School counselors are not trained to conduct long-term therapy, and school districts do not see that as their role. If counselors are to be used as primary deliverers of such interventions, then additional training and skill building should be addressed in counselor education programs. All of this discussion needs to be considered within the day and context of the school counselor. However, there are other issues to consider that may interfere with the development and evaluation of preventive models. One is the basic reality that there are limited funds for initiatives within schools.
Preventive programs compete with other proposals, some of which are driven by political climate.
The potential long-term benefits of preventive intervention programs will need to be emphasized, and marketed, to compete with other initiatives that may have the force of political clout behind them. Other child and school-level factors would also need to be addressed when considering the development of programs. The meaning and value of school for at-risk students should be assessed. Some students or their families may not consider the school environment as safe, acceptable, or meaningful and may not even be attending school on a regular basis. Anyone planning preventive programs in urban schools ought to be aware of the characteristics of such settings that might impede their efforts.