Building a Sustainable Teen Wellness Curriculum in a Faith-Based Community Setting

Abstract

In the United States, the need for adolescent mental health support is greater than what clinical services can provide, with about one in five teens reporting unmet needs. Faith-based organizations are trusted and easy to access, but evidence on sustained delivery is limited. This report looks at a volunteer-led teen wellness program at Manna House Fellowship in Wilmington, Delaware, which ran from June 2020 to July 2026. The program offered 30-minute interactive small-group sessions every two weeks during active cycles, focusing on sleep, nutrition, physical activity, screen and social media use, and stress coping. Sessions were held online until March 2022, then in person. Over six years, 78 sessions reached 35 different teens, averaging eight participants per session, with most attending more than once. Anonymous feedback was collected monthly in written and verbal formats, and reported changes were noted. No one needed to be referred to formal mental health services. That the program has continued for six years without outside funding or paid staff support the feasibility of this sustained community wellness program, although not its clinical effectiveness. Zero recorded referrals do not establish an absence of unmet mental health needs.

Intervention

The Manna House Teen Wellness Program is a volunteer-created wellness initiative for teens, offered through a faith-based community group. The program has three main goals. First, it aims to teach practical self-management skills in five areas that affect teen well-being: sleep, nutrition, physical activity, screen and social media use, and stress coping. Second, it seeks to make talking about emotional health normal among teens in a familiar and trusted setting, with the goal of reducing stigma that can stop them from seeking help. Third, it aims to provide a clear and easy way for any teen who shares that they are struggling to connect with a licensed clinician.

The program was intentionally created so it could run without clinical infrastructure, licenses, or funding. It used publicly available health promotion materials and was delivered as group discussions instead of lectures. This simple, low-cost approach was chosen to make it easier for others to use and keep going over time.

Place and Time

The program took place at Manna House Fellowship, a faith-based community group in Wilmington, Delaware. Wilmington is Delaware’s largest city and has a diverse population, including families who may have limited access to specialized mental health services. Sessions ran from June 2020 to July 2026, covering more than six years, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the return to in-person activities. From June 2020 to February 2022, sessions were held online, then switched to in-person from March 2022.

Population

The program was open to teens who attended Manna House Fellowship or came with family members involved in the group. Participation was voluntary and open to all, with no screening, diagnosis, or referral needed, and no one was turned away. Over six years, groups changed as teens grew older or family attendance shifted. Approximately 35 teens were estimated to have participated during the evaluation period, based on attendance at services. All teens included in this estimate also participated in the wellness sessions. This was an estimate of overall reach, not a verified count of unique participants.

Other than age, demographic information was not collected, since the program focused on community wellness rather than research. Because of this, it is not possible to know how well the program reached different racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups in the congregation. The evaluation also cannot establish whether the program addressed participants’ insurance-related barriers to care.

Purpose

Adolescent mental health needs in the United States remain high. In the 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 39.7% of high school students reported ongoing feelings of sadness or hopelessness, 28.5% reported poor mental health, and 20.4% seriously considered attempting suicide.¹ National surveillance data indicate that approximately 20% of adolescents aged 12 to 17 report unmet mental health care needs.² Screen and social media exposure has been identified as a contributor to this burden, with the U.S. Surgeon General issuing a formal advisory on social media and youth mental health.³

The data from Delaware give a local reason for providing accessible community programs. According to the 2022 Nemours community health needs assessment, 10.2% of the people who took part in the community survey had to skip taking their child to see a doctor or getting treatment for a sickness or injury the previous year because of the cost. This refers to health care as a whole and not specifically to mental health care. The respondents also mentioned a lack of pediatric mental health professionals, long waiting times, and a need for affordable services; insurance restrictions were listed as one of the general barriers to children's care.⁴ A wellness program that is offered without charge and is part of existing community activities could serve as a useful supplement to clinical services, especially for families with limited resources. That said, it cannot take the place of any necessary assessment or treatment. Faith communities constitute one kind of setting in which such programs could be carried out. A U.S. scoping review found 32 different partnerships between faith communities and mental health organizations, six of which involved people from low socioeconomic groups. The findings regarding mental health literacy, stigma, and referrals were promising, but most of the evaluations were based on weak research designs, and only two of the partnerships provided information on sustainability.⁵ Youth mental health programs delivered in the community and outside of schools have proven to be feasible and acceptable in other situations.^6,7

The program started because of a practical need. A volunteer with clinical training noticed that although teens met regularly, there were no structured sessions on sleep, stress, or screen use, and families rarely talked about emotional health. The program filled this gap by using resources already available in the organization.

Implementation

Sessions were 30-minute interactive small groups held every two weeks during active cycles. They were scheduled alongside other activities the organization already offered, so teens did not need to make extra trips, pay fees, or register. One volunteer coordinator with clinical training designed the curriculum and led all sessions. Table 1 gives an overview of the curriculum topics and session structure.

Table 1. Curriculum Domains and Session Structure, Manna House Teen Wellness Program, Delaware, June 2020–July 2026.

Element	Description
Curriculum domains	Sleep hygiene; nutrition; physical activity; screen and social media use; stress coping
Session length	30 minutes
Delivery modality	Virtual (Zoom), June 2020–February 2022; in person, March 2022–July 2026
Frequency	Biweekly during active cohort cycles
Format	Interactive small group; peer discussion rather than didactic lecture
Group size	Approximately 8 participants per session
Facilitation	Single volunteer coordinator with clinical training; unpaid
Safeguards	Confidentiality ground rules restated each session; destigmatizing language; predefined escalation pathway to a licensed clinician
Cost	No budget; donated space, improvised materials, volunteer facilitation

Four parts of the program design were considered essential. First, confidentiality rules were explained at the start of every session, which was important since families in the congregation know each other. Second, the program used language that avoided stigma, treating sleep, stress, and screen use as normal health topics. Third, sessions were run as peer discussions, with the facilitator asking questions and teens coming up with their own strategies, instead of just receiving information. Finally, a clear process was set up so that if a teen shared they were struggling, the facilitator would connect them to a licensed clinician, taking responsibility for the referral.

The program began in June 2020, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when in-person gatherings were on hold and teens were dealing with remote school, isolation, and more screen time. From June 2020 to February 2022, all sessions were held online using Zoom. In March 2022, the program switched to in-person meetings and has stayed that way. Sessions continued through this change without interruption, extra funding, or changes to the curriculum. Two things helped make virtual sessions work: the 30-minute length kept teens engaged online, and there were no costs, registration, or transportation needed, so the program did not depend on the building being open. The 21 months online served as an unexpected test, showing that the program could keep going even without a physical space.

The program ran with no budget. Materials were either printed or made as needed, the organization provided space for free, and the facilitator volunteered their time. There were no grant applications, contracts, or formal agreements required.

Evaluation

This is a process evaluation with sustainability findings, reported in accordance with the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) statement.⁸ 

The assessment looked at aspects such as program delivery, estimated reach, continuity, and descriptive feedback; program delivery was based on session logs and overall participation was estimated by referring to the number of teenagers who attended the services. Service attendance was chosen since all the teenagers who were included in the estimate had also taken part in the wellness sessions. It was not possible to obtain individual attendance records to check for unique participation or to determine the number of times people attended. Anonymous feedback was gathered each month both in writing and orally, and any reported changes were recorded. Feedback came from most of the participants, but specific responses, the number of responses, the response rate, or details about repeated contributions were not available. Table 2 provides a summary of the findings and the limitations of the measurement.

Table 2. Program Reach and Evaluation Findings, June 2020–July 2026.

Measure	Data source	Finding
Sessions delivered	Session logs	78
Estimated overall reach	Service-attendance estimate	Approximately 35 teens
Estimated session attendance	Program estimate	Approximately 8 participants per session
Return attendance	Individual attendance not tracked	Not quantified
Self-reported behavior change	Anonymous monthly written and verbal feedback	Reported changes noted; no quantified behavior-change result
Escalations to formal care	Facilitator records	0 participants referred over 6 years
Adverse events	Facilitator records	None identified
Program continuity	Session logs	June 2020–July 2026

From June 2020 to July 2026, 78 sessions were given, the total number of teenagers who reached them being about 35. The number of teenagers who attended the sessions was estimated to be about eight per session. Monthly feedback consisted of reports of changes, but it was not possible to determine how many or what proportion of the respondents said that they had experienced changes. These comments are merely descriptive observations and should not be regarded as a quantified or independently verified measure of behavior change.

During the six-year period there were no instances of referrals to formal mental health services, even though the option was made available and explained to the participants. However, this result does not prove that no participant required clinical care.

The key limitations are that the group of participants is small and constantly changing; the number of participants is estimated not verified; there is no record of individual attendance; and there is neither a comparison group nor a validated outcome measure. The estimates of service attendance do not provide a deduplicated figure for the number of people who took part in wellness activities or the rate at which people attended more than once. The anonymous monthly feedback had no verified denominator for the responses and did not include information on repeat contributions in this report. Since the feedback is based on self-report and may reflect selective participation, it does not prove the frequency, extent, or lasting nature of any behavior change. While the evaluation does mention continuous delivery, estimated reach, and descriptive feedback, it is not able to establish clinical effectiveness.

Adverse Effects

There were no adverse events, complaints, or unexpected problems during the six years. Two possible risks were considered when designing the program. The first was the risk of breaking confidentiality in a close-knit community, which was managed by stating clear ground rules at every session and using a facilitation style that did not require teens to share personal details. The second risk was that an untrained facilitator might not handle a serious disclosure well, so the escalation process was set up before the program started instead of being created in the moment.

One result needs careful thought. The fact that there were no referrals over six years and 78 sessions could mean the group had fewer serious issues, or it could mean that some needs were missed. Short wellness sessions focused on general health and peer discussion are not meant to spot serious symptoms, and teens might not want to share distress in a group they know well. Programs like this should not assume that no referrals means there are no needs, and should think about offering a private way for teens to share concerns in addition to group sessions.

Sustainability

The program has run without interruption for six years, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, showing it is sustainable. Three things helped: there were no ongoing costs, the program was built into the organization’s regular schedule, and the curriculum could be reused for each new group of teens.

The biggest risk to keeping the program going is that it depends on one volunteer, with no backup or written guide for others to follow. Groups wanting to copy this model should plan for facilitator succession from the start. The absence of individual attendance tracking, a verified feedback denominator, and validated outcome measures also limited the evaluation. Prospectively recording attendance with nonidentifying participant codes and documenting feedback counts and collection timing could strengthen future evaluations.

Public Health Significance

This program in Delaware shows that a community group without a health focus, clinical staff, or budget can run a structured wellness program for teens for six years. Since many teens lack access to behavioral health care, community organizations are a resource that is not used enough. All that is needed is a trained volunteer and a regular 30-minute time slot in the group’s schedule.

More broadly, this report adds an example of a sustainable program to a literature in which only two of 32 reviewed faith-community and mental health partnerships reported on sustainability.⁵ This program continued for six years without external funding, but its limited outcome data show why sustained delivery and demonstrated effectiveness must be considered separately.

Practitioners who want to use this model should set up the escalation process before the first session, record wellness session attendance using nonidentifying participant codes, document feedback counts and timing, and train a second facilitator within the first year.

Funding Statement

The authors declare no financial, personal, commercial, political, academic, or fiduciary conflicts of interest. This program received no external funding. No grant, institutional, or commercial support was provided at any stage.