The Student Alliance for Flourishing: a collective impact initiative to support mental health in schools

Flourishing is “the relative attainment of a state in which all aspects of a person’s life are good including the contexts in which that person lives” (VanderWeele et al., 2023, p. 3). It is comprised of five main domains: (1) physical and mental health, (2) close social relations, (3) character and virtue, (4) meaning and purpose, and (5) happiness and life satisfaction (VanderWeele, 2017). Whereas the first five domains can be considered ends, VanderWeele (2017) suggests financial and material stability as a sixth domain in so far as it supports the other five domains over time, but not as an end or outcome.

The Student Alliance for Flourishing (SAFF; Larson et al., 2024a, b) is a program structured around the five-domain framework of flourishing proposed by VanderWeele (2017). It began as a small initiative in a professional development school (PDS) to support student mental health. Specifically, a PDS coordinating council member reported that the school community was struggling to cope with recent youth suicides in the area and wanted to take action to support mental health. The PDS coordinating council member worked with her university PDS liaison (first author on this paper) and another university faculty member to develop the Student Alliance for Flourishing (SAFF). As the first advisor of the inaugural group, the PDS coordinating council member recruited student members, checked-in with them during SAFF meetings, and encouraged them to support the flourishing of their school, local, and global communities.

After receiving positive feedback from SAFF students during the 2020–2021 school year, the university PDS liaison contacted district personnel about implementing the program with additional schools in the county. At the time of this request, the school district had Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSR) funding from the state and decided to use part of that funding to evaluate SAFF program implementation in five high schools. The university faculty worked with district personnel to recruit school leaders interested in implementing SAFF to support their improvement goals. University faculty worked with recruited school leaders to enlist 1–2 educators in each school to serve as SAFF advisors. The responsibilities of the SAFF advisors included attending monthly trainings provided by the university faculty and holding weekly SAFF meetings with their students.

Results from the first year of evaluation revealed that students were satisfied overall with the program and that SAFF allowed them to (1) develop deep and meaningful relationships with participating peers, (2) refine their thoughts about the types of relationships they wanted in their lives, (3) feel closer to other participating peers, but also peers in the broader community and world, and (4) learn ways to handle stress that are healthy and effective. SAFF advisors of the program also expressed positive perceptions about SAFF and reported wanting more training on applying flourishing practices in their personal and professional lives.

In 2022–2023, the project expanded into middle schools and included a multi-tiered framework to support flourishing (MTSS-F; Larson & Chaturvedi, 2021). SAFF advisors continued to support students’ flourishing in small groups, and were also encouraged to support their colleagues’ flourishing by providing training on flourishing and using funding for the initiative to support the broader school community. In addition, one advisor received individualized coaching to increase their overall levels of flourishing.

In 2023–2024, the SAFF program continued to expand into additional schools selected by the district. The university faculty examined how advisors could empower themselves, personally and professionally, through leading the SAFF program. A targeted effort was made to hold events with local businesses and organizations related to flourishing and comprehensive well-being. In the spring of 2024, the university faculty worked with several SAFF advisors on plans for sustainability.

Taken together, the SAFF program began with one educator in one high school and expanded to impact an additional 24 advisors over the next three years. By collaborating with district, school, and community leaders, the SAFF program addressed complex mental health challenges in education by promoting flourishing in schools (see Figure 1). In this paper, we provide relevant literature to highlight fundamental aspects of collective initiative impacts, present data on the impact of SAFF on student and advisor flourishing, and describe how the SAFF program aligns with the collective initiative impact framework proposed by Kania and Kramer (2011). Moreover, we will provide guidance for SAFF’s effective and practical applications in university, school, and community partnerships to support mental health and comprehensive well-being.

Collective impact has emerged as a crucial strategy for addressing complex social problems, particularly in education. Collective impact, a structured form of collaboration among diverse stakeholders to achieve significant social outcomes, emphasizes shared goals and coordinated efforts (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Kania and Kramer (2011) introduced the concept of collective impact and outlined five essential conditions for successful implementation: (1) a common agenda, (2) shared measurement systems, (3) mutually reinforcing activities, (4) continuous communication, and (5) backbone support. These elements create a structure that allows organizations to coordinate their efforts effectively and work toward a shared vision. The common agenda ensures all stakeholders are aligned on goals, while shared measurement systems facilitate accountability and data-driven decision-making (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Research suggests that organizations using these frameworks have improved by up to 20% compared to those that do not implement such frameworks (Hanleybrown et al., 2012; Cohen & Christman, 2016).

The rise of collective impact as a preferred model for social change gained traction in the 2010s, mainly in response to the limitations of traditional collaboration methods. Historically, initiatives focused on isolated interventions without adequately addressing the systemic factors contributing to social problems (Wolff, 2016). These efforts resulted in fragmented solutions that failed to produce substantial, long-term change. In contrast, collective impact initiatives emphasize a comprehensive approach, recognizing that complex issues such as educational inequity require coordinated, multi-faceted responses (Christens & Inzeo, 2015).

Research critiques traditional collaborations, arguing that they often lack the structure necessary to effect meaningful change. For instance, Chaskin and Greenberg (2015) highlight how traditional partnerships may need help aligning diverse stakeholders around common goals, leading to miscommunication and inefficiencies. One study indicated that 60% of traditional collaborations reported difficulty achieving consensus on goals (Christens & Inzeo, 2015). Collective impact initiatives address these challenges by establishing clear expectations and fostering continuous communication among partners. Numerous scholarly sources support this shift, which highlights the effectiveness of collective impact initiatives in mobilizing resources and fostering sustainable change (Kania & Kramer, 2011; Cabaj & Weaver, 2016).

Several key initiatives exemplify the principles of collective impact initiatives in education, including StrivePartnership in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Promise Neighborhoods program across United States cities. StrivePartnership utilizes a cradle-to-career approach that aligns multiple stakeholders around shared educational goals, focusing on data-driven strategies to improve student outcomes (Equal Measure, 2019). Through continuous evaluation and adjustment, StrivePartnership has documented measurable improvements in third-grade reading proficiency from 45 to 65% and high school graduation rates from 70 to 85% (StriveTogether, 2021). In contrast, Promise Neighborhoods adopts a place-based strategy integrating educational initiatives with health and community services to address broader social determinants of success (U.S. Department of Education, 2025). Evaluations of Promise Neighborhoods have shown significant advancements in college readiness, with participating students showing a 30% increase in college enrollment rates compared to their peers, and family engagement rates improving by 25% (Cohen & Christman, 2016). Both initiatives exemplify how applying Kania and Kramer’s framework can lead to positive changes. However, they also highlight the need for continuous evaluation and adjustment to maintain their effectiveness, as they face challenges related to sustainability and scalability (Hanleybrown et al., 2012).

The impact of collective impact initiatives on educational outcomes has been significant, with studies demonstrating measurable improvements in key performance indicators. For example, Dobbie and Fryer (2011) found that students in the Harlem Children’s Zone, a community-based initiative aimed at improving educational and life outcomes for children and families in Harlem, New York, outperformed peers in other urban districts by 15% in math and reading scores, attributing these gains to the initiative’s holistic approach that addresses multiple barriers to success. Furthermore, initiatives like Seeding Success in Memphis, Tennessee, have shown that real-time data sharing among stakeholders can enhance early literacy outcomes, particularly for underserved populations, with improvements in literacy scores by 20% (Seeding Success, 2017). Collective impact initiatives represent a promising model for educational reform, emphasizing collaboration, data-driven decision-making, and systemic change.

By grounding the SAFF program in established research and highlighting key initiatives, the framework developed by Kania and Kramer serves as a valuable resource for identifying effective strategies to improve educational outcomes. While challenges related to sustainability and equity persist, ongoing research and adaptation of collective impact practices can further enhance their effectiveness in addressing the complex social issues that permeate the education sector. Much of the collective impact literature in education has focused on academic outcomes (i.e. reading achievement, math proficiency, and college readiness). Less is known, however, about the impact that collective impact initiatives can have on the mental health and well-being of students and educators. As such, the purpose of this paper is to introduce the Student Alliance for Flourishing as a collective impact initiative that addresses the mental health and comprehensive well-being of students and educators in schools.

In this study, we reflect on three years of SAFF program implementation. We explore the following research questions: (1) To what extent did advisors’ and students’ overall levels of flourishing change each year and how do those scores compare to one another and the U.S. national average for adults? (2) To what extent did advisors’ and students’ flourishing change in each domain and how do those changes compare to one another and the U.S. National average for adults?

Data were collected from students and advisors who attended at least one SAFF meeting in the 2021–2024 school year. Over three school years (2021–22 to 2023–24), the SAFF program was implemented in 12 district schools and served approximately 185 students. Twenty-five educators served as SAFF advisors. The majority of educators were school counselors (n = 7), special educators (n = 4), content-area teachers (n = 4), health/physical education teachers (n = 3), non-content teachers (n = 4), social workers (n = 2), and psychologists (n = 1). Although 10 advisors in the sample served on the project for two years, the remaining 15 participants served as advisors for only one year during the SAFF program’s 3-year implementation period. One advisor brought the SAFF program to their new school when they transitioned from one school to the next.

Data used for analysis in this study were collected via surveys across all three years of program implementation. Specifically, the survey asked about student and advisor flourishing using the Human Flourishing Index (HFI; VanderWeele, 2017). The Human Flourishing Index uses a 10-item Likert scale to measure the extent to which an individual is flourishing, where 1 = extremely low/negative and 10 = extremely high/positive. The measure is composed of five domains (i.e. happiness and life satisfaction; physical and mental health; close social relationships; meaning and purpose; and character and virtue). Two items measure each of the five domains of flourishing. Questions include, “Overall, how satisfied are you with life as a whole these days?” (life satisfaction domain) and, “I am content with my friendships and relationships” (close social relationships domain). In this study, participants rated themselves on a scale from 0 to 10 in response to each item retrospectively. Specifically, participants reflected on how they felt about each item before engaging with SAFF and now (since participating in SAFF). Adults and students completed slightly different versions of the surveys whereby the adult version of the survey for the meaning and purpose domain read, “I understand my purpose in life” while the item for students read, “I am doing things that help me achieve my goals in life.” According to previous research, the HFI is valid and reliable (Weziak-Bialowolska et al., 2019). The U.S. national average of flourishing for adults ages 18 and over is 7.18 (VanderWeele, 2024). External evaluators analyzed the data using descriptive analyses (i.e. frequencies and means).

The purpose of the study was to analyze student and advisor survey responses and draw conclusions on two research questions: (1) To what extent did advisors’ and students’ overall levels of flourishing change each year and how do those scores compare to one another and the U.S. national average for adults? (2) To what extent did advisors’ and students’ flourishing change in each domain and how do those changes compare to one another and the U.S. national average for adults? Below we describe our results for each of these research questions.

The data indicated that flourishing levels among students (see Figure 2) and advisors (see Figure 3) increased each year. Among students, flourishing scores rose an average of 1.47 points during the program (see Table 1). For advisors, the average increase in overall flourishing for advisors over the three years was 0.76 (see Table 2). When comparing students and advisors to the national average of adults (7.18), students scored below that national average before participating in SAFF and scored above the average after participating in SAFF, while advisors scored above the national average and their scores remained above the national average after participating in SAFF.

Findings from the evaluation indicated varying trends in these domains for students (see Figure 4) over two years of implementation and advisors (see Figure 5) over the three years of implementation. For happiness and life satisfaction, student scores improved an average of 1.56 (see Table 1), while advisors’ average growth was 0.73 (see Table 2). For mental and physical health, student scores improved an average of 1.04, while advisors’ average growth was 0.95. For meaning and purpose, student scores improved an average of 1.93, while advisors’ average growth was 1.02. For character and virtue, student scores improved by an average of 1.06, while advisors’ average growth was 0.63. For close social relationships, student scores improved an average of 1.72, while advisors’ average growth was 0.47. When comparing students’ and advisors’ scores in each domain to the national average of adults (7.18; VanderWeele, 2024), student scores in the character and virtue domain were below the national mean both before and after SAFF program participation. Advisors scored above the national average even at baseline for each domain, with the exception of their scores on the mental and physical health domain during the 22–23 school year and their scores on the meaning and purpose domain during the 2023–2024 school year.

The purpose of this study was to compare overall flourishing and flourishing in each domain across three years for students and advisors who participated in the SAFF program between the fall of 2021 and the spring of 2024. Moreover, we wanted to compare these results to the national average of flourishing for U.S. adults (7.18; VanderWeele, 2024).

In terms of overall flourishing, the data suggests that students’ and advisors’ flourishing increased from pre-to post-participation in SAFF each year. Particularly salient in the data are low baseline flourishing scores for students, especially when compared to the pre-participation SAFF scores in adults. Although the advisors in the project reported higher flourishing scores across all three years than students before participating in SAFF and after, students showed more growth than advisors each year. Future research should consider comparing flourishing scores by age to further understand this finding from the current study. With regard to changes in each domain of flourishing, advisors had the highest scores, on average, in the meaning and purpose domain, while students tended to have the highest average scores in close social relationships. Although this finding could be a reflection of what each age group felt they benefitted the most from participating in SAFF, more research is needed to support this hypothesis. Lastly, advisors’ pre-SAFF participation and post-SAFF participation flourishing scores are well above the U.S. national average. One reason for this finding may be that university program coordinators and school leaders sought out advisors who were “exemplars” of flourishing. If nothing else, the data suggest that university program coordinators and school administrators selected advisors who were flourishing, but who also perceived they had room to grow.

While this study has several strengths, the data collected on advisor and student flourishing provides only a snapshot to allow for comparisons between adults, students, and the U.S. adult population. Moreover, given the small number of students and advisors who participated in the study, these data should be interpreted with caution because they are not representative. Additionally, it should be noted that student data for the first year of data collection were suppressed because there were not enough students who completed the survey. Also, the U.S. national data is only available for adults 18 years and older. Future large-scale studies should use representative data collected from individuals younger than 18 years old. Hampson et al. (2022) calculated the sum of the scores for 866 students at Sevenoakes, a co-educational day and boarding school in the United Kingdom and found that the mean score for students was 70 (SD = 15) out of 100. The findings by Hampson et al. (2022) suggest that students in the SAFF program scored lower than Sevenoakes students at baseline, but higher than this group after participating in SAFF. Taken together, additional research using inferential statistics with a larger, more diverse sample is necessary to generalize the findings. Nonetheless, this evaluation study is a practical first step in research on flourishing and collective impact initiatives.

The following study has far-reaching implications for both research and practice. In 2021, Harvard’s Human Flourishing Program and Baylor’s Institute for Studies of Religion in partnership with Gallup and the Center for Open Science embarked on a five-year longitudinal research study of global flourishing. It involves data collection for approximately 200,000 participants from 22 geographically and culturally diverse countries. The global flourishing study, however, does not collect data from individuals younger than 18 years old. Using the principles of collective impact initiatives, it is critical that the researchers, school districts, and funding agencies work together and collect data on younger populations. Such efforts would enable stakeholders to have a better understanding of how a child is performing in relation to other children their age with regard to overall and domain-specific flourishing so that targeted supports can be provided. Collective impact initiatives that collect and analyze data for the purpose of improving schools would be valuable resources for educators, researchers, and policymakers seeking to make positive changes in their contexts.

In 2011, Kania and Kramer introduced the concept of collective impact and outlined five essential conditions for successful implementation: a common agenda, shared measurement systems, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and backbone support. Regarding a common agenda, the district, the university, and the funding agencies involved in the SAFF program had a shared vision to support student and educators’ social, emotional, and mental health. The university worked with the district to collect data and measure results to ensure that the efforts were aligned with district goals and that the university partners were held accountable for meeting those goals. The SAFF program provided mutually reinforcing activities by conducting trainings and then allowing advisors to apply what they learned during those trainings as they saw fit, thereby allowing for differentiation and autonomy. The university program coordinators were in continuous communication with the district about which schools to recruit and how the project was progressing, thereby meeting the district’s need and making changes when necessary. Lastly, each organization had separate and specific skills that served as the backbone for the entire SAFF program. From the time the SAFF program began, the university coordinators relied on SAFF advisors as the experts in their schools with their students. Because the district received financial support from the government, a research team at a university was able to provide much-needed support to a local school district during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the research team was able to develop, design, implement, and evaluate a program that could directly meet the immediate well-being needs of educators and students in 12 of its 35 (34%) secondary schools. The SAFF project directly served 25 educators/student support staff and approximately 180 students. Together, these elements created a structure that allowed the university-district partnership to coordinate their efforts effectively and work toward a shared vision. Being grounded in the principles of collective impact initiatives, SAFF has the potential to create ripple effects for years to come.

The IRB protocol for data collection using human subjects was approved through Notre Dame of Maryland University (#E2219050102L: Evaluating the Efficacy of a Multi-Tiered System to Support Flourishing (MTSS-F).