Outdoor learning programmes across the UK have been shown to support the health, development, and academic achievement of young children from various backgrounds. However, they are underutilised as an intervention to support the needs of particularly vulnerable adolescents, including those at risk of exclusion from schools and wider society. This study explored the feasibility of a specially-tailored outdoor learning intervention for improving young people's social and emotional well-being and reducing the risk of future involvement in anti-social behaviour and criminal activity. Using mixed-methods, we quantitatively assessed intervention outcomes pre-and post-engagement and qualitatively explored current and previous cohorts and stakeholders experiences of the programme. quantitative data: N8 participants. The two surveys (pre- and post-intervention) were conducted online via a survey platform (Qualtrics) in school, consistent with the way these measures have been administered in previous studies (Hayes, Moore, Stapley, Humphrey, Mansfield, Santos, Ashworth, Patalay, Bonin, Boehnke, et al., 2019). The survey consisted of several measures, all of which have been psychometrically validated for the present age group (Ashworth, Humphrey, Lendrum, & Hennessey, 2019; Hayes, Moore, Stapley, Humphrey, Mansfield, Santos, Ashworth, Patalay, Bonin, Boehnke, et al., 2019; Hayes, Moore, Stapley, Humphrey, Mansfield, Santos, Ashworth, Patalay, Bonin, Moltrecht, et al., 2019). Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS)(NHS Health Scotland, University of Warwick, & University of Edinburgh, 2008); Student Resilience Survey: goals and aspirations subscale (SRS) (Lereya et al., 2016); Perceived Stress Scale, 10-item version (PSS-10) (Cohen, 1994);Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: conduct problems and pro-social behaviour subscales (SDQ) (Goodman, 2001); Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire – Adolescent Short Form: self-regulation subscale (TEIQUE-ASF) (Petrides, 2009); Delinquent Behaviours – Rochester Youth Development Study measure (Dahlberg, Toal, Swahn, & Behrens, 2005) Qualitative data was collected via 1-1 interviews, with sample of current students, previous students, teacher, intervention deliverer and intervention developer. interviews transcribed verbatim. Post intervention results showed statistically significant reductions in perceived stress levels and improvements in perceived goals and future aspirations, whilst constructed themes highlighted possible intervention mechanisms and suggested long-term benefits to wellbeing, pro-social behaviours, and individual life and career prospects. Overall, we found the intervention showed promise in supporting this unique, vulnerable group of young people's various social, emotional, and behavioural needs. A detailed discussion of intervention features, as well as recommendations for future implementation are presented.A mixed-methods examination of the feasibility, mechanisms, and effectiveness of an outdoor learning intervention for young people (aged 11-16) at-risk of school exclusion. Abstract Outdoor learning programmes across the UK have been shown to support the health, development, and academic achievement of young children from various backgrounds. However, they are underutilised as an intervention to support the needs of particularly vulnerable adolescents, including those at risk of exclusion from schools and wider society. This study explored the feasibility of a specially-tailored outdoor learning intervention for improving young people's social and emotional well-being and reducing the risk of future involvement in anti-social behaviour and criminal activity. Using mixed-methods, we quantitatively assessed intervention outcomes pre-and post-engagement and qualitatively explored current and previous cohorts and stakeholders experiences of the programme. Post intervention results showed statistically significant reductions in perceived stress levels and improvements in perceived goals and future aspirations, whilst constructed themes highlighted possible intervention mechanisms and suggested long-term benefits to wellbeing, pro-social behaviours, and individual life and career prospects. Overall, we found the intervention showed promise in supporting this unique, vulnerable group of young people's various social, emotional, and behavioural needs. A detailed discussion of intervention features, as well as recommendations for future implementation are presented.

Using mixed-methods, we quantitatively assessed intervention outcomes pre-and post-engagement and qualitatively explored current and previous cohorts and stakeholders experiences of the programme. quantitative data: N8 participants. The two surveys (pre- and post-intervention) were conducted online via a survey platform (Qualtrics) in school, consistent with the way these measures have been administered in previous studies (Hayes, Moore, Stapley, Humphrey, Mansfield, Santos, Ashworth, Patalay, Bonin, Boehnke, et al., 2019). The survey consisted of several measures, all of which have been psychometrically validated for the present age group (Ashworth, Humphrey, Lendrum, & Hennessey, 2019; Hayes, Moore, Stapley, Humphrey, Mansfield, Santos, Ashworth, Patalay, Bonin, Boehnke, et al., 2019; Hayes, Moore, Stapley, Humphrey, Mansfield, Santos, Ashworth, Patalay, Bonin, Moltrecht, et al., 2019). Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS)(NHS Health Scotland, University of Warwick, & University of Edinburgh, 2008); Student Resilience Survey: goals and aspirations subscale (SRS) (Lereya et al., 2016); Perceived Stress Scale, 10-item version (PSS-10) (Cohen, 1994);Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: conduct problems and pro-social behaviour subscales (SDQ) (Goodman, 2001); Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire – Adolescent Short Form: self-regulation subscale (TEIQUE-ASF) (Petrides, 2009); Delinquent Behaviours – Rochester Youth Development Study measure (Dahlberg, Toal, Swahn, & Behrens, 2005) Qualitative data was collected via 1-1 interviews, with sample of current students, previous students, teacher, intervention deliverer and intervention developer. interviews transcribed verbatim.