PRACTICAL STRATEGIES
The organisation I studied developed several pragmatic approaches that reduced the negative effects of peer influence. These are practical, low cost, and transferable to many services.
1 REDUCE UNMONITORED SOCIAL TIME » Increase daytime activities and evening programmes. » Use rotas for communal spaces so staff presence is predictable. » Offer drop in groups with a clear purpose( music, cooking, employability).
2 CREATE POSITIVE PEER OPPORTUNITIES » Facilitate group projects( events, volunteering, sports) that reward prosocial behaviour. » Support peer mentoring where more stable residents help newcomers, but monitor for coercive dynamics.
3 BUILD ASPIRATION AND ALTERNATIVE IDENTITIES » Help young people find interests and pathways( training, creative projects, apprenticeships). » When someone is engaged in a course or project, their social circle often shifts away from risky peers.
4 USE BEHAVIOURAL CONTRACTS AND CLEAR EXPECTATIONS
» Behavioural management contracts that set out mutual responsibilities can disrupt harmful patterns and make consequences predictable.
» Ensure contracts are framed as support( what staff will do) as well as expectations( what the young person will do).
5 STRENGTHEN WORKER-YOUNG PERSON RELATIONSHIPS » A trusted worker can act as a counter influence to peers. » Regular one-to-one reviews that explore social pressures help young people reflect on choices.
6 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN » Consider the layout of communal spaces to avoid constant clustering in unsupervised corners. » Create designated quiet zones and activity hubs to diversify social interactions. safety reasons. The key is transparency – log the decision, explain to the individual why it’ s a one-off, and ensure it doesn’ t become a precedent that undermines consistency.
WHAT YOUNG PEOPLE SAID Hearing directly from residents highlights the social logic behind risk:
On fitting in –‘ You want to move on and it’ s just not working … you get sucked in.’ On boredom –‘ If you’ re just sitting around, you start doing stuff to pass the time.’ On alternatives –‘ When I got into the music project, I stopped hanging out in the lounge. I had something to do.’ On relationships –‘ If someone believes in you, you try for them.’
These voices underline that interventions must address social belonging as much as individual behaviour.
Peer influence is not a problem you can solve with a single policy. It’ s a social process that requires a multi-layered response:
Map the social ecology – know who hangs out where, when, and why. Reduce unstructured time – fill days and evenings with meaningful options. Create pro-social peer roles – volunteering, peer mentors, project leads.
Staff face real dilemmas. Tightening rules can feel punitive and risk pushing young people away, whereas doing nothing risks normalising harm.
Use harm reduction pragmatically – safer use advice, low-threshold referrals. Hold boundaries with explanation – consistency plus context builds credibility. Invest in relationships – a trusted worker is often the single best protective factor.
Finally, remember that peer influence can be harnessed positively. The same social processes that spread harm can also spread recovery, hope and new identities. The task for services is to tilt the social balance – by design, programming and relationships – so that the peer culture supports safer choices rather than undermining them.
Dr Justin Dunne is associate head of school, health and social care, Open University
UNSTRUCTURED TIME A recurring theme in the study was boredom. When days are empty, the social pull toward risky activities strengthens. Staff observed that unstructured evenings and long stretches of idle time created opportunities for peer contagion to take hold.
Structured days, on the other hand – education, training, volunteering, meaningful activities – reduce the time available for harmful peer bonding. They also provide alternative social networks and identities that can replace risky peer groups.
MANAGING TENSIONS Staff face real dilemmas. Tightening rules can feel punitive and risk pushing young people away, whereas doing nothing risks normalising harm. The study found that elastic boundaries – firm expectations applied with warmth and explanation – worked best. When staff explained why a rule existed and logged exceptions( so they didn’ t appear arbitrary), young people were more likely to accept limits.
Safeguarding decisions will sometimes require exceptions, for example allowing a young person in after curfew for
Having worked for 20 years in care settings, including managing treatment services for young people with addiction issues and then moving into training and education of those working in the sector, Dr Justin Dunne has become a strategic academic leader and researcher specialising in youth homelessness, social care practice, and evidenceinformed intervention design. His work focuses on how routine, boundaries, aspiration and practitioner relationships shape outcomes for vulnerable young people. He has over three decades of experience supporting practitioners, designing programmes, and leading research that bridges policy, practice, and lived experience.
WWW. DRINKANDDRUGSNEWS. COM MAY 2026 • DRINK AND DRUGS NEWS • 7