The unintended consequences of targeting: young people's lived experiences of social and emotional learning interventions

Abstract

In the past twenty years there has been a proliferation of targeted school‐based social and emotional learning (SEL) interventions. However, the lived experience of young peoples’ participation is often elided, while the potential for interventions to confer unintended and even adverse effects remains under‐theorised and empirically under‐explored. This paper reports findings from a qualitative case study of students’ participation in a targeted SEL intervention, the Student Assistance Programme. Data was generated with four secondary schools in Wales, with 41 students (age 12–14) taking part in the study. Findings indicate that students’ identification for participation in the intervention and their reaction to the group composition may lead to harmful effects. Four iatrogenic processes were identified: (1) identification may be experienced as negative labelling resulting in rejection of the school (2) the label of SEL failure may serve as a powerful form of intervention capital, being employed to enhance students’ status amongst peers. Possession of this capital is contingent on continued resistance of the intervention (3) targeting of discrete friendship groups may lead to the construction of intervention ‘outsiders’ as students seek safety through the reification of pre‐exiting relationships (4) students may seek to renegotiate positioning within targeted friendships groups by ‘bragging’ about and reinforcing anti‐school activities, leading to deviancy amplification.

Stigma related to targeted school-based mental health interventions: A systematic review of qualitative evidence

“…Most studies (5 out of 7) addressed early interventions for students experiencing emotional distress in the context of psychosocial stressors. These interventions were described as 'school mental health services' (Huggins et al, 2016), 'school counselling services' (Prior, 2012a(Prior, , 2012b, an intervention to enhance protective factors for young people experiencing change, loss and transition events and early signs of emotional distress (Dickinson et al, 2003), an intervention for students with social and emotional difficulties in school and family settings (Evans et al, 2015), and a school-based emotional support service for 'young people with emotional difficulties/mental health issues, which had the potential to cause a crisis or have a negative effect on emotional well-being' (p. 219) (Segrott et al, 2013). Only two studies (Garmy et al, 2015;Kvist Lindholm and Zetterqvist Nelson, 2014) A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T 11 focused on programmes with an explicit diagnostic focus, both involving cognitivebehavioural interventions for students at risk for depression.…”

“…More systematic, contextualised evidence is needed to reconcile these apparently disparate findings and inform future directions in intervention development and implementation. In particular, qualitative methods have been advocated in mental health stigma research more generally (Link et al, 2004), and may offer important insights into help-seeking processes and the influence of anticipated and experienced mental health stigma in schools (Evans et al, 2015). However, no previous systematic review has directly addressed this topic, and qualitative approaches have been relatively underutilised in school mental health programme evaluations to date.…”

The consequences of being labelled ‘looked‐after’: Exploring the educational experiences of looked‐after children and young people in Wales

“…Participants also indicated the need to offer universally available resources, such as a designated person or safe room, to all students in order to avoid the label of ‘looked‐after’ being interpreted as an indicator that an individual is of concern or problematic. Such sentiments resonate with the broader literature pertaining to the unintended harms of targeted interventions, where negative labels are assigned to participants (Evans et al ., ), alongside those that emphasise the need to involve young people in decisions about their care (Sennett, ; Hallett, ).…”

Loneliness Across the Life Span

“…These findings should be considered when designing programs to help lonely people, and they have informed our choice of recommended programs across ontogeny: When we felt a prevention program could have impact, we made proposals for that; however, when we felt there was an individual risk factor that needed to be targeted, we suggested a targeted intervention approach. We were also conscious of the fact that prevention work is easier in schools in which all children or adolescents are brought together, and we have been mindful of research that shows the negative effects of being identified for intervention programs (Evans, Scourfield, & Murphy, 2014). Prevention work is, of course, very difficult after individuals exit the school and university systems, suggesting that targeted interventions may be more appropriate in adulthood.…”