Improving Mental Health and Well-Being in Schools: Exploring School Leaders’ Roles and Influence

Abstract

The growing prevalence of mental health issues among adolescents in Hong Kong SAR has urged secondary schools to enhance their well-being support systems. This study focuses on the One-off Grant for Mental Health at School, a newly launched initiative by the Education Bureau. Based on a qualitative analysis of 121 school documents and focus group interviews with school leadership teams from five government-aided secondary schools, the study found that the schools generally used the grant as additional support to enhance their existing well-being initiatives. These included organizing well-being support activities, purchasing or designing educational resources and materials, enhancing school facilities, and establishing or enhancing school-based well-being support systems. The study also found that school leaders played a critical role in the implementation of the grant, with principals perceiving themselves as primary policy setters and vice-principals and teacher leaders as bridges connecting senior leadership with other stakeholders. In addition to their individual roles, the findings revealed that leaders relied on collaborative decision-making practices to facilitate more effective implementation of the grant. It is recommended that current well-being support measures be further enhanced by establishing sustained support programs and encouraging greater stakeholder participation in relevant policymaking processes.

1. Introduction

The performance-oriented and highly competitive education system in Hong Kong SAR has drawn attention to mental health and well-being issues in schools, particularly at the secondary level (Cho & Chan, 2020; Huang & Yin, 2018). Given growing concerns about the well-being of students and teachers, schools have been implementing mental health initiatives and programs. The limited research evidence indicates the promising potential and numerous benefits of these initiatives for improving the mental health of students and teachers (Lui et al., 2023; Tang et al., 2023), warranting further investigation. The vital role of school leaders in influencing school well-being, particularly teacher well-being, has also been recognized (Bellibaş et al., 2024; Chen & Lee, 2024; Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2025). However, existing research provides little evidence on the perceptions, roles, and influences of school leaders in initiating and sustaining school well-being initiatives.

This study investigates how school leaders perceive and implement the recent one-off grant initiative introduced by the Education Bureau (EdB) of Hong Kong, aiming to support school well-being in the city. To establish the broader context of the implementation, the study draws on the evidence from the analysis of school documents related to the grant. The document analysis contributes to our understanding of how schools in Hong Kong address well-being issues and provides insights into the preliminary outcomes of this government initiative. Building on these findings, the study then proceeds with focus group interviews with leadership teams, including school principals and other relevant school leaders, offering further insights into the role of school leadership in addressing well-being and mental health issues in schools and in implementing this new school-wide initiative. Accordingly, the study proposed the following research questions:

RQ1. How do Hong Kong secondary schools utilize the one-off grant to implement well-being initiatives? Which categories and services do they prioritize? Which groups were targeted?

RQ2. How do school leaders perceive the structure and success of the initiative, as well as their role in planning and implementing related well-being initiatives?

RQ3. How do school leaders make decisions and influence the planning and implementation processes?

2. Conceptual Framework

As the current study focuses on the government’s initiative to promote student and teacher well-being and mental health in schools, it is crucial first to define these concepts and clarify how they are embedded within the school context. We then review the literature on school well-being in Hong Kong. Lastly, we present detailed information about the one-off grant initiative under the study.

2.1. Student and Teacher Well-Being at School

Student well-being has attracted the attention of scholars and educators due to its crucial influence on students’ various academic and non-academic outcomes, including academic achievement, socialization, physical health, and overall quality of life (McNeven et al., 2024). In the school context, four major dimensions of student well-being are emphasized: psychological, social, cognitive, and physical (OECD, 2019). While the psychological dimension pertains to students’ feelings, emotions, and beliefs about themselves, the social dimension concerns their relationships with others, the cognitive dimension concerns their beliefs about their aptitude and intelligence, and the physical dimension relates to their overall health status (Govorova et al., 2020; Ling et al., 2022). In addition to its multidimensional nature, student well-being has been associated predominantly with positive attributes in the literature. Specifically, Noble et al. (2008) defined it as “a sustainable state with positive feeling and attitude, positive interpersonal relationship at school, resilience, self-optimization, and high-level satisfaction with learning experience” (p. 30). Alongside positive characteristics, it is crucial to acknowledge that students’ social-emotional distress plays a critical role in their well-being and should be considered when conceptualizing well-being (Dowdy et al., 2023). Thus, the multidimensional nature of the concept, as well as its positive and negative attributes, will be considered in guiding the understanding of student well-being in this study.

Student experiences, however, are shaped not only by their personal characteristics and social environments but also by their teachers. As teachers are continuously engaged in students’ learning, they directly influence their social, emotional, and academic development. Moreover, recent research has highlighted the impact of teacher well-being on student well-being (S. S. Braun et al., 2020; Maricuțoiu et al., 2023), underscoring the need to examine teacher well-being alongside student well-being. Teacher well-being can be viewed as a component of occupational well-being (Soini et al., 2010). As defined by Van Horn et al. (2004), occupational well-being is “the positive evaluation of various aspects of one’s job, including affective, motivational, behavioral, cognitive, and psychosomatic dimensions” (p. 366). Specific to the teacher profession, teacher well-being is described as a teacher’s individual feelings of professional satisfaction, fulfillment, and contentment, constructed collaboratively with colleagues, students, parents, and other school community members (Soini et al., 2010).

While student and teacher well-being are central to understanding well-being in a school context, it is also essential to consider the influence of school conditions and organizational structures. In response to this need, several scholars have developed frameworks that guide schools in supporting the well-being of both students and teachers, while also helping researchers and practitioners analyze how organizational conditions shape stakeholders’ experiences. Grounded in Allardt’s work, Konu and Rimpelä (2002) proposed a framework comprising several indicators reflecting students’ basic material and non-material needs that should be addressed by schools in their efforts to improve student mental health. These needs relate to having (school physical conditions), loving (social relationships), being (means of self-fulfillment), and health (health status) (Konu & Rimpelä, 2002). Soutter et al. (2014) outlined additional indicators, including feeling (positive emotional experiences), thinking (opportunities for critical and creative decision-making), functioning (balanced curriculum), and striving (supporting continuous academic growth). Norwich et al. (2022) further developed conceptualizations by differentiating between schools’ general mental health promotion and professional services for addressing mental health challenges. In their dual-factor model, they emphasized the distinction between the schools’ aim of promoting individual and social well-being through the curriculum and mental health services designed to prevent and address mental health issues.

While existing frameworks have focused largely on student well-being, some efforts have been made to develop frameworks for teacher well-being. One framework proposed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) highlights four key dimensions of teachers’ occupational well-being: physical and mental well-being, cognitive well-being, subjective well-being, and social well-being (Viac & Fraser, 2020). The framework emphasized the critical role of working conditions in shaping these dimensions, while also underscoring that student well-being is a key outcome of teacher well-being. Kwon et al. (2021) also included working conditions in their proposed framework. The authors emphasized three domains, such as psychological, physical, and professional well-being, suggesting that the relationship between teachers’ working conditions and professional well-being is mediated by their psychological and physical well-being.

2.2. The Role of School Leadership in Fostering Well-Being in Schools

Scholars have acknowledged the crucial role of school leaders in promoting well-being in schools. As noted by Cherkowski and Walker (2018), “school leaders are a primary instrument, or levering factor, in the flourishing of schools and in the assurance of wellbeing for teachers, staff, students, and school families” (p. 129). It is also important to note that the relevant literature has primarily focused on the influence of school leadership on teacher well-being. Specifically, adopting certain leadership practices can positively affect teacher well-being, enhance their emotional health and job satisfaction, and reduce burnout (Berkovich & Eyal, 2017; Cann et al., 2021). In addition, the leadership style of the school principals has been proven to affect teachers’ well-being, thus facilitating (or hindering) better school performance (P. Bryant et al., 2016; Van der Vyver et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2025).

Although the influence of school leadership on student well-being has not yet been adequately addressed in research, some studies have emphasized an indirect relationship between the two. One way in which school leaders can influence student well-being is by fostering a positive and supportive school environment for everyone to flourish (Cherkowski et al., 2022). For example, school leaders’ involvement in school-wide mindfulness programs and school climate interventions can positively affect student mental health (Au & Kennedy, 2018; Bosworth et al., 2018). In addition, school leaders can support student well-being by maintaining healthy relationships and fostering ongoing collaborations with school staff, including teachers and school counsellors (Berkovich et al., 2025; Daly et al., 2025; Geesa et al., 2021). Such collaborations could focus on fostering a supportive school environment and nurturing socio-emotional learning, thereby contributing to student well-being (Beatty & Campbell-Evans, 2020; Laursen, 2025).

In summary, school well-being is a complex, multifaceted phenomenon that involves the well-being of key stakeholders and depends on how the school environment and conditions meet the needs of students and teachers. It is also critical to recognize the role of school leadership in shaping the educational process and school climate, as well as its influence on the well-being of students and school staff.

2.3. School Leadership in Enacting School Changes and Reforms

School leadership plays a fundamental role in steering and coordinating the implementation of educational changes, reforms, and innovations. Since school well-being initiatives, such as the newly introduced One-off Grant for Mental Health at School in Hong Kong, constitute a form of educational change, their effective implementation may require school leaders to critically reassess and adapt their leadership approaches to align with the conditions necessary to support the new initiative. Successful implementation of the change, among other factors, depends on how a school leader leads and translates a policy text into practice (Young & Lewis, 2015). To enrich our understanding of the role of school leaders in implementing educational change and reform, the concepts of leader sense-making and leader agency have been proposed. The idea of sense-making involves a leader’s capacity to understand and interpret an educational reform or policy change (Spillane et al., 2002). The concept of leader agency emphasizes leaders’ capacity to take strategic actions to initiate or implement school changes (Chen-Levi et al., 2022). Both notions underscore the situated nature of sense-making and agency, suggesting that a leader should consider a broader school context and stakeholders’ needs when deciding on whether to adopt or adapt the reforms (Spillane, 2009; Reyes-Rojas et al., 2025).

The vital role of school leadership during periods of school reforms and policy changes has been further reinforced by empirical evidence. The studies reported a range of leadership practices and behaviors that were particularly beneficial for enacting new reforms and policies in the educational context. One such practice is leaders’ capacity to guide staff and teachers through the implementation of reform, while also addressing their needs and creating conditions that bolster their motivation and commitment to change (Ganon-Shilon & Schechter, 2018; Gu et al., 2018; Spillane & Anderson, 2019). These studies have also underscored the importance of leaders developing a clear vision and ensuring that reform implementation is aligned with it. The literature also highlights that leaders are often tasked with navigating the enactment of government-mandated reforms (Arar et al., 2019). In such cases, leaders need to assume a buffering role, which involves negotiating compromises with the authorities while prioritizing the needs of teachers and students (D. A. Bryant et al., 2018; Wenner & Settlage, 2015). Lastly, studies emphasize the importance of middle leaders in enacting school changes. It is argued that middle leaders play a vital role in advancing reforms, particularly in maintaining policy coherence and sustaining school improvement (Leach, 2024; Skerritt et al., 2023).

3. Context

3.1. Well-Being in Hong Kong Schools

Students in Hong Kong, particularly at the secondary level, may experience considerable academic stress due to increased workloads, a strong emphasis on grades, and pressure to excel in high-stakes examinations (Cho & Chan, 2020; Liang et al., 2022). Besides academic reasons, their mental health has deteriorated due to other factors, such as online learning, growing internet addiction among adolescents (Chan et al., 2024; Cheung et al., 2018), alcohol and drug use (Leung et al., 2023), as well as stress related to school commuting (Wu et al., 2021). Other stressors contributing to students’ mental health deterioration include a range of family factors, such as high parental expectations and poor family economic status, and a student’s residency status, such as being a new immigrant (Chyu & Chen, 2022; Wu et al., 2021). In general, studies report that, in recent years, secondary school students in Hong Kong have experienced increasing levels of hopelessness and declining life satisfaction (Shek & Liang, 2018; Shek & Liu, 2014). Adolescents’ experiences of depression, stress, and anxiety have also been increasingly highlighted in the literature (Feng et al., 2025; Yuen et al., 2019).

Likewise, teacher well-being has received substantial attention from researchers, given the demanding work culture and competitive educational environment. Recent studies have further documented a decline in teachers’ mental health in Hong Kong (Blaine, 2022; Harrison et al., 2025; Huang & Yin, 2018). The key stressors for teachers in the city are typically related to educational reforms, bureaucratic organizational structures, and temporary employment status at the early stage of their careers (S. S. Lau et al., 2022). These factors contribute to heavy workloads for teachers, requiring them to spend more time on administrative rather than instructional duties (Tsang, 2018). The educational changes resulting from the social unrest and the subsequent pandemic further exacerbated teachers’ mental health, as they had to navigate the transition to remote teaching and all the difficulties associated with it (Wong & Moorhouse, 2020). As highlighted by previous research, it is crucial to address these issues, as teachers’ well-being is associated with various teacher, student, and school outcomes (Glazzard & Rose, 2020; Maricuțoiu et al., 2023; Ramberg et al., 2020).

Relevant studies in Hong Kong also emphasize the importance of schools implementing preventive programs and initiatives to promote well-being among students and staff (Cheung et al., 2018; Shek & Lin, 2017). Nevertheless, while the research has extensively focused on assessing student and teacher well-being, very few studies have provided empirical evidence regarding the actions and measures undertaken by schools. Those studies primarily describe well-being programs integrated into the school curriculum (Au & Kennedy, 2018; Tang et al., 2023) or implemented as whole-school approaches (A. Lee et al., 2006). They generally reported that students gained various benefits for their mental health, such as improved perceptions of their health and academic status, increased life satisfaction, enhanced capacity to establish positive emotions and relationships, and better communication skills (Au & Kennedy, 2018; A. Lee et al., 2006; Tang et al., 2023).

There is research evidence of standalone short- and long-term well-being programs implemented at Hong Kong schools. For instance, N. S. Lau and Hue (2011) described a 6-week mindfulness program for secondary students and concluded that it could reduce students’ depressive symptoms and enhance their well-being, particularly in personal growth. Another example is a program for student leaders that aims to train them to address mental health issues among their peers at school. The program led to students and staff becoming more knowledgeable about mental health, more capable of responding to students’ concerns, and more willing to seek help for their own mental health (Lui et al., 2023).

3.2. One-Off Grant for Mental Health at School

In the Circular Memorandum issued in November 2023, the EdB announced the implementation of the One-off Grant for Mental Health at School. Following the pandemic and the ensuing increase in student suicide rates, the government introduced the grant as an additional resource for schools to strengthen their school-wide mental health support programs. The initiative aimed to help schools adapt to pandemic-related impacts by fostering a supportive and caring environment and facilitating positive interactions among students, teachers, and other stakeholders. The grant provided HKD 60,000 in financial support to organize activities and programs, or to purchase materials, to enhance the well-being of students and teachers. It was made available to all public-sector schools for use throughout the 2023/2024 and 2024/2025 academic years. The guidelines for schools published by the EdB later provided instructions on the appropriate use of grant funds, including organizing mental health promotion events and programs; arranging dedicated spaces at schools; designing and producing resources; providing mental health support services; purchasing furniture and equipment; and other activities.

Additionally, the EdB specified that schools must incorporate the grant plans into their annual plans, regularly evaluate the implementation, and include grant reports in their annual reports. The types of activities and items were further specified in the EdB-suggested report template, which divided all grant-related mental health initiatives into the five categories described above. Schools typically use these categories to develop their implementation plans and report on the use of the grant.

Simultaneously with this initiative, the EdB launched the 4Rs Mental Health Charter for the schools to implement in 2024/2025 (Education Bureau, 2024). This initiative encouraged schools to organize various activities to promote mental health, with a focus on four main objectives: rest, relaxation, relationships, and resilience. Since both initiatives were introduced and implemented simultaneously by the schools, many documents related to the One-off Grant for Mental Health at School were informed by the 4Rs Mental Health Charter.

At the same time, the EdB has also been encouraging schools to implement the “Three-tier Support Model”, which is a whole school approach to well-being targeting three levels: universal, selective, and indicated (Education Bureau, 2021; Hui et al., 2022). Universal level implies that schools should raise awareness of mental health among students, teachers, and parents, and support their well-being and resilience. At the selective level, schools should create necessary conditions for early identification of the critical cases and provide support for at-risk students. Lastly, the indicated level relates to intervention for serious mental health issues and providing professional medical support to the identified students.

4. Methodology

This study employed a qualitative approach, using documents and focus group interviews as primary data sources (Bowen, 2009; Krueger, 2014). We focused solely on the government-aided secondary schools in Hong Kong, which are fully government-funded. To obtain the list of schools, we consulted the Education Bureau (EdB) School Search webpage. As a result of the search, we identified 369 schools in the category of interest.

The document analysis was conducted first to provide background for the study and to establish a general understanding of the activities and items the schools planned to organize within this initiative. Based on the document analysis results, schools were selected for focus group interviews. The interviews expanded the data gathered from the documents, providing insights into the implementation details, such as the reasons for choosing specific activities and events, challenges encountered, expected and achieved outcomes, and the roles of leaders and other stakeholders. Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) of the Education University of Hong Kong before the study commenced.

4.1. Document Analysis

4.1.1. Selection of Documents

To explore how schools approached the implementation of this mental health initiative, we focused on locating the documents related to the One-off Grant for Mental Health at School, i.e., grant plans and reports. In the initial search, we found that many schools uploaded their implementation plans and reports for the one-off grant separately, and some posted only their annual plans, which contained the grant-related documents. Since the one-off grant plans and school annual plans, which comprised the grant plans, were published more frequently by the schools and included more data than the reports, we restricted our focus to the grant plans and annual plans only. The document search was conducted by two research assistants, who checked the websites of all 369 schools and retrieved documents in both English and Chinese. The first round of searching yielded 159 documents, which the second author independently reviewed to ensure that only those containing plans for implementing the One-off Grant for Mental Health at School were included. During the checking process, some unrelated documents, such as grant reports, school annual reports, and school budget reports, which do not include relevant data, were identified and excluded, resulting in 115 schools with available plans. Based on the feedback and directions provided by the co-authors, the research assistants conducted another search cycle, yielding six additional relevant documents, bringing the total to 121, of which 25 were in English and 96 in Chinese.

4.1.2. Data Analysis

As the first step in the analysis, the data were initially categorized by the second author. She created an Excel table listing schools and five columns corresponding to the five activity categories specified in the EdB grant description. Then, she carefully reviewed each document for the activity descriptions. If a school planned an activity/event for a specific category, she checked the box for that category and entered the activity details copied from the documents. As the schools relied on the EdB guideline in preparing the documents, all activities/items are classified under at least one category. The Chinese descriptions were translated first, and the translations were entered into the table. Some schools did not provide details of the activities and indicated only the planned budget. In this case, the boxes in the table were checked to indicate that the schools had a planned budget for the category, despite the absence of supporting evidence. After verifying the categorization with co-authors and making minor adjustments, the same author conducted thematic analysis (V. Braun & Clarke, 2006).

The five categories (organizing mental health promotion events and programs; arranging dedicated spaces at schools; designing and producing resources; providing mental health support services; purchasing furniture and equipment; and other activities) suggested by the EdB were used to organize the data for the analysis. Five sheets in an Excel workbook were created to examine each category. The author coded the data with descriptive codes first, and then manually assigned different colors to similar codes to identify common themes and patterns (Gibbs, 2007; Saldaña, 2015). The themes and patterns that emerged concerned the types of planned activities and support services, the items and resources produced or purchased, the targeted mental health-related skills, and the stakeholders involved. The themes and patterns were then interpreted and described separately for each category, and the results were presented in the Findings section.

4.2. Interviews with School Leaders

4.2.1. Sampling and Data Collection

We selected five secondary schools and recruited school leaders from each to participate in focus group interviews, yielding a total of 12 participants. Each focus group comprised two to three members, each holding a leadership role: a principal, a vice-principal, or a teacher leader.

Focus group interviews were used to gain a more nuanced understanding of the findings from the document analysis. Direct contact with participants (i.e., school management) and the flexibility to ask probing questions afforded by this research method enabled a more nuanced exploration of the schools’ experiences with the implementation of the one-off grant and other well-being initiatives (Vaughn et al., 1996). As the planning and implementation of the initiative were not administered by principals alone but were managed collaboratively by school leadership teams, the choice of the focus group as a method enabled the capture of participants’ perspectives constructed collaboratively in group discussions (Thomas et al., 1995).

The schools were recruited using a convenience sampling strategy through professional networks (Cohen et al., 2011). However, the research team considered the diversity of participating schools and intentionally selected schools from different districts and academic bandings. The school sizes, ranging from 500 to 600 students, are typical of secondary schools in Hong Kong. One of the authors leveraged her personal networks and invited the schools by calling their principals. The principals were asked to form groups of two to three staff members, comprising themselves and other school leaders who contributed to the implementation of the one-off grant. The same author agreed with the principals on the date, time, and mode of the interview. The phone conversations were followed by an official email invitation sent by another author to the principals. The email confirmed the school’s participation and included a consent form, an information sheet, and a list of sample interview questions for participants’ consideration. The interviews were conducted at the schools and lasted 40–60 min each. Two interviews were conducted in English, two in Chinese, and one in both English and Chinese. At the beginning of each interview, participants were asked to read and sign consent forms, after which the interview questions were administered. The interviewers began by asking a few questions about school well-being initiatives and general support, then proceeded to more specific questions about the one-off grant. The interview script included such questions as “What are the current major initiatives to support well-being in your school?” “Could you describe the planning and implementation processes for utilizing this grant in your school?” “How effective was this initiative for supporting well-being at your school, in your opinion?” The interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ permission.

4.2.2. Data Analysis

As the first step of data analysis, the interview recordings were transcribed. The transcripts were then sent to the participants for member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), inviting them to review the content and confirm whether it accurately reflected the topics discussed during the interviews. Following this, the interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis (V. Braun & Clarke, 2006). The second author started the analysis by familiarizing herself with the data through repeated readings of the interview transcripts. Then she began coding it inductively using the QualCoder software (developed by Dr. Colin Curtain, University of Tasmania, Australia) and initially assigned simple descriptive codes. Then she reviewed the data and codes again, recoded most of the data using more analytical codes, and collated them into initial categories (Gibbs, 2007). The categories were then grouped into overarching themes, which were reviewed and refined after the discussion with other authors. The analysis identified two overarching themes: “Upscaling schools’ well-being support systems” and “The role of school leaders: Policy-setting, bridging and decision-making.” A sample coding scheme for one of the themes is presented in Appendix A. The themes were then interpreted and discussed in the findings section.

5. Findings

5.1. Findings from Document Analysis

The document analysis demonstrated that the schools planned to use the grant to obtain a range of mental health resources. These included organizing activities, purchasing or designing educational resources and materials, enhancing school facilities, and establishing or enhancing school-based well-being support systems. The following section discusses each domain after providing a general description of the usage patterns identified in the documents.

5.1.1. Use of the Grant

Out of the identified 121 schools, 117 planned the grant budget for the category 1: ‘Organising activities and programmes related to enhancing the mental health of students and teachers’, making it the most popular category among the sampled schools. The second most popular category was category 4: ‘Purchasing items, furniture and equipment to enhance the mental health of students and teachers’, which was included in grant plans for 90 schools.

The third most used category was category 2: ‘Providing support services related to enhancing the mental health of students and teachers.’ This category was included in the grant plans of 49 schools. Category 3, ‘Designing and producing school-based learning and teaching resources related to mental health’, was included in the grant plans of a total of 29 schools. It must be noted that many schools incorporated more than one category in their plans, resulting in the total number of categories exceeding the number of schools. Figure 1 below illustrates the most and least frequently adopted categories.

There are patterns in the stakeholders targeted by schools across categories. While students are the most frequently featured stakeholders, other stakeholders, such as teachers and parents, are mentioned less often. Notably, in category 1, 33 schools engaged students and teachers, 32 schools mentioned students only, six schools targeted students and parents, and two schools involved students, teachers, and parents. In category 2, 19 schools mentioned only students, 10 schools included both students and teachers, and two schools mentioned only teachers. In category 3, four schools mentioned only students, three schools included both students and teachers, and one school included students, teachers, and parents. In category 4, 23 schools mentioned only students, 13 mentioned teachers and students, and two mentioned teachers only. Figure 2 depicts the distribution of targeted stakeholders across categories.

Furthermore, 61 schools specified that, through organized activities, purchased and designed items and resources, they provide support services and aim to target specific mental health dimensions and cultivate and enhance certain mental health-related capacities in students and teachers. Specifically, the documents emphasized stress management and relaxation techniques; awareness of emotions and emotional health; self-care awareness; resilience; positive values; positive thinking; effective communication; positive relationships; and a growth mindset. Some schools also highlighted the objectives outlined in the 4Rs Mental Health Charter (rest, relaxation, relationship, resilience), which the EdB announced to encourage school-wide mental health promotion.

5.1.2. Types of Activities

Overall, 96 out of 121 schools provided supporting evidence for the activities, events, and programs planned within the grant. However, the level of detail varied, with some schools mentioning only minimal information, such as ‘mental health workshops’ or ‘mindfulness activities.’ Another pattern evidenced across the documents is that most of the described activities targeted student well-being and mental health, whereas teachers were included less frequently and only in certain activities. This suggests that the schools understand well-being primarily as a student-focused responsibility rather than a whole-school initiative. Figure 3 summarizes the types of activities planned by the schools.

The most common approach across schools was organizing short-term activities and events. Among those activities, the most popular type included time-bound mental health events, such as hosting a school-based mental health day, week, or month, and organizing lunchtime activities, which were mentioned by 47 of 96 schools in their plans. Similarly, nearly half of the schools (43 out of 96) indicated that they planned to use part of the grant to conduct one-off workshops and arts-and-crafts events, such as art therapy, music therapy, school-based concerts, dance workshops, film screenings, musicals, reading activities, gardening experiences, animal-assisted therapy, and handicraft activities. Another type of activity that was commonly included by the schools was arranging mental health-related information sessions. Twenty-nine of 96 schools planned to use part of the grant to invite external experts to deliver talks or lectures and to purchase courses or programs that raise awareness of mental health among students and teachers.

In addition, the documents mention other less common activities. These included student transition and support activities (19 of 96 schools) to welcome new students and support graduating students; wellness and physical activities (15 of 96 schools); outdoor activities (10 of 96 schools); and snack distribution events (10 of 96 schools). Lastly, five schools encouraged student volunteering, with some specifying plans for student visits to hospitals and nursing homes, as well as for student participation in charity and community service.

In summary, the document analysis indicated that schools concentrated their one-off grant plans on organizing various mental health support activities for students and teachers. While the diverse range of activities indicates the schools’ commitment to enhancing staff and students’ mental health, an excessive focus on short-term events suggests a fragmented approach, limiting the initiative’s long-term effectiveness and sustainability.

5.1.3. Purchasing/Designing Items and Resources

Alongside organizing mental health support activities and events, 104 schools planned to allocate the one-off grant funding to purchase and design mental health-related items and resources. Figure 4 summarizes the types of resources and facilities that schools planned to arrange. The most common approach in this domain was to establish mental health zones or rooms (reported by 41 schools), which were typically creative spaces where students and teachers could relax after classes or during lunchtime. The mental health zones were also intended to host craft workshops, counselling, and meditation sessions. Some schools (15 out of 41) further specified that the items and equipment they planned to purchase for these areas included furniture, books, magazines, gadgets, board games, snacks and drinks, and audiovisual equipment.

The documents further indicated that, in addition to establishing designated zones and areas, schools focused on enhancing the general school facilities and resources. The documents indicated that 29 schools planned to enhance their general resources and materials by purchasing display boards, stress-relief toys, student gifts, activity supplies, and teaching materials. Some schools (8) specified that they were planning to establish or renovate certain school facilities, including a music area, a reading area, a gardening area, a counselling room, and a tutoring room. These findings suggest that schools adopted a resource-oriented approach to implementing the grant, investing in visible, tangible well-being support resources and infrastructure.

This approach is further illustrated by the schools’ initiatives to design school-based educational resources and materials (39 schools), such as leaflets, brochures, handouts, and videos. Another 11 schools indicated plans to design visual resources, including display boards, posters, and cards to disseminate mental health knowledge and positive messages, while two schools mentioned creating souvenirs and gifts.

Overall, the findings suggest that schools planned to use the grant funding to strengthen their mental health support through school-based facilities and resources. While the resource-oriented approach has the potential to generate a sustainable impact, its effectiveness may depend on other factors, such as staff capacity to use the facilities effectively.

5.1.4. School-Based Support Services

The documents further demonstrated that schools planned to use the grant funding to enhance school-based mental health support services. Although this category included far fewer schools (49) than the previous two, the findings suggest that professional mental health support was also a priority for these schools. Figure 5 summarizes the types of school-based mental health services planned by schools.

In particular, the support services included specialized support for students with mental health needs, as mentioned by 17 schools in their plans. These groups of students include students at risk experiencing mental health difficulties, as well as students who are struggling academically. A similar number of schools (16) indicated plans to build capacity by allocating part of the grant to provide specialized training for teachers and students. According to the documents, teacher training aims to equip teachers with counselling skills and essential knowledge of mental health to enhance their capacity to support students, particularly those with mental health needs. The student training is intended to recruit mental health ambassadors and to teach them to assist their peers with mental health problems and respond to critical situations. In addition to training their own staff and students, nine schools indicated in their plans that they will provide school-based counselling services by hiring their own specialists or engaging external professionals. The school-based mental health support initiatives planned by the schools are summarized in the pie chart below.

In general, these findings suggest that schools recognize the importance of access to mental health support services, whether by arranging external resources or by training their own staff and students. However, the small-scale nature of the grant may have led schools to prioritize one-off events and material resources over more sustained professional support and capacity building.

5.2. Themes Emerged from the Interview Data

While the document analysis primarily described the activities, items, and resources schools planned to arrange, the interviews with school leaders enabled them to elucidate their perspectives on the initiative’s role in supporting the schools’ well-being. The analysis of the interview data revealed that school leaders perceived the grant as an additional financial support to enhance their existing well-being support programs. They have also elaborated on how their individual roles and collaborative practices are shaping the implementation of the school’s well-being initiatives. More specifically, two main themes emerged from the data: “Upscaling schools’ well-being support systems” and “The role of school leaders: Policy-setting, bridging and decision-making”. The following section will examine the two themes in detail.

5.2.1. Upscaling Schools’ Well-Being Support Systems

The findings indicated that the participating schools had been implementing well-being support systems well before the grant’s introduction. The participants acknowledged that incorporating well-being support into educational processes is particularly important given the highly competitive academic environment in Hong Kong. They emphasized that the students in their schools strive to achieve high performance and, as a result, experience considerable stress. Some participants also attributed the decline in student mental health to the consequences of the pandemic. As one of the participants shared:

After COVID, we do observe many students’ mental symptoms after they go back to school. Their socialization, their way of sharing, and also their emotional health are quite alarming. So, I’m grateful that during this period of time, the government is willing to offer some additional financial support.

(School 3 Principal)

In light of these mental health challenges, the one-off grant was perceived by the participants as useful additional support. Some principals were referring to the grant as a means for “filling the service gap” (School 1 Principal). The participants emphasized that the grant accounted for only a small share of their existing support initiatives. Nonetheless, they admitted that it was beneficial for their schools and suggested that the Government consider making the grant a recurring initiative.

As school leaders further elaborated, their well-being support systems were informed by ideas from the Three-tier Support Model proposed by the EdB, providing mental health support to students at three levels: prevention, identification, and intervention. Preventative level involved arranging certain activities, events, programs, or school facilities for students and teachers to relax, build positive relationships, and improve their resilience and emotional health. The data indicate that most activities funded by the one-off grant can be classified as preventive. The participants reported that the activities included art workshops, booth games, cooking and snack-distribution events, and student-teacher bonding activities. The participants also discussed leveraging the grant to provide well-being support for specific grades and to organize teacher and student training programs. These findings are consistent with the document analysis, which identified similar activities. The participants further noted that the flexibility of the grant encouraged them to select these activities, which would otherwise have required a lengthy approval process involving other stakeholders. As one of the participants mentioned:

Schools have many similar ways to cheer people up, but because there are so many [people] involved, it’s difficult to implement these activities without a flexible budget. There’s a problem with the fund [general school fund]: it can’t be used to buy food or gifts. So this is also its [one-off grant’s] most flexible aspect. What’s so good about this fund? Why would I use it? It’s more flexible. I can buy some things, like food, because it’s for encouragement, as long as I use it for students or teachers.

(School 4 Principal)

As the principal explained, arranging the same activities under a regular school budget would have required a more complicated procedure than under the one-off grant. This opinion was shared by participants from other schools, who also emphasized flexibility as a key advantage of the grant and suggested that the Government make it an ongoing initiative.

The school leaders also discussed the other two levels of well-being support: identification and intervention. However, they did not use the grant to provide mental health support at these two levels. At the identification level, participants reported regularly collaborating with the Department of Health and external professionals, such as social workers, to screen students for early identification of critical cases. The participants also emphasized that, at this level, the role of classroom teachers is vital as they engage with students daily and can continuously monitor students’ well-being. If any at-risk students are identified at this level, schools arrange special support tailored to this group. Finally, the intervention level, as explained by the participants, implies arranging mental health specialists, professional psychologists, and other mental health resources to handle serious cases, such as mental health disorders and students with suicidal ideations.

The data also revealed participants’ perceptions of the grant’s impact on their schools. Although it is difficult to speculate about the long-term effects, given the grant’s recent introduction, participants provided some insights into its short-term impact. Participants highlighted several outcomes, such as increased student happiness, enhanced student–teacher relationships, and the development of a more positive school culture. As one of the principals shared:

The change may not be long-term, but at least for the short term, we find that they’re very happy for those few days, and they will talk about the event quite often, and they may upload their photo to their social media.

(School 2 Principal)

The example above demonstrates that the events organized by the schools elicited a positive emotional response from the students. In addition, some participants explained that their primary way to assess the impact of the initiative is feedback from students and parents. One participant mentioned, “When the students’ feedback is positive and when the parents’ feedback is positive, I do believe that this is something very important” (School 3 Principal). The positive feedback from stakeholders can indicate that the initiative contributed to positive changes in student well-being.

5.2.2. The Role of School Leaders: Policy-Setting, Bridging, and Decision-Making

The findings also indicated that participants’ perceptions of school leadership roles in well-being support processes, including the implementation of the one-off grant, can be examined through the lenses of individual roles and collaborative practices. School principals perceived their core roles as developing and communicating the school’s well-being policy, influencing and motivating teachers and staff, and mobilizing internal and external resources for school well-being initiatives. Some principals viewed themselves as the primary policy setters and their colleagues as executors. To illustrate, one participant stated, “For the vice principal, actually, they are maybe in the executive level. They make the policy work within the daily life of the campus” (School 1 Principal).

Participating vice-principals and teacher leaders viewed their roles as bridges connecting senior leadership with other stakeholders, including teachers, parents, and students. One of the teachers elaborated on her role:

My role is to collect opinions from the students and also my colleagues. For example, when you talk to the students, they will express what concerns they are having now and then. Then we will find suitable resources or activities to support those criteria. And also, like my principal and vice principal mentioned, we work closely with the social workers. Sometimes we also seek their opinion, see what kind of activities are the best for them. This is my role to gather information, to listen to the students, get their opinion, also to report to the school.

(School 1 Teacher Leader)

As the teacher explained, she must ensure that stakeholders’ concerns regarding well-being are communicated to senior leadership and that appropriate measures are implemented to address them. In addition, participants’ reports indicated that teacher leaders are responsible for arranging some preventive activities for students, whereas vice-principals are involved in managing school-based teams and committees, including those responsible for well-being support.

In addition to describing their individual roles, the participants elaborated on the collaborative practices related to school well-being policies and initiatives. One such practice is developing schools’ annual plans and strategies for promoting well-being and providing support. As the participants reported, the principal makes the final decisions on the documents after consulting with staff and school-based committees managed by vice-principals. For example, one of the principals emphasized that collaboration of school staff facilitates more effective policy implementation in the long term:

Before I had to implement, to run all these policies or strategies, I had to get information from different parties. So then we discuss together. In order to let this program successfully implement, after all these opinion gathering, or all these suggestions, I make a draft and then go through all these meetings. And then we come to implement, to run the program.

(School 2 Principal)

The participants further reported that the major decisions regarding the one-off grant were made by the principals in collaboration with other leaders and school committees. Finally, the findings indicated that schools partner with various external organizations that help secure sufficient resources (e.g., funds, social workers) to implement well-being initiatives effectively. In addition to the EdB, these organizations include the Department of Health and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

6. Discussion and Implications

The findings of this study indicated that schools primarily used the one-off grant to scale up their existing school-based three-tiered well-being support systems. Similar three-tiered models of support have proven effective for improving student mental health in other contexts, including the US (Marsh & Mathur, 2020). The one-off grant analyzed in the present study, however, primarily supported enhancing the preventive level by providing access to additional services, programs, activities, and resources. Although their current support programs had already been well established and implemented for an extended period, and the grant accounted for only a small share of the overall funding, the participants acknowledged its valuable role in bridging service gaps, as evidenced by several short-term improvements in student well-being and school culture. The small-scale nature of the grant may have led the schools to focus on preventive activities, as indicated by both documents and interviews. Yet, the choice of activities aligned with the well-being indicators, as established by internationally recognized frameworks for school well-being (Konu & Rimpelä, 2002; Norwich et al., 2022; Soutter et al., 2014). For instance, schools’ efforts to renovate and enhance their facilities and equipment to better cater to students’ mental health needs can address the having indicator of Konu and Rimpelä’s (2002) framework, which reflects school physical conditions. Creative workshops, art activities, and snack-and-fruit distribution events may fall under the feeling indicator of positive emotional experiences (Soutter et al., 2014).

Furthermore, teacher and student training programs, along with grade-specific support for students with mental health needs, underscore the significance of the duality in schools’ approaches to promoting well-being (Norwich et al., 2022). This approach encompasses both preventive measures and the provision of specialized mental health services for those in need. These findings contribute to perspectives underscoring the importance of enhancing preventive and promotional activities through school-based psychological services, thereby benefiting all students, not just those in need (Colizzi et al., 2020; Dowdy et al., 2015; World Health Organization (WHO), 2021). Overall, these inferences suggest that, despite its small scale, the one-off grant enabled schools to address students’ basic mental health needs and diminish the effects of the academic stressors (e.g., by offering non-academic activities and shifting the focus from grades and performance to students’ personal development). This, in turn, contributed to broader efforts to mitigate mental health challenges within Hong Kong’s highly competitive, performance-oriented educational environment (Cho & Chan, 2020; Liang et al., 2022). The findings may have implications for other high-stakes educational systems, such as South Korea, Singapore, and the Chinese mainland, which are experiencing similar challenges in student well-being (Chung & Park, 2024; Goh & Koh, 2024; Qu et al., 2024).

While the documents provided mainly descriptive information about the activities, programs, items, and resources that schools planned to implement, the interviews further indicated that the selection of these activities was driven by the grant’s flexibility, which eliminated the lengthy approval process. On the one hand, the data suggests that the provision of these specific activities was beneficial for enhancing students’ well-being, thereby reinforcing the conclusions of prior studies conducted in Hong Kong and globally about the effectiveness of school initiatives related to mental health and well-being (Au & Kennedy, 2018; Berger et al., 2022; N. S. Lau & Hue, 2011; Lui et al., 2023; Waters & White, 2015). On the other hand, despite its flexibility, the grant’s implementation highlights the overreliance on short-term funding initiatives within Hong Kong’s youth mental health support systems (Lo et al., 2025). As evidenced by research in the US context, such fluctuating funding can hinder schools’ efforts to develop an ongoing well-being support system (Heinrich et al., 2023). Reliance on such temporary funding may also raise concerns over student well-being being treated as a time-limited priority at the policy level. Establishing a sustained financial support structure by the Government would be more advantageous for the long-term mental health improvements (Lo et al., 2025; March et al., 2022)—a viewpoint that was also echoed in the participants’ responses in this study.

Another finding evident across both document and interview data was the greater emphasis placed on student well-being compared to teacher well-being. Although the grant was intended to serve both groups, the documents indicated that the schools mostly planned to provide additional support services, programs, and activities to enhance student well-being. In a similar vein, the participating school leaders highlighted the significance of student well-being, focusing their responses on describing their support services in relation to this objective. This emphasis on students might be attributed to the growing focus on student-centered approaches in education (Bremner et al., 2022; Burner et al., 2017; Fufa et al., 2023), which places the learner at the core of the educational process. In addition, student achievement, being the top priority in education, can be significantly influenced by student well-being (Kutsyuruba et al., 2015). Given the impact of teacher well-being on instructional practices and school outcomes (S. S. Braun et al., 2019; Cherkowski & Walker, 2018; Nalipay et al., 2024), there is a clear need to revisit school well-being support systems to ensure equitable support for both teachers and students. Given the increased stress among teachers in Hong Kong due to heavy workloads (Blaine, 2022; Harrison et al., 2025; Huang & Yin, 2018; Tsang, 2018), support for teachers should not be overlooked when planning initiatives such as the one-off grant.

The interview findings further elucidated the roles of school leaders in implementing the one-off grant among other school well-being initiatives and programs. School leaders elaborated on both their individual roles and collaborative practices, highlighting the multifaceted nature of their work. Regarding their particular roles, principals perceived themselves as the key policy-setters in schools, responsible for developing and communicating policies to staff, while also focusing on motivating personnel and mobilizing resources for effective implementation. Similar trends have been identified in prior studies, underscoring the critical role of the principal in taking strategic action and directing the integration of new policy initiatives into their school structures (D. A. Bryant et al., 2018; Chen-Levi et al., 2022; Gu et al., 2018; Reyes-Rojas et al., 2025). Other leaders, including vice-principals and teacher leaders, viewed themselves as bridges connecting senior leadership with other school stakeholders. They explained their roles in ensuring that the needs of teachers, students, parents, and other members of the school community were communicated to senior management. This pertains to the concept of brokerage proposed in the literature on the experiences of middle leaders, which the participants in this study can identify with. These studies conclude that middle leaders often act as brokers, bridging senior management and the classroom (Grootenboer, 2018; Rechsteiner et al., 2024), thereby highlighting their unique contribution in the school administrative process. Overall, these findings indicate that school leader participants had a solid understanding of their roles in managing school well-being initiatives, including the one-off grant, which is considered a key factor in successful collaboration between principals and middle leaders in reform implementation (Bradbury et al., 2023; Gurr, 2019). While the long-term effects of such a small grant may not yet be clear, these findings suggest that the participating schools have significant potential to manage upcoming educational changes effectively.

The interview findings also revealed that, in addition to their individual roles, school leaders valued collaboration among the leadership team. However, the data also suggested that, despite the stated collaborative environment, the principals maintained more dominant roles in decision making process regarding the well-being programs and activities, in contrast to research advocating shared leadership and stakeholder engagement in decision-making (Day et al., 2020; Laursen et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2021). This finding may be attributed to the prevalence of hierarchical organizational culture in schools in Asia, which results from broader societal hierarchies and cultural values (D. H. L. Lee, 2023; Truong et al., 2017). In such contexts, the equitable contribution of all stakeholders may be constrained by existing hierarchies of authority and high power distance (Chow, 2007; Walker & Dimmock, 2000). In addition, the dominant role of leaders can be explained by the centralized system in Hong Kong, in which authority to make final decisions typically resides with upper management (J. Lau et al., 2024). Since involving other stakeholders in policymaking processes is a key to sustaining educational reforms (Leach, 2024; Skerritt et al., 2023), such a leadership style may undermine the sustainability of well-being initiatives in Hong Kong schools. To promote more collaborative organizational cultures within their schools, school leaders may consider enhancing their professional competencies through professional development programs.

Finally, the findings indicate that schools value partnerships with various external organizations, such as the EdB, the Department of Health, and NGOs, which play a crucial role in supporting the enactment of schools’ well-being initiatives. This finding aligns with prior research on school partnerships with broader communities and external organizations. These studies found that such partnerships are advantageous for schools as they facilitate mobilizing additional support, resources, and programs, which can enhance student achievement as well as the school’s overall performance (Bryan et al., 2020; Gali & Schechter, 2020; Smith et al., 2020; Valli et al., 2018). Therefore, there should be more partnership opportunities initiated by schools and by the Government, as these can lead to improvements in well-being and related areas.

7. Conclusions

By drawing on policy documents and school leaders’ perspectives, the current study contributed to our understanding of school-based well-being support systems and initiatives in Hong Kong. The study focused on the One-off Grant for Mental Health at School, recently introduced by the EdB as an additional measure to enhance schools’ well-being support programs. The study has demonstrated that schools appreciated the grant’s flexibility, using it as a supplemental resource to improve their existing well-being promotion programs and address service gaps. The study has also revealed that school leaders played a vital role in planning and implementing the grant, emphasizing both their individual contributions and collaborative efforts. Despite offering helpful insights into how schools manage their well-being programs, the study’s findings should be interpreted in light of the following limitations. First, the study recruited participants from only five schools, using non-probability sampling, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Second, the use of a convenience sampling strategy may have led to participant bias, overrepresenting participants with more positive perceptions of the implementation. Third, given the descriptive nature of the analyzed documents, document analysis alone could not sufficiently address the biases inherent in self-reported interview data. Future studies might consider extending their investigations to other schools in Hong Kong and include participant observations to strengthen the reliability and generalizability of the findings. As the initiative was introduced recently, further investigation is required to assess its long-term effects on student and school outcomes.