk factor survey samples few 18- to 20-year-olds in the state, so its estimates for that age group have wide confidence intervals, and the youth survey changed from paper to online administration during the period, which may affect comparability. The rising retailer violation rate is the most troubling figure, because it suggests that access at the counter is getting easier, not harder.
Evaluation of Implementation
Taken together, the national research supports the conclusion that Tobacco 21 laws reduce young adult tobacco use, and the state's data are consistent with that conclusion. The weakest link is enforcement. The state's law includes penalties for underage possession, which the national evidence suggests may weaken its effect, and its retailer inspections test only buyers under 18, so they cannot detect sales to 18- to 20-year-olds, the group the law was meant to protect. The legislature should consider removing the possession penalties and shifting enforcement toward retailers, where the evidence suggests it does the most good.
Recommended Data Collection Methods
First, add randomized purchase attempts by trained 18- to 20-year-old buyers to the state's retailer compliance program, following the method used in the North Carolina study, and report the sales rate to that age group each year. Second, add questions to both youth and adult surveys on where young people obtain tobacco and e-cigarettes, distinguishing store purchases, purchases by others and online sales, since the law's logic depends on those sources. Third, expand the list of products asked about to include oral nicotine pouches and heated tobacco, so the surveys keep pace with the market. Fourth, oversample 18- to 20-year-olds in the adult survey or use a dedicated young adult survey to narrow confidence intervals. Fifth, build a comparison with neighboring states that adopted Tobacco 21 at different times, so that future evaluations can use a difference-in-differences design rather than a simple before-and-after comparison.
Conclusion
Quantitative research with comparison groups shows that Tobacco 21 laws reduce tobacco use among young adults, and the state's own data are consistent with that finding, though they cannot prove it alone. The larger risk is weak enforcement, which the state's current data systems are not designed to detect. Better data, especially compliance checks with 18- to 20-year-old buyers and questions about where young people get tobacco, would let the legislature see whether the law is working where it matters most: at the counter.
References
Friedman, A. S., & Pesko, M. F. (2024). Tobacco 21 laws and youth tobacco use: The role of policy attributes. American Journal of Public Health, 114(1), 90-97. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307447
Friedman, A. S., & Wu, R. J. (2020). Do local Tobacco-21 laws reduce smoking among 18 to 20 year-olds? Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 22(7), 1195-1201. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntz123
Lee, J. G. L., Sesay, M., van de Venne, J., Kong, A. Y., Hrywna, M., Rose, S. W., & Delnevo, C. D. (2024). Retailers' compliance with federal age of cigarette sales policies: Pitt County, North Carolina, January-March 2022. North Carolina Medical Journal, 85(3), 49-53. https://doi.org/10.18043/001c.117074
What the D624 Task 1 instructions ask
The first D624 task asks you to evaluate a public health policy using quantitative evidence. You will usually explain the policy and its logic, examine quantitative research, analyze available data, judge whether the policy works and recommend data collection methods. Evaluators expect research designs described accurately, data interpreted with attention to causation, cautions stated plainly and recommendations that would strengthen future evaluation. Claiming a policy caused a decline because rates fell after it began will not meet the analysis aspects. Explaining why comparison groups matter shows the statistical reasoning the course teaches. Choose a policy with published evaluations, since the analysis depends on them.
How this D624 Task 1 example is built
The evaluation opens with the policy and the reasoning behind it. The research section describes each study's design, data and findings, with attention to why quasi-experimental designs are stronger than before-and-after comparisons. A table presents state survey figures across several years. Three cautions follow, each explaining a limit on what the state data can show. The implementation section weighs the national evidence and state data together. Recommendations describe specific methods, such as randomized purchase attempts and adding a comparison state, with how each improves the evidence. The conclusion distinguishes what research shows from what the state's data alone can support. Each study is cited with its design.
Where the D624 Task 1 rubric puts the marks
D624 Task 1 aspects are rated competent, approaching competence or not evident. A policy aspect asks for the policy and its logic. A research aspect rewards accurate description of study designs and findings. A data aspect looks for correct interpretation with limits. An evaluation aspect wants a judgment supported by evidence. A recommendations aspect asks for data collection methods that address the limits. Evaluators notice careful language about causation and they expect studies to be cited with their designs, since the course is about reading quantitative evidence well. Tables with clear labels and years make the state data easy to read. A conclusion that separates what the research shows from what the state data can support demonstrates the careful reasoning evaluators look for, and it models how a health department should report results.
D624 Task 1 help: what sends it back
D624 evaluations are weakest when they treat a before-and-after decline as proof. Explain what else could explain the change. Study designs may be described vaguely; name the design and why it matters. State data are sometimes presented without cautions, so state what they cannot show. Recommendations can be general, such as collect more data; name the method and what it would add. Last, explain statistical terms in plain language, since the audience for a policy evaluation often includes decision makers without training in statistics. Report the size of effects, not only their direction, since decision makers need to know how much a policy changes outcomes. Describe each study's data source and population. Recommend methods the health department could realistically afford and run, such as adding questions to an existing survey.
Get a D624 Task 1 example written to your instructions
Send the task instructions and rubric aspects from your D624 course of study. We write a custom policy evaluation with data to those exact aspects, returned in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
Other Public health sample papers
- D594 Task 1 Leadership and Ethics Case
- D627 Task 1 Communication Strategy and Claim Review
- D628 Task 1 Capstone Education Program
- D592 Task 1 Environmental Hazard Analysis
D624 Task 1 questions, answered
Is the D624 state real?
No. The state and its survey figures are invented for the sample. The national studies of Tobacco 21 laws and their designs are real and cited. Use real data for your own evaluation.
When did federal Tobacco 21 take effect in D624?
The federal minimum age of 21 for tobacco sales was signed into law in December 2019. Many states and cities had adopted their own laws earlier. Earlier local laws allow comparison.
Why do comparison groups matter in D624?
Without one, a decline after a policy could reflect national trends or other changes. Comparing with places that did not adopt the policy isolates its effect. Without one, cause cannot be separated from trend.
What is difference-in-differences in D624?
A method that compares the change in an outcome where a policy was adopted with the change where it was not, over the same period, to estimate the policy's effect.
Where can I find a free D624 Task 1 sample paper?
The Tobacco 21 evaluation, with state data and cautions, appears above with notes. Tell us the policy your D624 paper evaluates, and your first custom evaluation is written free.