Grounded on research showing that peer crowds vary in risk behavior, several recent health behavior interventions, including the US Food and Drug Administration's Fresh Empire campaign, have targeted high-risk peer crowds. We establish the scientific foundations for using this approach. We introduce peer crowd targeting as a strategy for culturally targeting health behavior interventions to youths. We use social identity and social norms theory to explicate the theoretical underpinnings of this approach. We describe Fresh Empire to demonstrate how peer crowd targeting functions in a campaign and critically evaluate the benefits and limitations of this approach. By replacing unhealthy behavioral norms with desirable, healthy lifestyles, peer crowd-targeted interventions can create a lasting impact that resonates in the target audience's culture.

No abstract

Representative studies show that Alternative is relatively small compared to other high-risk crowds, such as the Hip Hop peer crowd. The current research underscores the potential utility of interventions tailored to larger at-risk crowds for campaigns like Fresh Empire.

BackgroundThe Housing First Model (HFM) is an approach to serving formerly homeless individuals with dually diagnosed mental health and substance use disorders regardless of their choice to use substances or engage in other risky behaviors. The model has been widely diffused across the United States since 2000 as a result of positive findings related to consumer outcomes. However, a lack of clear fidelity guidelines has resulted in inconsistent implementation. The research team and their community partner collaborated to develop a HFM Fidelity Index. We describe the instrument development process and present results from its initial testing.MethodsThe HFM Fidelity Index was developed in two stages: (1) a qualitative case study of four HFM organizations and (2) interviews with 14 HFM "users". Reliability and validity of the index were then tested through phone interviews with staff members of permanent housing programs. The final sample consisted of 51 programs (39 Housing First and 12 abstinence-based) across 35 states.ResultsThe results provided evidence for the overall reliability and validity of the index.ConclusionsThe results demonstrate the index’s ability to discriminate between housing programs that employ different service approaches. Regarding practice, the index offers a guide for organizations seeking to implement the HFM.