Penn Resiliency Program

1. Introduction

Version followed: the US Penn Resiliency Program (PRP) for late-elementary and middle-school students as described by the University of Pennsylvania Positive Psychology Center: 12 group lessons of 90 minutes, or 18 to 24 lessons of 60 minutes, for ages about 9 to 14. Where it matters, the UK Resilience Programme (UKRP, 18 hours, Year 7) and the UK primary version (18 one-hour sessions) are named as variants. The licensed lesson manual and the PRP lesson-description PDF are not drawn on here. Skill names and their order come from the Penn and UK programme pages, the Swarthmore component list and the evaluation reports. Detail inside each skill draws on the founders' books, and is tagged [uncertain] where it goes beyond the listed sources. [source: Penn PPC pages; Swarthmore Bulletin; Foundations; EUDA; DfE RR006]

What it is. PRP is a manualised, school-based group programme that teaches cognitive-behavioural and social problem-solving skills. It was originally called the Penn Optimism Program. It is a prevention programme, not a treatment: it is delivered to whole classes (universal) or to children at raised risk (targeted) to prevent depression and anxiety. It was developed at Penn by Jane Gillham, Karen Reivich, Lisa Jaycox and Martin Seligman, drawing on Beck, Ellis and Seligman's explanatory-style research. [source: Penn PPC node/122; Resilience in Children page]

How change happens. The programme rests on Ellis's ABC model: what children believe about an adversity, not the adversity itself, drives how they feel and act. Children learn to catch their automatic beliefs, test them for accuracy and replace inaccurate pessimistic ones with more accurate alternatives. This aims at flexible, accurate thinking and "realistic optimism", not positive thinking. A second strand teaches assertiveness, negotiation, decision-making, problem-solving and coping, so children can act effectively on what they can change and manage feelings about what they cannot. Weekly homework carries the skills into peer, family and school life. [source: Penn PPC; Foundations Guidebook]

2. Framework

Format. The standard US format is 12 lessons of 90 minutes, or 18 to 24 lessons of 60 minutes; shorter versions have been used. In the original trials it was delivered after school in small groups. UKRP runs 18 hours in Year 7 workshops: the preferred model is weekly sessions with groups of no more than 15. The UK primary version runs 18 one-hour sessions, with groups of 6 to 30, inside the school timetable. Deliverers have included teachers, school counsellors, psychology and education graduate students, mental-health professionals and (in the adult offshoot) soldiers. The Dutch adaptation, Op Volle Kracht, runs 16 sessions of 50 minutes. [source: Penn PPC node/122; EUDA; DfE RR006; Foundations]

Typical lesson structure (same in every phase) [source: Penn PPC node/122; EUDA]:

Review the previous lesson and homework.
Introduce the new concept through a skit, role-play, short story or cartoon.
Explain the theory briefly.
Practise on hypothetical examples that resemble real life.
Discuss times students used, or could have used, the skill.
Set homework to apply the skill in daily life.

Phase 0: Preparation (before lesson 1)

Goals: train the leaders, set up the group and safeguarding, and secure school backing.
Training: multi-day training from the Penn team covers cognitive theories of childhood depression and the intervention strategies, with observed practice, feedback and coaching. Practitioners on the UK primary version complete 35 hours of training. [source: Penn PPC; Foundations]
Leaders should know the school's child-protection procedure before starting, because lessons often lead to disclosures. Senior-management support is essential. [source: DfE RR006]

Phase 1: Cognitive skills (about the first half of the programme; in Op Volle Kracht, sessions 1–8)

Goals: the belief–feeling link (ABC), recognising thinking styles, evaluating evidence (cognitive restructuring), generating alternatives, putting it in perspective (decatastrophising), and fast real-time challenging ("Hot Seat"). [source: Swarthmore Bulletin; Penn PPC; EUDA]

Phase 2: Social problem-solving and coping (about the second half; Op Volle Kracht sessions 9–16)

Goals: assertiveness, negotiation, relaxation and other coping, decision-making and social problem-solving. The UK primary version adds calming and focusing, overcoming procrastination and distraction. [source: Swarthmore Bulletin; Penn PPC; Foundations; EUDA]

Phase 3: Integration and close (final lesson or lessons)

Goals: combine the cognitive and behavioural skills on whole problems and review what each child will keep using. [uncertain: the sources do not describe a closing lesson; the sequence follows the books' account.]

Criteria for moving on. The programme is sequenced by lesson, not by individual mastery. The sources give no formal criteria for moving between phases. [synthesis] Before moving from Phase 1 to Phase 2, check that most of the group can:

separate an A (what happened) from a B (the thought) and a C (the feeling or action);
produce at least one alternative belief for a practice adversity;
give one piece of evidence for and one against a belief.

If they cannot, spend part of the next lesson on brief ABC practice, using problem-pool examples, rather than dropping later content.

3. Guiding principles

Beliefs drive feelings and actions (ABC). Practical meaning: when a child is upset, ask what they were saying to themselves before you try to change the situation. [source: Penn PPC]
Accuracy, not positivity. Practical meaning: reinforce a belief that fits the evidence even when it is negative. The target is flexible, accurate thinking and realistic optimism. [source: Penn PPC; Foundations]
Prevention and skill-building, not therapy. Practical meaning: teach skills to the whole group. Do not run the group as a treatment group, and refer children who need treatment. [source: Penn PPC node/122; synthesis for the referral rule]
Practise on hypothetical problems first; no one has to disclose. Practical meaning: use stories, cartoons and problem-pool examples. Pupils are not required to discuss their own problems. [source: DfE RR006; Foundations]
Teach through many channels. Practical meaning: every concept gets a skit, role-play, story or cartoon plus active practice, not a lecture. Facilitators found the UK materials too didactic when delivered straight. [source: Penn PPC; DfE RR006]
Generalise through homework and real-life links. Practical meaning: every lesson ends with a concrete task to use the skill with peers, family or schoolwork. [source: Penn PPC; EUDA]
Change what you can, cope with what you can't. Practical meaning: use problem-solving, assertiveness and negotiation for changeable problems, and relaxation, distraction and support-seeking for ones that cannot be changed. [source: Penn PPC; Foundations; the controllable-versus-uncontrollable framing is a synthesis]
Delivery quality matters. Practical meaning: get trained, follow the sequence, keep groups small and sessions weekly. Effects vary across studies partly because of how well deliverers are trained. [source: Penn PPC; DfE RR006; Brunwasser et al. 2009]
Leaders model the skills. Practical meaning: use your own short ABC examples. UK facilitators reported using the skills themselves. [source: DfE RR006; the principle is a synthesis]
Safeguarding comes first. Practical meaning: know the reporting route, and treat a disclosure as a safeguarding event, not as material for a skill exercise. [source: DfE RR006]

4. Intervention inventory

The skill list and order are confirmed by the sources (Swarthmore component list; Penn and UK pages). The step-by-step detail inside each skill paraphrases the founders' published accounts, mainly The Optimistic Child (1995) and The Resilience Factor (2002) [uncertain]. That detail is marked [uncertain] where the sources do not confirm it. All example wording is my own. The manual's stories, cartoons and worksheets are licensed and are not reproduced.

4.1 Group launch, ground rules and the problem pool

Purpose: create a safe, predictable group and a supply of relevant practice problems without forcing disclosure. Use in lesson 1, and keep the problem pool running throughout. [source: Foundations (problem pool, UK version); DfE RR006 (no requirement to disclose; child-protection readiness)]
Steps:
1. Agree 4 to 6 ground rules with the group: respect, one speaker at a time, "pass" is allowed, what is said stays in the room.
2. State the limit of confidentiality in child-friendly terms.
3. Explain that the group learns skills using made-up and anonymous problems.
4. Set up a problem pool: a box or envelope where students drop anonymous, real-life problems.
5. Screen the slips privately before using them; route any safeguarding content through the school procedure.
6. Use the screened slips as practice examples in later lessons.
Example language (illustrative): "Nobody has to talk about their own life here. If something's bugging you, write it down without your name and put it in the box — we might use it, with details changed, to practise." / "If you tell me someone is hurting you, I have to pass that on to keep you safe."
Watch for: slips that disclose harm; for those, follow safeguarding procedure and do not use them in class. A few students may dominate. It is working when slips keep arriving and students recognise their own situations in the examples. [synthesis for screening steps]

4.2 Thought–feeling link and thought catching (self-talk)

Purpose: show that people talk to themselves and that this self-talk shapes feelings. Students learn to notice it. This is the foundation for every later cognitive skill. Use in the first one or two lessons. [source: Penn PPC (beliefs about events influence emotions and behaviour); method detail uncertain]
Steps:
1. Act out or show a short scene in which a character faces a small setback.
2. Freeze it and ask what the character might be saying inside their head.
3. Collect several possible thoughts and link each to a different feeling.
4. Practise "catching" thoughts on cartoon strips with blank thought bubbles.
5. Students then note one thought from their own day.
Example language (illustrative): "Everyone has a voice in their head that comments on what happens. Let's slow it down and hear what it's saying."
Watch for: students reporting feelings ("I felt sad") or events instead of thoughts. Prompt with "What went through your mind?" It is working when students can give a sentence-form thought for a given event.

4.3 The ABC model

Purpose: teach the Adversity → Beliefs → Consequences sequence, so students see that different beliefs about the same event lead to different feelings and actions. Use early in Phase 1; it is the base for every later skill. [source: Penn PPC; Swarthmore Bulletin]
Steps:
1. Define each letter: A is what happened (the facts only), B is what you said to yourself about it, and C is how you felt and what you did.
2. Model one ABC from a story or skit.
3. Hold the A constant and vary the B to show how C changes; for example, "She hates me" leads to hurt and withdrawal, while "She's in a rush" leads to calm.
4. Students fill in ABC sequences on practice cartoons or problem-pool items.
5. Students work backwards from a strong C to find the B.
6. Homework: record one real ABC during the week.
Example language (illustrative): "Same A, different B, different C. So what's the thing in the middle we can actually work on?"
Watch for: students putting interpretations into the A ("A: she was mean to me"). Strip it back to observable facts. It is working when students can generate two different B→C chains for one A unaided.

4.4 Recognising thinking styles (explanatory style)

Purpose: help students spot their habitual way of explaining bad events. In the explanatory-style framework the pessimistic pattern is: personal ("it's all me"), permanent ("it will always be like this") and pervasive ("it ruins everything"). Use after the ABC model. [source: Swarthmore Bulletin ("Recognizing Cognitive ('Thinking') Styles"); EUDA (pessimistic explanatory styles); the three-dimension wording follows Seligman's books: uncertain]
Steps:
1. Introduce two contrasting characters, or two versions of one character, who explain the same setback differently.
2. Sort example explanations along the three dimensions, using child-friendly contrasts: me or not only me; always or not always; everything or just this.
3. Students label explanations from practice scenarios.
4. Discuss which style makes a person give up and which keeps them trying.
5. Stress that "not me" does not mean blaming others; the aim is accuracy.
Example language (illustrative): "When Sam failed the quiz he thought, 'I'm stupid and I'll never get maths.' Is that an always thought or a not-always thought? An everything thought or a just-this thought?"
Watch for: students swinging to externalising blame. Correct this by asking for an accurate share of responsibility (see 4.6). It is working when students can re-label a permanent or pervasive thought as a temporary or specific one that still fits the facts.

4.5 Evaluating evidence ("being a detective"; cognitive restructuring)

Purpose: test whether a belief is accurate by gathering evidence for and against it, instead of accepting the first thought. Use after students can catch beliefs. [source: Penn PPC ("evaluate the accuracy of those thoughts"); Swarthmore Bulletin ("Cognitive Restructuring: Avoiding Erroneous Beliefs"). The detective framing (a careful detective contrasted with one who leaps to conclusions) appears in the founders' teaching materials; exact character names unverified: uncertain]
Steps:
1. Take a caught belief and write it as a claim to investigate.
2. List the evidence that supports it.
3. List the evidence that does not support it, prompting with questions such as "What else happened?" or "What would a friend say?"
4. Judge how accurate the belief is.
5. Point out the trap of noticing only the evidence that fits.
6. Practise in pairs on problem-pool items. Homework: investigate one of your own beliefs.
Example language (illustrative): "Let's be detectives, not judges. What are the clues that Jordan really doesn't want to be your friend — and what are the clues that don't fit?"
Watch for: one-sided lists. Require at least one item on each side. Watch also for a student whose belief is in fact accurate, such as real exclusion or bullying. In that case validate it and move to problem-solving or safeguarding; do not dispute it. It is working when students spontaneously ask "How do I know that?"

4.6 Generating alternatives

Purpose: widen the set of possible explanations so the first pessimistic belief is not the only one considered, then pick the most accurate. Use with or after evidence evaluation. [source: Penn PPC ("considering alternative interpretations"); Foundations ("generating alternatives")]
Steps:
1. State the A and the first belief.
2. Brainstorm as many other explanations as possible. Prompt for ones that are less personal, less permanent and less pervasive.
3. Check each against the evidence.
4. Pick the most likely one or ones.
5. For self-blame, a responsibility "pie" can be used: divide a circle among all the contributing causes, then the student's own share. [uncertain: the pie is described in the founders' books]
6. Note how the feeling changes with the new belief.
Example language (illustrative): "That's one explanation. Give me three more that could also be true." / "If we cut this into slices for everything that caused the argument, how big is your slice really?"
Watch for: implausible "happy" alternatives. Steer back with "Is that likely, given the clues?" It is working when the chosen alternative is believable to the student and their reported feeling shifts.

4.7 Putting it in perspective (decatastrophising)

Purpose: interrupt chains of escalating "what-if" thoughts, estimate realistic outcomes and plan for the most likely one. Use for worry and catastrophic predictions. [source: Swarthmore Bulletin ("Decatastrophizing: Putting it in Perspective"); steps follow the founders' published method: uncertain in detail]
Steps:
1. Write out the catastrophic chain, link by link ("I'll fail the test → fail the year → …").
2. Ask for the worst case, then deliberately generate an absurdly best case. The humour loosens the grip of the worst case.
3. Identify the most likely outcome.
4. Plan what to do if the most likely outcome happens, and what can be done now to improve the odds.
5. Homework: put one real worry in perspective.
Example language (illustrative): "OK, worst case — got it. Now the most ridiculously good case… Right. Now honestly, what's most likely? And if that happens, what's your plan?"
Watch for: a student whose worst case is a real and present danger (abuse, a risk to self, a family crisis). Stop the exercise and assess or refer (see section 5). It is working when the student can name the most likely outcome and one action.

4.8 Real-time challenging ("The Hot Seat")

Purpose: use the skills quickly, in the moment, under pressure, by producing fast and accurate responses to negative thoughts. Use as a capstone to the cognitive skills. [source: Swarthmore Bulletin ("The Hot Seat: Challenging Negative Thoughts"); Foundations ("real-time resilience"); game mechanics as described in the founders' books: uncertain]
Steps:
1. Get consent and explain the game first.
2. A volunteer sits in the "hot seat".
3. The leader, or peers using prepared cards, reads out negative thoughts tied to a set scenario, one after another.
4. The student answers each with evidence, an alternative or a perspective statement. Simple sentence starters can help, such as "That's not true because…", "Another way to see it is…" or "Even if that happens, I can…".
5. Debrief which responses felt convincing.
6. Start slow and increase the speed.
7. Use only hypothetical scenarios, never the student's own vulnerabilities.
Example language (illustrative): "In this game I'll throw some gloomy thoughts at you about the scenario on the card. Your job is to fire back with something more accurate. You can tap out any time."
Watch for: distress or feeling picked on. Use volunteers only, allow a "tap out" and keep the thoughts tied to the card, not the person. Watch for glib responses ("No it's not") and require a reason. It is working when responses become faster and more specific.

4.9 Assertiveness

Purpose: teach students to state their needs and feelings clearly and respectfully, as an alternative to passive or aggressive responses. Use at the start of Phase 2 and for any interpersonal conflict. UK facilitators reported this as one of the most-used skills. [source: Penn PPC; Swarthmore Bulletin; DfE RR006. The PRP manual teaches a short step mnemonic for assertive requests; Its exact wording is not verified, so the steps below are a generic paraphrase: uncertain]
Steps:
1. Role-play one conflict three ways: passive, aggressive and assertive.
2. Discuss the likely consequences of each.
3. Teach the assertive sequence:
  - calmly describe the situation, using facts only;
  - say how you feel about it ("I feel…");
  - ask for a specific, reasonable change;
  - say how the change would help both people.
4. Students rehearse in pairs on problem-pool conflicts with peers, siblings and parents.
5. Give feedback on tone, body language and word choice.
6. Homework: try one assertive request and record what happened.
Example language (illustrative): "When you borrowed my charger without asking yesterday, I felt annoyed. Next time could you ask first? Then I won't get stressed when I can't find it."
Watch for: students using "I feel" as a wrapper for accusation ("I feel you're a liar"). Cultural and family norms about addressing adults also matter; adapt the skill rather than prescribing confrontation. It is working when role-plays stay calm and specific and students report trying it.

4.10 Negotiation

Purpose: reach a workable compromise when both sides want something different. This builds on assertiveness. [source: Penn PPC (negotiation listed); steps are a synthesis: uncertain]
Steps:
1. Each side states what they want and why, using assertive statements.
2. Each side restates the other's position.
3. Brainstorm options that give each side part of what they want.
4. Agree on one option and a trial period.
5. Role-play typical negotiations, for example screen time, chores or sharing with a sibling.
Example language (illustrative): "So you want to stay out till nine and your mum wants you home at seven. What are three in-between deals you could offer?"
Watch for: "negotiating" unsafe or non-negotiable rules. Help students tell negotiable from non-negotiable situations. It is working when students offer compromises, not just demands.

4.11 Relaxation, calming and focusing

Purpose: lower physical arousal when emotions run high or a situation cannot be changed, and regain enough calm to think. [source: Penn PPC; Swarthmore Bulletin (relaxation); Foundations ("calming and focusing"). Exact exercises not specified in the sources; the techniques below are standard ones the founders' books describe: uncertain]
Steps:
1. Teach slow, controlled breathing: breathe out longer than you breathe in, counting quietly.
2. Teach progressive muscle relaxation: tense and release muscle groups in sequence.
3. Teach a calm-place imagery exercise.
4. Practise briefly in class.
5. Help each student pick one technique and a cue for using it (before tests, after arguments).
6. Homework: practise daily for a few minutes.
Example language (illustrative): "Breathe in for four… and out slowly for six… Notice your shoulders dropping."
Watch for: students with trauma histories may find closing their eyes or body focus distressing. Offer eyes-open options and the choice to opt out. It is working when students can name when they used a technique and rate a drop in tension.

4.12 Other coping strategies: distraction and support-seeking

Purpose: handle feelings about problems that cannot be solved right now, without rumination. [source: Foundations (distraction, social skills); Penn PPC ("coping with difficult situations and emotions")]
Steps:
1. Sort practice problems into "can change" and "can't change now".
2. For the "can't change" group, build a personal list of healthy distractions (activities, hobbies, time with friends) and of people to talk to.
3. Contrast these with unhelpful strategies such as brooding, lashing out or avoiding everything.
4. Plan when to return to the problem.
Example language (illustrative): "You can't change that your parents are arguing. What could you do tonight to get your mind off it, and who could you talk to?"
Watch for: distraction being used to avoid solvable problems or to cover risk. It is working when students choose strategies that match the type of problem.

4.13 Decision-making

Purpose: make considered choices by weighing pros and cons, instead of acting on impulse. [source: Penn PPC; EUDA (decision-making listed); the pros-and-cons method is a synthesis consistent with the founders' books: uncertain]
Steps:
1. Define the decision.
2. List the options, including "do nothing".
3. For each option list the pros and cons, short-term and long-term, for yourself and others.
4. Weigh them and choose.
5. Afterwards, review how it turned out.
6. Practise on dilemmas such as peer pressure or whether to tell an adult.
Example language (illustrative): "Let's fill in both columns for going to the party and for not going. Which cons matter most to you?"
Watch for: lists that ignore long-term consequences, and decisions involving safety, which should involve a trusted adult. It is working when students can name a con of their preferred option.

4.14 Social problem-solving

Purpose: give students a stepwise method for interpersonal problems that combines the cognitive skills with action. [source: Penn PPC; Swarthmore Bulletin (problem solving); the step sequence is a synthesis of the founders' accounts, and the exact PRP step names were not verified: uncertain]
Steps:
1. Stop and think: calm down (4.11) and check your beliefs about the problem with ABC, evidence and alternatives (4.3–4.6).
2. Take the other person's perspective and gather information.
3. Set a goal.
4. Brainstorm several possible actions.
5. Choose one using pros and cons (4.13).
6. Act, often using assertiveness or negotiation.
7. Evaluate the result, and if needed return to step 4.
8. Practise each step on problem-pool items; end with a full problem worked through as a group role-play.
Example language (illustrative): "Before deciding what to do about Alex, let's check: what are you telling yourself about why he did it? What else could explain it?"
Watch for: students jumping straight to action, or choosing retaliation. Return to steps 1 and 2. It is working when students attempt perspective-taking without prompting.

4.15 Overcoming procrastination

Purpose: counter avoidance of schoolwork and other tasks, which is often driven by beliefs such as "I'll fail anyway". This is listed for the UK primary version. [source: Foundations; method a synthesis: uncertain]
Steps:
1. Catch the beliefs behind the delay (ABC).
2. Challenge them (evidence and alternatives).
3. Break the task into small first steps.
4. Schedule the first step with a specific time and place.
5. Plan a small reward.
6. Homework: use the method on one real task.
Example language (illustrative): "What's the smallest piece of this project you could do in ten minutes today?"
Watch for: procrastination that masks learning difficulties or low mood. Liaise with school staff. It is working when students complete first steps.

4.16 Homework and real-life application

Purpose: move the skills from the classroom into daily life. Weekly homework is a core component in every version. [source: Penn PPC; EUDA]
Steps:
1. Set one short, specific task each lesson, for example one ABC record or one assertive request.
2. Review it at the start of the next lesson, praising the attempt rather than the outcome.
3. Use completed examples (anonymised if shared) as fresh practice material.
Example language (illustrative): "This week, catch one B when you notice a strong feeling. Just one — write the A, B and C."
Watch for: low completion; see section 5. It is working when students bring real examples without prompting.

4.17 Integration and review

Purpose: consolidate the skills and plan how each student will keep using them. Use in the final lesson or lessons. [uncertain: not described in the sources; synthesis]
Steps:
1. Walk through one complex problem-pool scenario using the full toolkit: catch the beliefs, test them, put them in perspective, then problem-solve, cope and act.
2. Each student names their two most useful skills and one situation where they will use them.
3. Mark the ending.
4. Tell students where to get help if things get harder.
Example language (illustrative): "Which tool will you reach for first next time something goes wrong?"
Watch for: students worried about losing the group, and children whose symptoms have risen during the programme. Refer those children for assessment.

4.18 Parent component (optional, in some studies)

Purpose: teach parents the same skills so they can model and coach them at home. [uncertain: the Penn team has published a pilot of a parent component (Gillham et al. 2006), but its details are not drawn on here. Its session count, content and availability in current training are unverified.]
Steps (synthesis):
1. Run parent groups in parallel with the student programme.
2. Introduce ABC and evidence-checking for parents' own reactions.
3. Show parents how to prompt the child's skills ("What are you saying to yourself?") rather than solve problems for them.
Watch for: low parent attendance. Confirm with the Penn team or the licensed provider before running a parent component.

5. Handling problems

The documented problems come from the UK Resilience Programme evaluation and the programme pages. Everything else is marked [synthesis].

Weak or drifting delivery (gains fade).
- What happens: effectiveness varies with deliverer training. In the UK, only 2 of 9 case-study schools kept the preferred model, and some moved delivery to non-teaching staff. [source: Penn PPC; DfE RR006]
- Response: get Penn or licensed training before running groups. Keep weekly sessions and groups of no more than 15. Use a simple per-lesson fidelity checklist covering the skill taught, the practice done and the homework set. Arrange peer observation or supervision. Do not cut the cognitive half to save time. [synthesis for the checklist]
Long gaps between sessions.
- What happens: fortnightly sessions were very unpopular with teachers because of the long gaps. [source: DfE RR006]
- Response: run weekly. If a gap is unavoidable, open with a five-minute ABC refresher on a fresh problem-pool item. [synthesis]
Students who struggle with the content (lower-attaining or SEN groups).
- What happens: some pupils struggled, and facilitators found the materials didactic. [source: DfE RR006]
- Response [synthesis]:
  - Use more acting out and less writing.
  - Use visual ABC strips and simpler words ("what happened / what I thought / what I felt").
  - Spend more time on 4.2 and 4.3.
  - Use concrete "clue" cards for evidence.
  - Pair weaker students with peers.
  - Shorten the hot-seat rounds.
Fully targeted groups that are hard to manage.
- What happens: groups made up only of targeted pupils were hard to manage, and targeting carries stigma. The UK evaluators favoured universal delivery. [source: DfE RR006]
- Response: mix risk levels where possible. If a group must be targeted, use two leaders, a smaller group, tight structure and more active tasks. [synthesis]
Disclosures and leader distress.
- What happens: lessons often led to disclosures, and facilitators sometimes found the stories distressing. [source: DfE RR006]
- Response:
  - Know the child-protection procedure before lesson 1.
  - If a child discloses in the group, acknowledge it briefly and calmly, move the group back to a hypothetical example, and follow up privately the same day through the safeguarding route.
  - Debrief with a colleague afterwards. More than one trained facilitator per school spreads the load.
  - [synthesis for the in-group steps]
Students with clinical-level depression, anxiety or suicidal thoughts.
- Response [synthesis]: PRP is prevention, not treatment.
  - If a student shows marked low mood, hopelessness or self-harm, or talks about suicide, speak to them privately.
  - Complete or arrange a standard risk assessment: ask directly about suicidal thoughts, plans, intent and protective factors.
  - Involve parents or carers and the school's safeguarding lead unless that is unsafe.
  - Refer to child mental-health services.
  - Agree a safety plan, including the family storing medicines and other dangerous items securely.
  - The student can stay in the group if that is helpful, alongside treatment.
  - Never use their hopeless thoughts as hot-seat material.
Disputing beliefs that are accurate (real bullying, abuse, poverty, bereavement).
- Response [synthesis]: the target is accuracy, so validate accurate negative beliefs. Switch to problem-solving, assertiveness, support-seeking or safeguarding as appropriate. Challenge only the inaccurate add-ons ("so it's my fault", "it will never get better").
"Just think positive" misreading.
- Response [synthesis]: when a student offers a cheerful but implausible alternative, ask "What's the evidence?" Repeat often that resilient thinking means accurate thinking. Some students in one Dutch universal trial reported lower optimism and active coping at post-test, which was not sustained at follow-up. Keep the tone non-preachy and do not over-sell optimism. [source: EUDA for the Dutch finding; uncertain whether the delivery style explains it]
Resistance and disengagement ("this is stupid", eye-rolling).
- Response [synthesis]:
  - Use the student's own language and examples.
  - Use humour (the best-case scenario in 4.7 helps).
  - Give sceptics roles such as detective or devil's advocate in the hot seat.
  - Never force personal disclosure.
  - Link skills to things they care about, such as friendships, sport or getting less hassle from adults.
Non-completion of homework.
- Response [synthesis]:
  - Make tasks tiny (one ABC).
  - Allow oral reports or a quick written note.
  - Start the next lesson with a two-minute in-class version so everyone has an example.
  - Praise the attempt.
  - Problem-solve barriers with the group using 4.14.
Overwhelm during exercises (hot seat, catastrophising, relaxation).
- Response [synthesis]:
  - Keep scenarios hypothetical and use volunteers only.
  - Allow a "tap out" or "pass".
  - Offer eyes-open relaxation.
  - If a student becomes distressed, pause, ground them with slow breathing and talk privately afterwards. Do not push to finish the exercise.
Ruptures with the leader or between peers (feeling shamed or teased).
- Response [synthesis]:
  - Address it promptly and privately.
  - Acknowledge your part and repair, modelling assertiveness from 4.9.
  - Re-state the ground rules with the group.
  - Teasing about something said in the group breaks confidentiality; deal with it directly.
Large groups and low senior support.
- What happens: about a fifth of UK pupils were in groups of 16 or more, and senior-management backing was essential. [source: DfE RR006]
- Response: negotiate rooms and staff before starting, or add a second facilitator. [synthesis]
Cultural and family fit.
- Response [synthesis]: adapt the examples, characters and assertiveness scripts to students' cultures and family norms. The UK version changed only examples and vocabulary. Keep the skill structure intact. [source: EUDA for UK changes]

Sources

Sources

Further reading (not drawn on) [uncertain]

The PRP lesson-description PDF (ppc.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/prplessons.pdf).
The Gillham et al. (2012) full text.
The UK first interim report (DCSF-RR094), which contains the curriculum description.
Cutuli et al. (2006).

Further reading (not drawn on)

Seligman, M. E. P., Reivich, K., Jaycox, L., & Gillham, J. (1995). The Optimistic Child. Houghton Mifflin.
Reivich, K., & Shatté, A. (2002). The Resilience Factor. Broadway Books.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned Optimism. Knopf.
Gillham, J. E., Brunwasser, S. M., & Freres, D. R. (2008). Preventing depression in early adolescence: The Penn Resiliency Program. In J. R. Z. Abela & B. L. Hankin (Eds.), Handbook of Depression in Children and Adolescents. Guilford.
Gillham, J. E., Reivich, K. J., Jaycox, L. H., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1995). Prevention of depressive symptoms in schoolchildren: Two-year follow-up. Psychological Science, 6, 343–351.
Brunwasser, S. M., Gillham, J. E., & Kim, E. S. (2009). A meta-analytic review of the Penn Resiliency Program's effect on depressive symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(6), 1042–1054.

← Previous · II-139FRIENDS programmes Next · II-141 →Coping with Depression course