From the classroom, Thomas Cronin used to think of public health as a numbers game—winning meant successful research and a peer-reviewed publication. But this summer, he learned to count success not by research papers, but by hot showers, clean laundry and eye-to-eye conversations with some of Providence's most vulnerable residents.
As an MPH student in Brown University's School of Public Health, Cronin completed his applied learning Practicum with Project Weber/RENEW, Rhode Island’s pioneering overdose prevention and harm reduction center. Working in a drop-in space, where Project Weber/RENEW’s clients can rest, shower, eat and wash their laundry, Cronin quickly learned that effective public health isn't just about designing interventions—it's about creating the conditions needed for interventions to actually change behavior.
"People can’t quit if they die," he says. "To me, that’s the heart of harm reduction. It’s about making sure people stay alive long enough to have another chance, to seek treatment, to make changes when they’re ready and to keep moving forward."
For Cronin, the seemingly simple assistance he helped coordinate is real-world public health practice in action. These services allow public health practicioners to build trust with the community and bring dignity to clients—fundamental conditions, he stresses, that must be met before treatment and recovery can truly begin.
We spoke with Cronin about his frontline experience at Project Weber/RENEW, how it reshaped his view of epidemiology and his plans for the future.
What is the biggest takeaway from your experience at Project Weber/Renew?
Cronin: One of the biggest lessons I’ve taken away from this experience is that, in my academic training, I’ve focused mostly on the intervention itself. But I’ve come to realize that an equally important question is: What conditions need to be in place for that intervention to actually change behavior?
In my experience, we don’t spend enough time talking about trust or the broader needs of the community that have to be addressed alongside an intervention. At Project Weber/RENEW, for example, services like showers and laundry might not seem directly connected to behavioral health, but they help people regain confidence and dignity. How can we expect someone to change their behavior if they don’t feel confident in themselves? Those supports make people more likely to engage with the intervention in the first place.
The MPH Practicum experience has broadened the way I think and made me realize that every intervention should be considered within the larger context of the community’s needs. Those surrounding supports are often what make the intervention effective.
Was there a particular experience that led to this realization?
There was one moment that really stayed with me. One day, after it had rained, a lot of clients came in wanting to shower. One client was especially eager to get in and became really upset when they realized they weren’t next on the list. Their frustration ended up being directed at me, since I was managing the schedule.
At first, I simply explained that it didn’t work that way, but they continued getting angrier. Eventually, the manager and I brought them into the office so we could talk privately.
Around that time, I’d started walking home from work instead of driving. Part of the reason was that I wanted to better understand the neighborhood and see clients outside the drop-in center, just living their lives. This was when I saw the client, trying to earn some money, in the heat, with very little shelter from the weather.
So when we sat down together, I told them, “I’ve seen where you work. I know how hot it’s been, and I understand that you’re dealing with a lot. I'm not trying to be unfair. I want everyone here to have access to a shower and to have their basic needs met.”
That completely changed the conversation. They began crying and shared some very personal things that I never would have known otherwise.
That experience taught me to approach every interaction with as much patience as I can, because you rarely know what someone is carrying with them. It reinforced something I’d been told on my very first day at the drop-in center: When someone gets angry with you, it’s usually not because you’ve done something wrong. More often than not, they’re responding to everything else they’re going through—to the circumstances of their lives, to the challenges they face, sometimes even to society as a whole. In that moment, you’re simply the person standing in front of them.
Remembering that has helped me respond with more empathy.
What do you say to critics of harm reduction techniques like those practiced at Project Weber/RENEW?
One idea I’ve really come to appreciate is this: People can’t quit if they die. To me, that’s the heart of harm reduction. It’s about making sure people stay alive long enough to have another chance, to seek treatment, to make changes when they’re ready and to keep moving forward. It’s not about saying, “You messed up,” and turning it into a moral judgment. It’s about recognizing that every person deserves the opportunity to keep trying.
This experience has also changed the way I think about epidemiology. I see behavioral health and disease transmission as deeply connected, not as separate fields. Infectious diseases spread from person to person, and people’s behaviors influence that spread. If we can better understand those behaviors and create interventions that help people make healthier choices, we can also reduce disease transmission and prevalence.
Has your MPH Practicum had any influence on your future plans?
Coming into college, I was really focused on research and publications—that was how I measured success.
As I got further into my undergrad, though, my perspective started to change. One thing I really appreciated about my studies at Brown was the emphasis on doing research for the right reasons. The message from faculty was that research shouldn’t be predatory or driven by the goal of simply adding publications to your resume. It should be about helping communities. And if you do publish your findings, the people who are most affected by that research should be able to access it, understand it and benefit from it.