Well‑being support and further education libraries: supporting the whole student

Defining well‑being

Defining and measuring well‑being is not without its challenges and is a much‑debated topic (Bautista et al., 2023; Keyes, 2002; Martela, 2024; Ryan & Deci, 2001). Mental health and well‑being are often coupled together and interlinked, as illustrated by the World Health Organisation (WHO) definition for mental health, which states:

‘Mental health is a state of mental well‑being that enables people to cope with the stresses of life, realise their abilities, learn well and work well, and contribute to their community. It has intrinsic and instrumental value and is integral to our well‑being.’ (n.d. Para 1).

The WHO (2021) more recently defined well‑being as a ‘positive state experienced by individuals and societies … determined by social, economic and environmental conditions’ (p.10). This much broader concept places responsibility for the well‑being of societies at a governmental policy level and recognizes that societal and cultural factors have a strong part to play in individual well‑being (La Placa et al., 2013; Taylor, 2011). Institutions, including education settings, therefore, are instrumental in supporting well‑being, a notion that has grown in prevalence over recent years. As a result, mental health and well‑being in schools and colleges have seen significant changes in approaches.

Well‑being and further education

Well‑being as a concept is now well‑recognized in educational policy and practice, and has become a priority for schools, colleges and universities. Mental health and well‑being are often interlinked when presented in the education context and identified as playing an important role in student success.

Whilst colleges want the best for all students, wider institutional priorities, such as retention, are also impacted by the mental health and well‑being of students (Association of Colleges, 2024a), further cementing the need to prioritize support. The marketization of the FE sector has led to increasing pressure to improve the retention and attainment of students. The withdrawal of students directly affects funding and reputation (Foster, 2020) and can happen for several reasons. Personal reasons and mental well‑being are strong influential factors (Wixcey et al., 2023). Since colleges are judged on student outcomes and retention levels, it is clear why mental health and well‑being support has gained more emphasis over recent years. This, along with emerging evidence linking positive well‑being to academic success (Klapp et al., 2024) and the government’s call for a ‘whole college approach’ to mental health and well‑being (Department for Education, 2021), solidifies student well‑being as a key component of success in FE. The subsequent Mental Health and Well‑being Charter (Association of Colleges, 2024b) has provided a framework for colleges to implement college‑wide approaches.

Approaches to well‑being support in FE are not well documented; however, a preventive approach through a variety of interventions appears evident in post‑secondary education (Worsley et al., 2022). Often, rooted in positive psychology, these approaches usually take an individualistic stance (Cahill & Gowing, 2024; Dickinson & Connolly, 2022). Insights from a 2025 report on UK colleges (Association of Colleges, 2025a) support this viewpoint. The report, based on a wide‑ranging survey, indicated that colleges continue to prioritize mental health and well‑being, often in an unfunded capacity. This is typically achieved through a proactive and preventative approach within the programme of study, including resilience building, enrichment programmes and physical health initiatives.

The Association of Colleges mental health report (2025a) calls for urgent investment and a continuation of partnership working with outside agencies. Concerns around training for staff to support mental health and well‑being have highlighted a lack of consistency nationally (Ford & Waller, 2024), along with questions about whether institutions supporting young people are focusing too much on the individual rather than the structures and environments they find themselves in (Cahill & Gowing, 2024). Education‑based libraries play an integral role in contributing to the wider learning environment and therefore need to engage with these questions and critically reflect on how the spaces and services impact student well‑being.

Libraries and well‑being

The LIS literature within the public, academic and school library fields provides useful insights into the trends observed as support for well‑being beyond traditional services increases. In a world where libraries’ activities are seen as declining in relevance (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions [IFLA], 2023), many libraries are seeking to stay current by offering services beyond their core remit. Whilst public libraries have been promoting health and well‑being for some time (Elia, 2019) and continue to run a wide variety of schemes (Lenstra & Roberts, 2023; Sirisena et al., 2024; Zanal Abidin et al., 2023), well‑being support in academic libraries is part of a more recent trend. Perceived as a ‘social turn’ (Schlak et al., 2022) whilst aligning to wider institutional strategic priorities (Cox & Brewster, 2022), academic libraries are increasingly diversifying, with well‑being support being one example. There are some arguments, however, that point to this ‘diversification’ as detrimental to the library service and call for careful consideration and environmental scanning of the well‑being support already in place (Walton, 2018).

Positioning the study

It might be conceivable from the substantive literature to be found on HE libraries that FE libraries are facing the same trends and challenges as HE libraries. However, FE serves a somewhat different demographic of students with a complex array of social barriers such as low self‑esteem and confidence, often as a result of poor experiences at school or care responsibilities (Duckworth & Smith, 2018; Smothers et al., 2022). FE is relatively under‑resourced and subject to regular reforms (Crawley, 2024). Since there is no published literature pertaining specifically to the FE setting for libraries and student well‑being support, it is impossible to be certain that the approaches being used in HE are appropriate. This gap in the literature is an area in need of exploration.

Limitations

Convenience sampling cannot claim to be fully representative, leaving an inability to generalize or apply significance tests. Since the research is inherently exploratory, this approach to sampling was adequate.

There was a potential for the data collection method to result in a low response rate. To mitigate this risk, reminder messages were sent out one week after the first invitations to encourage further responses. There was also a potential for non‑response bias as it is likely that those who do not have an interest in well‑being in libraries would not respond. In recognition of the fact that these survey responses may not be completely representative of the whole FE library community, conclusions have been made with caution.

Characteristics of the data

There were 42 valid responses collected, 31 from general FE colleges and 11 from sixth form colleges or specialist colleges. Three‑quarters of the responses were from library managers. The colleges represented in the data were made up of a wide range of sizes and incomes, identified via JISC banding information ([JISC], n.d.) as shown in Table 1.

Regarding organizational positioning, 19 libraries came under student support and 12 in Quality for Education; the remaining colleges came under IT or other areas. 29 respondents stated they are not a merged service, thus the responses reflect the diversity of provision across the FE sector as a whole.

Drivers

Respondents were asked to define the problem their well‑being activities aim to address (see Table 2). This was a multiple‑response question; the large number of responses reflects a multi‑pronged approach.

The three most common types of problems the library is trying to address are academic pressures, exam stress and lack of study space. This suggests that the primary focus is rooted in the recognition that studying is stressful, a point also identified in HE libraries by Cox and Brewster (2020) and remains within the traditional core services role of the library.

The Association of Colleges Mental Health Survey Report (2023) identified home issues as the main reason why students are reporting mental health issues. Providing calm, independent learning spaces within the library environment, therefore meets a real need for some students. However, the broad range of drivers that were reflected in responses could be interpreted as being untargeted, suggesting a lack of clarity around exactly what it is the library is trying to address. This could lead to a challenge when it comes to demonstrating impact.

Well‑being support in FE libraries saw a significant increase from 2021 to 2024. Partly driven by a response to the Covid‑19 pandemic, 71% (N=30) of the respondents reported that initiatives were started after this time. Initiatives were mostly driven by library staff themselves (only seven were directed by senior leaders).

Some of the open question responses suggested that wider college alignment was a driver:

‘We publish well‑being/enrichment activities to staff and students using the intranet and report in our monthly reports. We believe these activities enhance our core remit of providing study spaces and resources by encouraging non‑users to attend. We also believe we contribute to the PDBA (Personal Development and Behaviour and Attitudes) section of Ofsted, which is something senior leadership may be interested in.’

‘Managers outside of our department don’t see it as a priority or as part of our remit; a College‑wide project to support disadvantaged learners has just launched, so we may get library well‑being featured in the strategy, but it is too early to tell.’

These comments reflect a recognition of the need for libraries to take a strategic approach to positioning (Cox, 2026), as with all aspects of the service, aligning to college priorities and goals whilst balancing this against the resources available.

Challenges and barriers

Respondents were asked an open question about the challenges that were encountered in their well‑being activities (Q.20). From 35 responses, 20 referred to the lack of engagement or interest from students or college staff. Ten commented on the lack of resources and eight mentioned the difficulty in promoting the activity. Four responses referred to a lack of respect for the space, indicating that there are some behavioural challenges – an issue not mentioned in HE studies – perhaps reflecting the different demographics each setting serves.

A further question asked, ‘What are the top three barriers to libraries providing well‑being support?’ (Q.23). Levels of staffing, pressures on staff time and lack of space and funding for activities ranked highest. The question was followed by an option to comment further on the barriers, to which 15 responses were made. Some comments expand on the impact of resource reduction:

‘I work in one of 10 site libraries and am the only member of the library staff.’

‘Lack of funds for activities; library space and stock have been drastically reduced; managers outside of our department don’t see it as a priority or as part of our remit.’

‘We had a much larger space for well‑being and for the library in general, but the library space was cut in half, and our well‑being area is now a table near the front counter.’

It seems to be possible that the challenges faced by libraries when it comes to providing services shape the type of activity being offered, as reflected in several comments:

‘Our staffing is very much a ‘skeleton crew’ and just about runs the desk enquiries and general service and meets our safeguarding commitments. This is why we prefer “passive” activities such as creating a collection, as we don’t actively have to run a session.’

‘We have either donated resources from within the team or asked for donations like board games from the college community.’

‘Many well‑being activities are run at lunchtimes, when we have no spare staff to help facilitate these.’

Despite the challenges and barriers, there is evidence of a level of resourcefulness as seen in the following open responses:

‘We all wish there was more money – but ultimately, raising awareness and signposting are a good start, and offering activities and a listening ear supports those that may need a moment of calm.’

‘Funding is a major issue, particularly staffing and space being taken away from the LRC. We are very innovative with resources and use free things where we can. Also, like schools we sadly have to rely on the goodwill and support of LRC staff.’

These challenges and barriers are likely to directly impact the extent to which the library can design and deliver well‑being support that is sustainable. Internal factors such as organizational position and merged services, which can affect the culture, may also influence the approach and implementation of well‑being support.

The pressure for colleges to do more with less is a perpetual challenge; substantial real‑term cuts have been experienced since 2010 (IFS, 2025). The IFS further point out that ‘Of all the education spending, further education faced the deepest cuts in the last decade’ (2025, p. 13). The UK FE sector saw 57 college mergers between 2015 and 2019 (Baldwin et al., 2022), which will inevitably have impacted the libraries within them; the budgets, staffing and culture, as illustrated by one respondent:

‘We are a large, merged college, so there is an element that some library staff feel it is an essential aspect to their role and the library as a service, whereas others see it as less important. Changing this culture is hard, although the college itself is very well‑being‑focused.’

Whether teams within FE should be taking on more with fewer resources is a bigger question. As students arrive with more complex needs in an underfunded sector (Association of Colleges, 2025a), FE staff are being expected to support students in ways that would have been supported through the social and mental health care system in the past (Sunderland, 2021). This, of course, impacts staff well‑being, with mental ill health in staff on the rise (Association of Colleges, 2023).

A further argument suggests that too much emphasis is put on the individual to improve their own well‑being. This is problematic as it can lead to feelings of shame and low self‑esteem when improvements are not realized (Cahill & Gowing, 2024). Meanwhile, the bigger systemic issues that lead to poor mental health and well‑being are not being adequately addressed at a societal level (Morris & Thedham, 2025). This view is supported by the wider definition of well‑being from the WHO (2021), which incorporates social, economic and environmental conditions. As do the Global Sustainable Development Goals from the United Nations (n.d.), many of which are linked to societal well‑being. Recent understandings of youth well‑being draw from ecological models, where ‘young people are recognised as existing within a complex ecology of societal, familial, institutional, political, historical, technological, and biological influences’ (Cahill & Gowing, 2024, p. 18). In a college environment, the library is an important component of the ‘ecology’ and therefore must consider how its services impact the well‑being of students.

Approaches to well‑being support

Holistic approaches to well‑being support

The mixture of open and closed questions allowed for analysis of both the attitudes and behaviours of library staff in FE regarding well‑being support. Question 24 asked ‘In what ways do libraries contribute to well‑being?’ Respondents were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a range of statements (see Supplementary File). Each statement referred to one of the eight role aspects from Cox and Brewster’s Holistic Well‑being Model (2020). The five roles are: signposting, hosting, detection, well‑being as a library service and library services impact. These aspects are supported by: inherent library value, library as a good partner and library staff well‑being.

This same question was asked in the Cox and Brewster (2022) study in HE libraries, and results can therefore be compared directly, as shown in Figure 1. Results show a high level of agreement with most aspects and a lower level of agreement with hosting and detection as an approach to well‑being support. In the main, these results mirror the findings in HE, with a difference noted in the strength of agreement that supporting library staff well‑being is an approach adopted to support student well‑being.

Figure 1

Further coding of the open response questions searched for evidence of alignment to the eight approaches from Cox and Brewster’s Holistic Model and the results are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Evidence of the eight aspects of the holistic model within the open responses suggests that, like HE libraries, FE libraries are taking a multi‑faceted, holistic approach to well‑being support. Although evidence of supporting staff well‑being as an approach was minimal. This could be an area for further exploration, as staff well‑being support is an issue being discussed widely in education literature (Stephenson et al., 2025).

Additionally, evidence of hosting initiatives appears within the responses, through mindfulness activities, clubs or study support. Library service impact is evident through the improvement of spaces by offering stress‑free spaces, as demonstrated in the following response:

‘The “cosy corners” are the simplest of ideas with the most success. Students love the comfy chairs and colourful rugs. Many take laptops into the areas to work privately. Our greatest joy is seeing students curled up reading a book.’

Some respondents identified the role of being approachable, leading to detection and signposting to further support:

‘Our friendly (most of us) staff are easy to talk to and our therefore adult students can turn to without the formality and ties of the teaching staff.’

‘We are a natural place to air thoughts and act as a soundboard as well as a signposting service to ensure students are given clear information on further support if needed.’

In summary, respondents agreed with the eight aspects of well‑being support proposed by Cox and Brewster’s (2020) research in HE libraries, in particular with inherent library value, signposting and developing a well‑being service. Meanwhile, an examination of the coded open text responses revealed that the most common approaches being instigated are through being a good partner, hosting and developing a well‑being service. Improving library staff well‑being does not appear to be a support consideration when approaching student well‑being.

Evaluation and Impact

By asking ‘Q19. What do you consider to be the success factors regarding this activity?’ as an open question, it was possible to get an insight into how libraries measure success and what they consider influences that success. The 36 responses provided a rich picture of staff views.

Many responses referred to the accessibility of the activity (87%, N=31), whether this was having it available all the time or creating a welcoming and inclusive environment that encouraged students to engage. Other responses suggested that success was due to effective promotion. A single response indicated that success was due to being part of a wider college strategy, ‘That we are part of the whole package offered to students to help with their well‑being’. This comment also strongly suggests the partnership approach is working.

Table 5 shows how the success is being measured; respondents were able to give multiple answers and the number of responses illustrate that multiple methods are used.

Note that ten did not evaluate well‑being activities, suggesting that demonstrating the impact of the activity may not be a priority for some libraries. Conversely, how libraries measure impact can be influenced by whether they are held accountable for the success of the well‑being activity through reporting to senior leaders. When asked ‘Q16a. Do you include data on well‑being support to senior leaders via the reporting cycle?’ 15 respondents include data on well‑being support in reports to senior management, with a further nine intending to include it in the future, suggesting that there is a desire to demonstrate the value and impact of these activities. It is clear from open question responses on measuring success that library staff see these initiatives as positively impacting students:

‘Encourages more students into the LRC, gives socially isolated or neurodivergent students a safe space and an activity to focus on.’

‘Students chat to each other and are more engaged while colouring in; staff bring ESOL students to the library to experience themed activities and learn about culture and integration; lower‑level learners come to do activities whereas because they realize it is more than just books.’

‘We have seen an increase in usage of fiction books. Students say they love being able to sit and read for one of their study periods each week and it helps them de‑stress.’

Whether these outcomes are being communicated effectively to senior leaders, however, is unclear. With less than half of the respondents including activity data in their reports, it is possible that these impact stories are not reaching beyond the walls of the library and suggests that more work could be done to highlight to senior leaders the contribution being made in this area. A challenge also faced by libraries within HE (Bladek, 2021; Cox & Brewster, 2021).

In today’s data‑driven environment, where funding requests need to be evidence‑based, libraries are required to demonstrate their value. Libraries need to go beyond the traditional key performance indicators of footfall and circulation figures to paint a broader picture of the holistic contribution being made to the aims of the college as a whole. The challenge is developing a quantifiable measure that can be easily communicated. Qualitative feedback is the most impactful but not always easy to collect. Looking for ways to share the stories of how the library is positively affecting student well‑being would be a powerful tool, but not always feasible in a busy library environment.

The wider question of what a library is and its mission and purpose within an ever‑changing information landscape requires a firm commitment to communicate, educate and advocate for libraries. Encouragingly, there is a desire by several of the respondents to include well‑being support data in reports in the future, indicating an understanding that libraries need to better communicate the breadth and depth of the service they provide.