R Lum R Learn Download

This article presents findings from a meta-analysis of 213 school-based, universal social and emotional learning (SEL) programs involving 270,034 kindergarten through high school students. Compared to controls, SEL participants demonstrated significantly improved social and emotional skills, attitudes, behavior, and academic performance that reflected an 11-percentile-point gain in achievement. School teaching staff successfully conducted SEL programs. The use of 4 recommended practices for developing skills and the presence of implementation problems moderated program outcomes. The findings add to the growing empirical evidence regarding the positive impact of SEL programs. Policy makers, educators, and the public can contribute to healthy development of children by supporting the incorporation of evidence-based SEL programming into standard educational practice.

Figures - uploaded by Joseph A Durlak

Author content

All figure content in this area was uploaded by Joseph A Durlak

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world's research

• 20+ million members
• 135+ million publications
• 700k+ research projects

Join for free

The Impact of Enhancing Students' Social and Emotional Learning:

A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions

Joseph A. Durlak

Loyola University Chicago

Roger P. Weissberg

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and

Emotional Learning (CASEL),

University of Illinois at Chicago

Allison B. Dymnicki and

Rebecca D. Taylor

University of Illinois at Chicago

Kriston B. Schellinger

Loyola University Chicago

This article presents findings from a meta-analysis of 213 school-based, universal social and emotional learn-

ing (SEL) programs involving 270,034 kindergarten through high school students. Compared to controls, SEL

participants demonstrated significantly improved social and emotional skills, attitudes, behavior, and aca-

demic performance that reflected an 11-percentile-point gain in achievement. School teaching staff success-

fully conducted SEL programs. The use of 4 recommended practices for developing skills and the presence of

implementation problems moderated program outcomes. The findings add to the growing empirical evidence

regarding the positive impact of SEL programs. Policy makers, educators, and the public can contribute to

healthy development of children by supporting the incorporation of evidence-based SEL programming into

standard educational practice.

Teaching and learning in schools have strong

social, emotional, and academic components (Zins,

Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004). Students typi-

cally do not learn alone but rather in collaboration

with their teachers, in the company of their peers,

and with the encouragement of their families. Emo-

tions can facilitate or impede children's academic

engagement, work ethic, commitment, and ultimate

school success. Because relationships and emotional

processes affect how and what we learn, schools

and families must effectively address these aspects

of the educational process for the benefit of all

students (Elias et al., 1997).

A key challenge for 21st-century schools involves

serving culturally diverse students with varied abil-

ities and motivations for learning (Learning First

Alliance, 2001). Unfortunately, many students lack

social-emotional competencies and become less con-

nected to school as they progress from elementary

to middle to high school, and this lack of connection

negatively affects their academic performance,

behavior, and health (Blum & Libbey, 2004). In a

national sample of 148,189 sixth to twelth graders,

only 29%–45% of surveyed students reported that

they had social competencies such as empathy, deci-

sion making, and conflict resolution skills, and only

29% indicated that their school provided a caring,

encouraging environment (Benson, 2006). By high

school as many as 40%–60% of students become

chronically disengaged from school (Klem & Con-

nell, 2004). Furthermore, approximately 30% of high

school students engage in multiple high-risk behav-

iors (e.g., substance use, sex, violence, depression,

attempted suicide) that interfere with school perfor-

mance and jeopardize their potential for life success

(Dryfoos, 1997; Eaton et al., 2008).

This article is based on grants from the William T. Grant Foun-

dation, the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health,

and the University of Illinois at Chicago awarded to the first and

second authors. We also wish to express our appreciation to

David DuBois, Mark Lipsey, Mark Greenberg, Mary Utne O'Bri-

en, John Payton, and Richard Davidson, who provided helpful

comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. We offer addi-

tional thanks to Mark Lipsey and David Wilson for providing

the macros used to calculate effects and conduct the statistical

analyses. A copy of the coding manual used in this meta-analysis

is available on request from the first author.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Joseph A. Durlak, Department of Psychology, Loyola University

Chicago, 1032 W. Sheridan Road, Chicago, IL 60660, or Roger P.

Weissberg, Department of Psychology (MC 285), University of Illi-

nois at Chicago, 1007 West Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60607-7137.

Electronic mail may be sent to jdurlak@luc.edu or rpw@uic.edu.

Child Development, January/February 2011, Volume 82, Number 1, Pages 405–432

2011 The Authors

Child Development  2011 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.

All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2011/8201-0026

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

There is broad agreement among educators,

policy makers, and the public that educational sys-

tems should graduate students who are proficient

in core academic subjects, able to work well with

others from diverse backgrounds in socially and

emotionally skilled ways, practice healthy behav-

iors, and behave responsibly and respectfully

(Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development, 2007; Greenberg et al., 2003). In other

words, schools have an important role to play in

raising healthy children by fostering not only their

cognitive development but also their social and

emotional development. Yet schools have limited

resources to address all of these areas and are expe-

riencing intense pressures to enhance academic per-

formance. Given time constraints and competing

demands, educators must prioritize and effectively

implement evidence-based approaches that pro-

duce multiple benefits.

It has been posited that universal school-based

efforts to promote students' social and emotional

learning (SEL) represent a promising approach to

enhance children's success in school and life (Elias

et al., 1997; Zins & Elias, 2006). Extensive develop-

mental research indicates that effective mastery of

social-emotional competencies is associated with

greater well-being and better school performance

whereas the failure to achieve competence in these

areas can lead to a variety of personal, social, and

academic difficulties (Eisenberg, 2006; Guerra &

Bradshaw, 2008; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998;

Weissberg & Greenberg, 1998). The findings from

various clinical, prevention, and youth develop-

ment studies have stimulated the creation of many

school-based interventions specifically designed to

promote young people's SEL (Greenberg et al.,

2003). On the other hand, several researchers have

questioned the extent to which promoting chil-

dren's social and emotional skills will actually

improve their behavioral and academic outcomes

(Duncan et al., 2007; Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews,

2002). This meta-analysis examines the effects of

school-based SEL programming on children's

behaviors and academic performance, and dis-

cusses the implications of these findings for educa-

tional policies and practice.

What Is Social and Emotional Learning?

The SEL approach integrates competence promo-

tion and youth development frameworks for reduc-

ing risk factors and fostering protective mechanisms

for positive adjustment (Benson, 2006; Catalano,

Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2002; Guerra

& Bradshaw, 2008; Weissberg, Kumpfer, & Selig-

man, 2003). SEL researchers and program designers

build from Waters and Sroufe's (1983) description of

competent people as those who have the abilities

''to generate and coordinate flexible, adaptive

responses to demands and to generate and capital-

ize on opportunities in the environment'' (p. 80).

Elias et al. (1997) defined SEL as the process of

acquiring core competencies to recognize and

manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals,

appreciate the perspectives of others, establish and

maintain positive relationships, make responsible

decisions, and handle interpersonal situations con-

structively. The proximal goals of SEL programs are

to foster the development of five interrelated sets of

cognitive, affective, and behavioral competencies:

self-awareness, self-management, social awareness,

relationship skills, and responsible decision making

(Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional

Learning, 2005). These competencies, in turn, should

provide a foundation for better adjustment and

academic performance as reflected in more positive

social behaviors, fewer conduct problems, less

emotional distress, and improved test scores and

grades (Greenberg et al., 2003). Over time, master-

ing SEL competencies results in a developmental

progression that leads to a shift from being predomi-

nantly controlled by external factors to acting

increasingly in accord with internalized beliefs and

values, caring and concern for others, making good

decisions, and taking responsibility for one's choices

and behaviors (Bear & Watkins, 2006).

Within school contexts, SEL programming incor-

porates two coordinated sets of educational strate-

gies to enhance school performance and youth

development (Collaborative for Academic, Social,

and Emotional Learning, 2005). The first involves

instruction in processing, integrating, and selec-

tively applying social and emotional skills in devel-

opmentally, contextually, and culturally appropriate

ways (Crick & Dodge, 1994; Izard, 2002; Lemerise &

Arsenio, 2000). Through systematic instruction, SEL

skills may be taught, modeled, practiced, and

applied to diverse situations so that students use

them as part of their daily repertoire of behaviors

(Ladd & Mize, 1983; Weissberg, Caplan, & Sivo,

1989). In addition, many programs help students

apply SEL skills in preventing specific problem

behaviors such as substance use, interpersonal

violence, bullying, and school failure (Zins & Elias,

2006). Quality SEL instruction also provides stu-

dents with opportunities to contribute to their class,

school, and community and experience the satisfac-

tion, sense of belonging, and enhanced motivation

406 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

that comes from such involvement (Hawkins,

Smith, & Catalano, 2004). Second, SEL programming

fosters students' social-emotional development

through establishing safe, caring learning environ-

ments involving peer and family initiatives,

improved classroom management and teaching

practices, and whole-school community-building

activities (Cook et al., 1999; Hawkins et al., 2004;

Schaps, Battistich, & Solomon, 2004). Together these

components promote personal and environmental

resources so that students feel valued, experience

greater intrinsic motivation to achieve, and develop

a broadly applicable set of social-emotional com-

petencies that mediate better academic perfor-

mance, health-promoting behavior, and citizenship

(Greenberg et al., 2003).

Recent Relevant Research Reviews

During the past dozen years there have been

many informative research syntheses of school-

based prevention and promotion programming.

These reviews typically include some school-based,

universal SEL program evaluations along with an

array of other interventions that target the follow-

ing outcomes: academic performance (Wang, Haer-

tel, & Walberg, 1997; Zins et al., 2004), antisocial

and aggressive behavior (Lo

¨sel & Beelman, 2003;

Wilson & Lipsey, 2007), depressive symptoms

(Horowitz & Garber, 2006), drug use (Tobler et al.,

2000), mental health (Durlak & Wells, 1997; Green-

berg, Domitrovich, & Bumbarger, 2001), problem

behaviors (Wilson, Gottfredson, & Najaka, 2001), or

positive youth development (Catalano et al., 2002).

Although these reports differ substantially in terms

of which intervention strategies, student popula-

tions, and behavioral outcomes are examined, they

have reached a similar conclusion that universal

school-based interventions are generally effective.

However, no review to date has focused exclusively

on SEL programs to examine their impact across

diverse student outcomes.

The Current Meta-Analysis: Research Questions and

Hypotheses

This paper reports on the first large-scale meta-

analysis of school-based programs to promote

students' social and emotional development. In

contrast to most previous reviews that focus on one

major outcome (e.g., substance abuse, aggression,

academic performance), we explored the effects

of SEL programming across multiple outcomes:

social and emotional skills, attitudes toward self

and others, positive social behavior, conduct

problems, emotional distress, and academic perfor-

mance. Moreover, we were interested in interven-

tions for the entire student body (universal

interventions) and thus did not examine programs

for indicated populations, that is, for students

already demonstrating adjustment problems. These

latter programs have been evaluated in a separate

report (Payton et al., 2008).

The proliferation of new competence-promotion

approaches led to several important research ques-

tions about school-based interventions to foster

students' social and emotional development. For

example, what outcomes are achieved by interven-

tions that attempt to enhance children's emotional

and social skills? Can SEL interventions promote

positive outcomes and prevent future problems?

Can programs be successfully conducted in the

school setting by existing school personnel? What

variables moderate the impact of school-based SEL

programs? Next, we address these questions and

offer hypotheses about expected findings.

The findings from several individual studies and

narrative reviews indicate that SEL programs are

associated with positive results such as improved

attitudes about the self and others, increased proso-

cial behavior, lower levels of problem behaviors

and emotional distress, and improved academic

performance (Catalano et al., 2002; Greenberg et al.,

2003; Zins et al., 2004). Thus, our first hypothesis

was that our meta-analysis of school-based SEL

programs would yield significant positive mean

effects across a variety of skill, attitudinal, behav-

ioral, and academic outcomes (Hypothesis 1).

Ultimately, interventions are unlikely to have

much practical utility or gain widespread accep-

tance unless they are effective under real-world

conditions. Thus, we investigated whether SEL pro-

grams can be incorporated into routine educational

practice; that is, can they be successfully delivered

by existing school staff during the regular school

day? In our analyses, we separated interventions

conducted by regular school staff and those admin-

istered by nonschool personnel (e.g., university

researchers, outside consultants). We predicted that

programs conducted by classroom teachers and

other school staff would produce significant out-

comes (Hypothesis 2).

Many school-based SEL programs involve the

delivery of classroom curricula designed to promote

social-emotional competencies in developmentally

and culturally appropriate ways (Collaborative for

Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2005).

There are also multicomponent programs that

Social and Emotional Learning 407

supplement classroom programming with school-

wide components (Greenberg et al., 2003). We

expected that interventions that combined compo-

nents within and outside of the daily classroom

routine would yield stronger effects than those

that were only classroom based (Hypothesis 3). This

expectation is grounded in the premise that

the broader ecological focus of multicomponent pro-

grams that extend beyond the classroom should bet-

ter support and sustain new skill development

(Tolan, Guerra, & Kendall, 1995).

We also predicted that two key variables would

moderate student outcomes: the use of recom-

mended practices for developing skills and ade-

quate program implementation. Extensive research

in school, community, and clinical settings has led

several authors to offer recommendations on what

procedures should be followed for effective skill

training. For example, there is broad agreement

that programs are likely to be effective if they use a

sequenced step-by-step training approach, use

active forms of learning, focus sufficient time on

skill development, and have explicit learning goals

(Bond & Hauf, 2004; Durlak, 1997; Dusenbury &

Falco, 1995; Gresham, 1995). These four recom-

mended practices form the acronym SAFE (for

sequenced, active, focused, and explicit; see the

Method section). A meta-analysis of after-school

programs that sought to develop personal and

social skills found that program staff who followed

these four recommended practices were more effec-

tive than those who did not follow these proce-

dures (Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010).

Moreover, the literature suggests that these recom-

mended practices are important in combination

with one another rather than as independent fac-

tors. In other words, sequenced training will not be

as effective unless active forms of learning are used

and sufficient time is focused on reaching explicit

learning goals. Therefore, we coded how many of

the four practices were used in SEL interventions

and expected to replicate the previous finding that

staff using all four practices would be more suc-

cessful than those who did not (Hypothesis 4).

For example, new behaviors and more compli-

cated skills usually need to be broken down into

smaller steps and sequentially mastered, suggest-

ing the benefit of a coordinated sequence of

activities that links the learning steps and pro-

vides youth with opportunities to connect these

steps (Sequenced). Gresham (1995) has noted that

it is ''important to help children learn how to

combine, chain and sequence behaviors that make

up various social skills'' (p. 1023). Lesson plans

and program manuals are often used for this

purpose.

An effective teaching strategy for many youth

emphasizes the importance of active forms of learn-

ing that require youth to act on the material

(Active). ''It is well documented that practice is a

necessary condition for skill acquisition'' (Salas &

Cannon-Bowers, 2001, p. 480). Sufficient time and

attention must also be devoted to any task for learn-

ing to occur (Focus). Therefore, some time should

be set aside primarily for skill development. Finally,

clear and specific learning objectives over general

ones are preferred because it is important that youth

know what they are expected to learn (Explicit).

Finally, there is increasing recognition that effec-

tive implementation influences program outcomes

(Durlak & Dupre, 2008) and that problems encoun-

tered during program implementation can limit the

benefits that participants might derive from inter-

vention. Therefore, we hypothesized that SEL pro-

grams that encountered problems during program

implementation would be less successful than those

that did not report such problems (Hypothesis 5).

In sum, this article describes the results of a

meta-analysis of school-based universal SEL pro-

grams for school children. We hypothesized that (a)

SEL programs would yield significant mean effects

across skill, attitudinal, behavioral, and academic

domains; (b) teachers would be effective in admin-

istering these programs; and (c) multicomponent

programs would be more effective than single-com-

ponent programs. We also expected that program

outcomes would be moderated by (d) the use of

recommended training practices (SAFE practices)

and (e) reported implementation problems.

Method

Literature Search

Four search strategies were used in an attempt

to secure a systematic, nonbiased, representative

sample of published and unpublished studies. First,

relevant studies were identified through computer

searches of PsycInfo , Medline , and Dissertation

Abstracts using the following search terms and their

variants: social and emotional learning, competence,

assets, health promotion, prevention, positive youth

development, social skills, self-esteem, empathy, emo-

tional intelligence, problem solving, conflict resolution,

coping, stress reduction, children, adolescents, interven-

tion, students, and schools. Second, the reference

lists of each identified study and of reviews of

psychosocial interventions for youth were examined.

408 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

Third, manual searches were conducted in 11

journals producing relevant studies from January 1,

1970 through December 31, 2007. These were the

American Educational Research Journal, American Jour-

nal of Community Psychology, Child Development,

Journal of Research in Adolescence, Journal of Consult-

ing and Clinical Psychology, Journal of Primary Preven-

tion, Journal of School Psychology, Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, Prevention Science, Psychology in the

Schools, and School Psychology Review. Fourth,

searches were made of organization Web sites pro-

moting youth development and social-emotional

learning, and researchers who presented relevant

work at national prevention and community confer-

ences were contacted for complete reports. The

final study sample has little overlap with previous

meta-analyses of school-based preventive interven-

tions. No more than 12% of the studies in any of

the previous reviews (Durlak & Wells, 1997; Horo-

witz & Garber, 2007; Lo

¨sel & Beelman, 2003; Tobler

et al., 2000; Wilson et al., 2001; Wilson & Lipsey,

2007) were part of our study sample, and 63% of

the studies we reviewed were not included in any

of these previous reviews. This is due to a number

of reasons including (a) 36% of studies in the cur-

rent review were published in the past decade, (b)

previous reviews have focused primarily on nega-

tive outcomes and not on positive social-emotional

skills and attitudes, and (c) other studies have not

included such a broad range of age groups (i.e.,

kindergarten through high school students).

Inclusion Criteria

Studies eligible for review were (a) written in

English; (b) appeared in published or unpublished

form by December 31, 2007; (c) emphasized the

development of one or more SEL skills; (d) targeted

students between the ages of 5 and 18 without any

identified adjustment or learning problems; (e)

included a control group; and (f) reported sufficient

information so that effect sizes (ESs) could be calcu-

lated at post and, if follow-up data were collected,

at least 6 months following the end of intervention.

Exclusion Criteria

We excluded studies targeting students who had

preexisting behavioral, emotional, or academic

problems. Additionally, we excluded programs

whose primary purpose was to promote achieve-

ment through various types of educational curric-

ula, instructional strategies, or other forms of

academic assistance, as well as interventions that

focused solely on outcomes related to students'

physical health and development (e.g., programs to

prevent AIDS, pregnancy, or drug use, or those

seeking to develop healthy nutrition and exercise

patterns). Finally, we excluded small-group out-of-

class programs that were offered during study hall,

gym class, or in school after the school day ended.

Although some of these programs technically qual-

ify as universal interventions, they differed in sev-

eral respects from the other reviewed interventions.

For example, they did not involve entire classes but

were limited to those students who volunteered

(thus introducing the possibility of self-selection

bias) and they usually had much smaller sample

sizes and were briefer in duration.

Dealing With Multiple Cohorts or Multiple Publications

on the Same Cohort

Multiple interventions from the same report

were coded and analyzed separately if the data

related to distinct intervention formats (e.g., class-

room versus multicomponent) and contained sepa-

rate cohorts, or if a single report reported the

results for an original cohort and a replication sam-

ple. Multiple papers evaluating the same interven-

tion but containing different outcome data at post

or follow-up for the same cohort were combined

into a single study.

Independent Variable: Intervention Formats

The major independent variables were interven-

tion format, the use of four recommended practices

related to skill development (SAFE practices), and

reported implementation problems. The interven-

tion format used to promote students' social and

emotional development was categorized in the

following three mutually exclusive ways based on

the primary change agent and whether multi-com-

ponent strategies were used to influence students.

Class by teacher. The most common strategy

(53% of interventions) involved classroom-based

interventions administered by regular classroom

teachers (Class by Teacher). These usually took the

form of a specific curriculum and set of instruc-

tional strategies (e.g., behavior rehearsal, coopera-

tive learning) that sought to develop specific social

and emotional skills.

Class by nonschool personnel. These interventions

were similar to Class by Teacher approaches with

the major difference being that nonschool person-

nel, such as university researchers or outside con-

sultants, administered the intervention.

Social and Emotional Learning 409

Multicomponent programs. These approaches

typically had two components and often supple-

mented teacher-administered classroom interven-

tions with a parent component or schoolwide

initiatives. In some projects, parents worked with

their child to complete skill-related homework

assignments or attended parent discussion and

training groups (e.g., Kumpfer, Alvarado, Tait, &

Turner, 2002). Others involved schoolwide organi-

zational changes. For example, these efforts might

begin with the formation of a planning team that

develops new policies and procedures to reorganize

school structures and then institutes practices to

encourage and support students' social and emo-

tional development (e.g., Cook, Murphy, & Hunt,

2000; Flay, Allred, & Ordway, 2001; Hawkins et al.,

2004).

Potential Moderators of Outcome: SAFE and

Implementation

SAFE. Interventions were coded dichotomously

(yes or no) according to whether or not each of four

recommended practices identified by the acronym

SAFE was used to develop students'skills: (a) Does

the program use a connected and coordinated set

of activities to achieve their objectives relative to

skill development? (Sequenced); (b) Does the pro-

gram use active forms of learning to help youth

learn new skills? (Active); (c) Does the program

have at least one component devoted to developing

personal or social skills? (Focused); and (d) Does

the program target specific SEL skills rather than

targeting skills or positive development in general

terms? (Explicit). Reports rarely contained data on

the extent to which each of the above four practices

were used (e.g., how often or to what degree active

forms of learning were used) and, therefore, dichot-

omous coding was necessary. For example, any

time spent on active learning (e.g., role playing or

behavioral rehearsal) was credited as long as it

afforded students the opportunity to practice or

rehearse SEL skills. Further details on these prac-

tices are available in the coding manual and in Dur-

lak et al. (2010). Programs that followed or failed to

follow all four practices were called SAFE and

Other programs, respectively.

Program implementation. First, we noted whether

authors monitored the process of implementation in

any way. If the answer was affirmative, we then

coded reports (yes or no) for instances of implemen-

tation problems (e.g., when staff failed to conduct

certain parts of the intervention or unexpected

developments altered the execution of the program).

Thus, a program was only coded as having no

implementation problems if implementation was

monitored and authors reported no problems or that

the program was delivered as intended.

Methodological Variables

To assess how methodological features might

influence outcomes, three variables were coded

dichotomously (randomization to conditions, use of

a reliable outcome measure, and use of a valid out-

come measure; each as yes or no). An outcome

measure's reliability was considered acceptable if

kappa or alpha statistics were ‡ .60, reliability cal-

culated by product moment correlations was ‡.70,

and level of percentage agreement by raters was

‡.80. A measure was considered valid if the

authors cited data confirming the measure's con-

struct, concurrent, or predictive validity. Reliability

and validity were coded dichotomously because

exact psychometric data were not always available.

Additionally, we coded attrition as a continuous

variable in two ways: (a) as total attrition from the

combined intervention and control group sample

from pre to post and (b) as differential attrition,

assessed as the percentage of attrition from the con-

trol group subtracted from the attrition percentage

of the intervention group.

Dependent Variables: Student Outcomes

The dependent variables used in this meta-analy-

sis were six different student outcomes: (a) social

and emotional skills, (b) attitudes toward self and

others, (c) positive social behaviors, (d) conduct

problems, (e) emotional distress, and (f) academic

performance.

Social and emotional skills. This category includes

evaluations of different types of cognitive, affec-

tive, and social skills related to such areas as

identifying emotions from social cues, goal setting,

perspective taking, interpersonal problem solving,

conflict resolution, and decision making. Skill

assessments could be based on the reports from

the student, a teacher, a parent, or an indepen-

dent rater. However, all the outcomes in this cate-

gory reflected skill acquisition or performance

assessed in test situations or structured tasks (e.g.,

interviews, role plays, or questionnaires). In con-

trast, teacher ratings of students' behaviors mani-

fested in daily situations (e.g., a student's ability

to control anger or work well with others) were

placed in the positive social behavior category

below.

410 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

Attitudes toward self and others. This category

combines positive attitudes about the self, school,

and social topics. It included self-perceptions (e.g.,

self-esteem, self-concept, and self-efficacy), school

bonding (e.g., attitudes toward school and teach-

ers), and conventional (i.e., prosocial) beliefs about

violence, helping others, social justice, and drug

use. All the outcomes in this category were based

on student self-reports. We combined these three

outcomes to avoid extremely small cell sizes for

subsequent analyses.

Positive social behavior. This category included

outcomes such as getting along with others derived

from the student, teacher, parent, or an indepen-

dent observer. These outcomes reflect daily behavior

rather than performance in hypothetical situations,

which was treated as a social and emotional skill

outcome. For example, teacher ratings of social

skills drawn from Elliott and Gresham's Social

Skills Rating Scale (Elliott, Gresham, Freeman, &

McCloskey, 1988) were put into the positive social

behavior outcome category.

Conduct problems. This category included mea-

sures of different types of behavior problems,

such as disruptive class behavior, noncompliance,

aggression, bullying, school suspensions, and delin-

quent acts. These measures, such as the Child

Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991), could also

come from student self-reports, teacher or parent

ratings, or independent observers, or, in the case of

school suspensions, only from school records.

Emotional distress. This category consisted of

measures of internalized mental health issues.

These included reports of depression, anxiety,

stress, or social withdrawal, which could be pro-

vided by students, teachers, or parents on measures

such as the Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale

(Kitano, 1960).

Academic performance. Academic performance

included standardized reading or math achieve-

ment test scores from such measures as the Stan-

ford Achievement Test or the Iowa Test of Basic

Skills, and school grades in the form of students'

overall GPA or their grades in specific subjects

(usually reading or math). Only data drawn from

school records were included. Teacher-developed

tests, teacher ratings of academic competence, and

IQ measures such as the Stanford Binet were not

included.

Coding Reliability

A coding system available from the first author

was developed to record information about each

report such as its date of appearance and source,

characteristics of the participants, methodological

features, program procedures, and measured out-

comes. Trained research assistants working in pairs

but at different time periods and on different

aspects of the total coding system completed the

coding. Reliability of coding was estimated by

having pairs of students independently code a ran-

domly selected 25% sample of the studies. Kappa

coefficients corrected for chance agreement were

acceptable across all codes reported in this review

(mean kappa was 0.69). Raters' agreements on

continuous variables were all above 0.90. Any

disagreements in coding were eventually resolved

through discussion.

Calculation of Effects and General Analytic Strategies

Hedge's g (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) was the

index of effect adjusted whenever possible for any

preintervention differences between intervention

and control groups (e.g., Wilson & Lipsey, 2007;

Wilson et al., 2001). All ESs were calculated such

that positive values indicated a favorable result

for program students over controls. When means

and standard deviations were not available, we

used estimation procedures recommended by

Lipsey and Wilson (2001). If the only information

in the report was that the results were nonsignifi-

cant and attempts to contact authors did not elicit

further information, the ES was conservatively set

at zero. There were 45 imputed zeros among the

outcomes, and subsequent analyses indicated

these zeros were not more likely to be associated

with any coded variables.

One ES per study was calculated for each out-

come category. In addition, we corrected each ES

for small sample bias, weighted ESs by the

inverse of their variance prior to any analysis,

and calculated 95% confidence intervals around

each mean. When testing our hypotheses, a .05

probability level was used to determine statistical

significance. A mean ES is significantly different

from zero when its 95% confidence intervals do

not include zero. The method of examining over-

lapping confidence intervals (Cumming & Finch,

2005) was used to determine if the mean ESs

from different groups of studies differed signifi-

cantly. Finally, the method used for all analyses

was based on a random effects model using maxi-

mum likelihood estimation procedure (Lipsey &

Wilson, 2001).

The significance of the heterogeneity of a group

of ESs was examined through the Q statistic.

Social and Emotional Learning 411

A significant Q value suggests studies are not drawn

from a common population whereas a nonsignifi-

cant value indicates the opposite. In addition, we

used the I

2

statistic (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, &

Altman, 2003), which reflects the degree (as opposed

to the statistical significance) of heterogeneity

among a set of studies along a 0%–100% scale.

Results

Descriptive Characteristics of Reviewed Studies

The sample consisted of 213 studies that

involved 270,034 students. Table 1 summarizes

some of the features of these investigations. Most

papers (75%) were published during the last two

decades. Almost half (47%) of the studies employed

randomized designs. More than half the programs

(56%) were delivered to elementary school stu-

dents, just under a third (31%) involved middle

school students, and the remainder included high

school students. Although nearly one third of the

reports contained no information on student ethnic-

ity (31%) or socioeconomic status (32%), several

interventions occurred in schools serving a mixed

student body in terms of ethnicity (35%) or socio-

economic status (25%). Just under half of the stud-

ies were conducted in urban schools (47%). The

majority of SEL programs were classroom based,

either delivered by teachers (53%) or nonschool

personnel (21%), and 26% were multicomponent

programs. About 77% of the programs lasted for

less than a year, 11% lasted 1–2 years, and 12%

lasted more than 2 years.

SEL Programs Significantly Improve Students' Skills,

Attitudes, and Behaviors

The grand study-level mean for all 213 interven-

tions was 0.30 (CI = 0.26–0.33), which was statisti-

cally significant from zero. The Q value of 2,453

was significant (p£ .001) and the I

2

was high (91%),

indicating substantial heterogeneity among studies

and suggesting the existence of one or more vari-

ables that might moderate outcomes.

Table 2 presents the mean effects and their 95%

confidence intervals obtained at post across all

reviewed programs in each outcome category. All

six means (range = 0.22 to 0.57) are significantly

greater than zero and confirm our first hypothesis.

Results (based on 35–112 interventions depending

on the outcome category) indicated that, compared

to controls, students demonstrated enhanced SEL

Table 1

Descriptive Characteristics of 213 School-Based Universal Interven-

tions With Outcomes at Post

General publication features N%

Date of report

1955–1979 18 9

1980–1989 35 16

1990–1999 83 39

2000–2007 77 36

Source of report

Published article ⁄ books 172 81

Unpublished reports 41 19

Methodological features

Randomization

Yes 99 47

No 114 53

Mean percent of attrition 11

Implementation

Not reported on 91 43

No significant problems reported 74 35

Significant problems reported 48 22

Use of reliable outcome measures

Yes 550 76

No 176 24

Use of valid outcome measures

Yes 369 51

No 357 49

Source of outcome data

Child 382 53

Other (parent, teacher, observer,

school records)

422 47

Participant features

Educational level of participants

Elementary school (Grades K–5) 120 56

Middle school (Grades 6–8) 66 31

High school (Grades 9–12) 27 13

Intervention features

Intervention format

Class by Teacher 114 53

Class by Nonschool Personnel 44 21

Multicomponent 55 26

Use of recommended training procedures

Intervention rated as SAFE 176 83

Intervention not rated as SAFE 37 17

Number of sessions

Mean number of sessions 40.8

Median number of sessions 24

Locale of intervention

United States 186 87

Outside the United States 27 13

General area of school

Urban 99 47

Suburban 35 16

Rural 31 15

Combination of areas 30 14

Did not report 18 8

412 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

skills, attitudes, and positive social behaviors fol-

lowing intervention, and also demonstrated fewer

conduct problems and had lower levels of emo-

tional distress. Especially noteworthy from an edu-

cational policy perspective, academic performance

was significantly improved. The overall mean effect

did not differ significantly for test scores and

grades (mean ESs = 0.27 and 0.33, respectively).

Although only a subset of studies collected infor-

mation on academic performance, these investiga-

tions contained large sample sizes and involved a

total of 135,396 students.

Follow-Up Effects

Thirty-three of the studies (15%) met the criteria

of collecting follow-up data at least 6 months after

the intervention ended. The average follow-up per-

iod across all outcomes for these 33 studies was

92 weeks (median = 52 weeks; means range from

66 weeks for SEL skills to 150 weeks for academic

performance). The mean follow-up ESs remained

significant for all outcomes in spite of reduced

numbers of studies assessing each outcome: SEL

skills (ES = 0.26; k= 8), attitudes (ES = 0.11; k=16),

positive social behavior (ES = 0.17; k= 12), conduct

problems (ES = 0.14; k= 21), emotional distress

(ES = 0.15; k= 11), and academic performance

(ES = 0.32; k= 8). Given the limited number of fol-

low-up studies, all subsequent analyses were con-

ducted at post only.

School Staff Can Conduct Successful SEL Programs

Table 2 presents the mean effects obtained for the

three major formats and supports the second

hypothesis that school staff can conduct successful

SEL programs. Classroom by Teacher programs

were effective in all six outcome categories, and

Multicomponent programs (also conducted by

school staff) were effective in four outcome catego-

ries. In contrast, classroom programs delivered by

nonschool personnel produced only three significant

outcomes (i.e., improved SEL skills and prosocial

attitudes, and reduced conduct problems). Student

academic performance significantly improved only

when school personnel conducted the intervention.

The prediction that multicomponent programs

would be more effective than single-component

programs was not supported (see Table 2). Multi-

component program effects were comparable to but

not significantly higher than those obtained in

Classroom by Teacher programs in four outcome

areas (i.e., attitudes, conduct problems, emotional

distress, and academic performance). They did not

yield significant effects for SEL skills or positive

social behavior, whereas Class by Teacher pro-

grams did.

What Moderates Program Outcomes?

We predicted that the use of the four SAFE

practices to develop student skills and reported

Table 2

Mean Effects and .05 Confidence Intervals at Post for Total Sample and Each Intervention Format

Outcomes

SEL skills Attitudes

Positive social

behavior

Conduct

problems

Emotional

distress

Academic

performance

Group

Total

sample

ES 0.57* 0.23* 0.24* 0.22* 0.24* 0.27*

CI 0.48 to 0.67 0.16 to 0.30 0.16 to 0.32 0.16 to 0.29 0.14 to 0.35 0.15 to 0.39

N68 106 86 112 49 35

Class by

Teacher

ES 0.62* 0.23* 0.26* 0.20* 0.25* 0.34*

CI 0.41 to 0.82 0.17 to 0.29 0.15 to 0.38 0.12 to 0.29 0.08 to 0.43 0.16 to 0.52

N40 59 59 53 20 10

Class by

Nonschool

Personnel

ES 0.87* 0.14* 0.23 0.17* 0.21 0.12

CI 0.58 to 1.16 0.02 to 0.25 ) 0.04 to 0.50 0.02 to 0.33 )0.01 to 0.43 ) 0.19 to 0.43

N21 18 11 16 14 3

Multicomponent ES 0.12 0.23* 0.19 0.26* 0.27* 0.26*

CI ) 0.35 to 0.60 0.15 to 0.31 ) 0.02 to 0.39 0.17 to 0.34 0.07 to 0.47 0.16 to 0.36

N72616431522

*p£ .05.

Social and Emotional Learning 413

implementation problems would moderate program

outcomes, and in separate analyses we divided the

total group of studies according to these variables.

Both hypotheses regarding program moderators

received support, and the resulting mean ESs are

presented in Table 3. Programs following all four

recommended training procedures (i.e., coded as

SAFE) produced significant effects for all six out-

comes, whereas programs not coded as SAFE

achieved significant effects in only three areas

(i.e., attitudes, conduct problems, and academic

performance). Reported implementation problems

also moderated outcomes. Whereas programs that

encountered implementation problems achieved

significant effects in only two outcome categories

(i.e., attitudes and conduct problems), interven-

tions without any apparent implementation prob-

lems yielded significant mean effects in all six

categories.

Qstatistics and I

2

values related to modera-

tion. Table 4 contains the values for Q and I

2

when

studies were divided to test the influence of our

hypothesized moderators. We used I

2

to comple-

ment the Q statistic because the latter has low

power when the number of studies is small and

conversely may yield statistically significant find-

ings when there are a large number of studies even

though the amount of heterogeneity might be low

(Higgins et al., 2003). To support moderation, I

2

values should reflect low within-group but high

between-group heterogeneity. This would suggest

that the chosen variable creates subgroups of stud-

ies each drawn from a common population, and

that there are important differences in ESs between

groups beyond what would be expected based on

sampling error. I

2

values range from 0% to 100%,

and based on the results of many meta-analyses,

values around 15% reflect a mild degree of hetero-

geneity, between 25% and 50% a moderate degree,

and values ‡ 75% a high degree of heterogeneity

(Higgins et al., 2003).

The data in Table 4 support the notion that both

SAFE and implementation problems moderate SEL

outcomes. For example, based on I

2

values, initially

dividing ESs according to the six outcomes does

produce the preferred low overall degree of within-

group heterogeneity (15%) and high between-group

heterogeneity (88%); for two specific outcomes,

however, there is a mild (positive social behaviors,

32%) to moderately high (skills, 65%) degree of

within-group heterogeneity. When the studies are

further divided by SAFE practices or by implemen-

tation problems, the overall within-group variabil-

ity remains low (12% and 13%, respectively), the

Table 3

Findings for Moderator Analyses at Post by Outcome Category for Total Sample

Outcomes

Skills Attitudes

Social

behavior

Conduct

problems

Emotional

distress

Academic

performance

Moderators

Recommended training practices (SAFE)

Met SAFE criteria ES 0.69* 0.24* 0.28* 0.24* 0.28* 0.28*

CI 0.52 to 0.86 0.18 to 0.29 0.18 to 0.38 0.18 to 0.31 0.14 to 0.42 0.17 to 0.38

N63 80 73 88 33 24

Did not meet

SAFE criteria

ES 0.01 0.16* 0.02 0.16* 0.18 0.26*

CI ) 0.57 to 0.60 0.07 to 0.25 ) 0.21 to 0.26 0.04 to 0.28 ) 0.02 to 0.37 0.11 to 0.40

N5 26132416 11

Implementation

Not mentioned ES 0.58* 0.17* 0.32* 0.24* 0.21* 0.31*

CI 0.33 to 0.83 0.09 to 0.24 0.17 to 0.47 0.13 to 0.34 0.04 to 0.38 0.18 to 0.45

N29 46 33 35 22 13

No problems ES 0.86* 0.29

a

* 0.31* 0.27* 0.35* 0.33*

CI 0.59 to 1.12 0.21 to 0.37 0.17 to 0.45 0.18 to 0.36 0.16 to 0.54 0.20 to 0.46

N26 36 34 45 16 13

Implementation

problems

ES 0.35 0.19

a

* 0.01 0.15* 0.15 0.14

CI ) 0.01 to 0.71 0.10 to 0.28 ) 0.18 to 0.19 0.05 to 0.25 ) 0.08 to 0.38 )0.01 to 0.28

N13 24 19 32 11 9

Note. Means with subscript a differ significantly from each other at the .05 level.

*p£ .05.

414 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

within-group heterogeneity for both skills and

social behaviors is no longer significant according

to Q statistics, I

2

values drop to low levels (£15%)

and remain low for the other outcomes as well, and

heterogeneity levels attributed to differences

between groups are high or moderate (I

2

values of

79% and 63% for SAFE and implementation,

respectively). In other words, the use of all four

SAFE practices and reported implementation prob-

lems to subdivide groups provided a good fit for

the obtained data.

These latter findings are consistent with the

mean differences between groups on many out-

comes for the SAFE and implementation data pre-

sented in Table 3. SAFE and implementation

problems were not significantly correlated

(r =) .07). However, it was not possible to explore

their potential interactions as moderators because

only 57% of the studies monitored implementation

and subdividing the studies created extremely

small cell sizes that would not support reliable

results.

Inspection of the distribution of the moderator

variables in the different cells in Table 3 indicated

that SAFE practices and implementation problems

were more common for some intervention formats.

Compared to teacher-led programs, multicompo-

nent programs were less likely to meet SAFE crite-

ria (65% vs. 90%) and were more likely to have

implementation problems (31% vs. 22%, respec-

tively). This creates a confound, in that multicom-

ponent programs were less likely to contain

features that were significantly associated with

better results for most outcomes, and may explain

why the hypothesized superiority of multicompo-

nent programs was not confirmed.

Ruling Out Rival Hypotheses

After our primary analyses were conducted

(see Table 2), we examined other possible expla-

nations for these results. Additional analyses

were conducted by collapsing across the three

intervention formats and analyzing effects for the

six outcome categories at post. First, we sepa-

rately analyzed the impact of six methodological

features (i.e., use of randomized designs, total

and differential attrition, use of a reliable or

valid outcome measure, and source of data: stu-

dents vs. all others). We also analyzed outcomes

as a function of students' mean age, the duration

of intervention (in both weeks and number of

sessions), and the school's geographical location

(i.e., urban, suburban, or rural). We compared

ESs for the three largest cells containing ethnicity

data (Caucasian, k = 48; African American, k=19;

and Mixed, k = 75). We also examined whether

published reports yielded higher ESs than

unpublished reports. Finally, we assessed if the

three major intervention formats differed on any

of the above variables (in addition to SAFE crite-

ria and implementation problems) that might

Table 4

QStatistics and I

2

Values (in Percent) for Study Groupings for Moderator Analyses

Grouping variable

Values across all outcomes Values within each outcome

QI

2

Skills Attitudes

Positive

social

behavior

Conduct

problems

Emotional

distress

Academic

performance

Between Within Within Between

All six outcomes 41.6* 530.2* 15 88

For each outcome

Qwithin 193.9* 56.7* 125.3* 83.2 50.9 20.1

I

2

within 65 0 32 0 6 0

SAFE practices 4.8* 74.8 12 79

For each outcome

Q within 74.8 121.3 97.0 116.0 47.2 38.1

I

2

within 12 14 13 5 0 13

Implementation 5.3* 75.0 13 63

For each outcome

Qwithin 75.0 121.4 96.2 115.2 46.8 38.6

I

2

within 13 15 14 5 0 17

*p£ .05.

Social and Emotional Learning 415

suggest the need for additional data analysis, but

this latter procedure did not reveal any major

differences across formats.

Findings. Among the 72 additional analyses we

conducted (12 variables crossed with six outcomes)

there were only four significant results, a number

expected based on chance. Among the methodolog-

ical variables the only significant finding was that

for positive social behavior: Outcome data from

other sources yielded significantly higher effects

than those from student self-reports. The other

three significant findings were all related to the

skill outcome category. Students' mean age and

program duration were significantly and negatively

related to skill outcomes (r s=) .27 and ) .25), and

published studies yielded significantly higher mean

ESs for skills than unpublished reports. We also

looked for potential differences within each of our

outcome categories for ESs that were and were not

adjusted for preintervention differences. The pat-

terns of our major findings were similar (i.e., on

such variables as teacher-effectiveness, use of SAFE

practices, and implementation).

Effect of nested designs. In addition, all of the

reviewed studies employed nested group designs

in that the interventions occurred in classrooms or

throughout the school. In such cases, individual

student data are not independent. Although nested

designs do not affect the magnitude of ESs, the

possibility of Type I error is increased. Because few

authors employed proper statistical procedures to

account for this nesting or clustering of data, we

reanalyzed the outcome data in Table 2 for all

statistically significant findings following recom-

mendations of the Institute of Education Sciences

(2008a). These reanalyses changed only 1 of the 24

findings in Table 2. The mean effect for Class by

Nonschool Personnel (0.17) was no longer statisti-

cally significant for conduct problems.

Possible publication bias. Finally, we used the trim

and fill method (Duval & Tweedie, 2000) to check

for the possibility of publication bias. Because the

existence of heterogeneity can lead the trim and fill

method to underestimate the true population effect

(Peters, Sutton, Jones, Abrams, & Rushton, 2007),

we focused our analyses on the homogeneous cells

contained in Table 3 (e.g., the 112, 49, and 35 inter-

ventions with outcome data on conduct problems,

emotional distress, and academic performance,

respectively, and so on). The trim and fill analyses

resulted in only slight reductions in the estimated

mean effects with only one exception (skill out-

comes for SAFE programs: original mean = 0.69;

trim and fill estimate = 0.45). However, all the

estimated means from the trim and fill analysis

remained significantly different from zero. In sum,

the results of additional analyses did not identify

other variables that might serve as an alternative

explanation for the current results.

Interpreting Obtained ESs in Context

Aside from SEL skills (mean ES = 0.57), the other

mean ESs in Table 2 might seem ''small.'' However,

methodologists now stress that instead of reflex-

ively applying Cohen's (1988) conventions concern-

ing the magnitude of obtained effects, findings

should be interpreted in the context of prior

research and in terms of their practical value

(Durlak, 2009; Hill, Bloom, Black, & Lipsey, 2007).

Table 5 presents the overall mean ESs obtained in

the current review along with those obtained on

similar outcomes from other meta-analyses of

psychosocial or educational interventions for

school-age youth, including several school-based

prevention meta-analyses. Inspection of Table 5

indicates that SEL programs yield results that are

similar to or, in some cases, higher than those

achieved by other types of universal interventions

in each outcome category. In particular, the post-

mean ES for academic achievement tests (0.27) is

comparable to the results of 76 meta-analyses of

strictly educational interventions (Hill et al., 2007).

It is also possible to use Cohen's U

3

index to

translate the mean ES on measures of academic

Table 5

Comparing Current Effect Sizes to Previous Meta-Analytic Findings

for School-Age Populations

Outcomes

Mean posteffects

Current

review Other reviews

Skills 0.57 0.40

a

Attitudes 0.23 0.09

b

Positive social

behaviors

0.24 0.39

a

, 0.37

c

, 0.15

d

Conduct problems 0.22 0.26

a

, 0.28

c

, 0.21

d

, 0.17

e

, 0.30

f

Emotional distress 0.24 0.21

b

, 0.24

c

, 0.17

g

Academic

performance

0.27 0.29

b

, 0.11

d

, 0.30

f

, 0.24

h

Note. Results from other meta-analyses are from outcome

categories most comparable to those in the current review, and

values are drawn from weighted random effects analyses

whenever possible.

a

Lo

¨sel and Beelman (2003).

b

Haney and Durlak (1998).

c

Wilson

and Lipsey (2007).

d

DuBois et al. (2002).

e

Wilson et al. (2001).

f

Durlak and Wells (1997).

g

Horowitz and Garber (2007).

h

Hill

et al. (2007).

416 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

performance into a percentile rank for the average

student in the intervention group compared to the

average control student who, by definition, ranks at

the 50th percentile (Institute of Education Sciences,

2008b). A mean ES of 0.27 translates into a percen-

tile difference of 11%. In other words, the average

member of the control group would demonstrate

an 11-percentile gain in achievement if they had

participated in an SEL program. While higher ESs

in each outcome area would be even more desir-

able, in comparison to the results of previous

research, current findings suggest that SEL pro-

grams are associated with gains across several

important attitudinal, behavioral, and academic

domains that are comparable to those of other inter-

ventions for youth.

Discussion

Current findings document that SEL programs

yielded significant positive effects on targeted

social-emotional competencies and attitudes about

self, others, and school. They also enhanced stu-

dents' behavioral adjustment in the form of

increased prosocial behaviors and reduced conduct

and internalizing problems, and improved aca-

demic performance on achievement tests and

grades. While gains in these areas were reduced in

magnitude during follow-up assessments and only

a small percentage of studies collected follow-up

information, effects nevertheless remained statisti-

cally significant for a minimum of 6 months after

the intervention. Collectively, these results build on

positive results reported by other research teams

that have conducted related reviews examining the

promotion of youth development or the prevention

of negative behaviors (Catalano et al., 2002; Green-

berg et al., 2001; Hahn et al., 2007; Wilson & Lipsey,

2007; Wilson et al., 2001).

The current meta-analysis differs in emphasis

from previous research syntheses by focusing exclu-

sively on universal school-based social-emotional

development programs and evaluating their impact

on positive social behavior, problem behaviors, and

academic performance. Not surprisingly, the largest

ES occurred for social-emotional skill performance

(mean ES = 0.69). This category included assess-

ments of social-cognitive and affective competencies

that SEL programs targeted such as emotions

recognition, stress-management, empathy, problem-

solving, or decision-making skills. While it would

be theoretically interesting to examine the impact

of teaching various social versus emotional skills,

SEL program designers typically combine rather

than separate the teaching of these skills because

they are interested in promoting the integration of

emotion, cognition, communication, and behavior

(Crick & Dodge, 1994; Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000).

Thus, attempts to foster discrete emotions skills

without also teaching social-interaction skills could

be shortsighted from an intervention standpoint.

However, for research and theoretical purposes,

research designs that examine the relative contribu-

tion of different intervention components can help

to determine which specific skills or combinations

of skills lead to different outcomes at different

developmental periods (Collins, Murphy, Nair, &

Strecher, 2005).

Another important finding of the current meta-

analysis is that classroom teachers and other school

staff effectively conducted SEL programs. This

result suggests that these interventions can be

incorporated into routine educational practices and

do not require outside personnel for their effective

delivery. It also appears that SEL programs are

successful at all educational levels (elementary,

middle, and high school) and in urban, suburban,

and rural schools, although they have been studied

least often in high schools and in rural areas.

Although based on a small subset of all reviewed

studies, the 11-percentile gain in academic perfor-

mance achieved in these programs is noteworthy,

especially for educational policy and practice.

Results from this review add to a growing body of

research indicating that SEL programming

enhances students' connection to school, classroom

behavior, and academic achievement (Zins et al.,

2004). Educators who are pressured by the No

Child Left Behind legislation to improve the

academic performance of their students might wel-

come programs that could boost achievement by 11

percentile points.

There are a variety of reasons that SEL program-

ming might enhance students' academic perfor-

mance. Many correlational and longitudinal studies

have documented connections between social-

emotional variables and academic performance

(e.g., Caprara, Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, &

Zimbardo, 2000; Wang et al., 1997). Compelling

conceptual rationales based on empirical findings

have also been offered to link SEL competencies to

improved school attitudes and performance (Zins

et al., 2004). For example, students who are more

self-aware and confident about their learning

capacities try harder and persist in the face of chal-

lenges (Aronson, 2002). Students who set high

academic goals, have self-discipline, motivate

Social and Emotional Learning 417

themselves, manage their stress, and organize their

approach to work learn more and get better grades

(Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Elliot & Dweck,

2005). Also, students who use problem-solving

skills to overcome obstacles and make responsible

decisions about studying and completing home-

work do better academically (Zins & Elias, 2006).

Further, new research suggests that SEL programs

may affect central executive cognitive functions,

such as inhibitory control, planning, and set shift-

ing that are the result of building greater cognitive-

affect regulation in prefrontal areas of the cortex

(Greenberg, 2006).

In addition to person-centered explanations of

behavior change, researchers have highlighted

how interpersonal, instructional, and environmen-

tal supports produce better school performance

through the following means: (a) peer and adult

norms that convey high expectations and support

for academic success, (b) caring teacher–student

relationships that foster commitment and bonding

to school, (c) engaging teaching approaches such as

proactive classroom management and cooperative

learning, and (d) safe and orderly environments

that encourage and reinforce positive classroom

behavior (e.g., Blum & Libbey, 2004; Hamre &

Pianta, 2006; Hawkins et al., 2004; Jennings &

Greenberg, 2009). It is likely that some combination

of improvements in student social-emotional com-

petence, the school environment, teacher practices

and expectations, and student–teacher relationships

contribute to students' immediate and long-term

behavior change (Catalano et al., 2002; Schaps et al.,

2004).

As predicted, two variables moderated positive

student outcomes: SAFE practices and implementa-

tion problems, suggesting that beneficial programs

must be both well designed and well conducted.

In the former case, current data replicate similar

findings regarding the value of SAFE practices in

after-school programs. In that review, programs

that followed the same SAFE procedures were

effective in multiple outcome areas, whereas those

that failed to do so were not successful in any area

(Durlak et al., 2010). Moreover, these findings are

consistent with several other reviews that conclude

that more successful youth programs are interactive

in nature, use coaching and role playing, and

employ a set of structured activities to guide youth

toward achievement of specific goals (DuBois,

Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; Tobler et al.,

2000).

Developing an evidence-based intervention is an

essential but insufficient condition for success; the

program must also be well executed. Although

many studies did not provide details on the differ-

ent types of implementation problems that occurred

or what conditions were in place to ensure better

implementation, our findings confirm the negative

influence of implementation problems on program

outcomes that has been reported in meta-analyses

of other youth programs (DuBois et al., 2002; Smith,

Schneider, Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004; Tobler et al.,

2000; Wilson, Lipsey, & Derzon, 2003).

Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find the

expected additional benefit of multicomponent pro-

grams over single-component (i.e., classroom-only)

programs, a finding that has been reported in other

reviews of prevention and youth development

interventions (Catalano et al., 2002; Greenberg

et al., 2001; Tobler et al., 2000). In the current meta-

analysis, this may be due to the fact that compared

to classroom-only programs, multicomponent pro-

grams were less likely to follow SAFE procedures

when promoting student skills and were more likely

to encounter implementation problems. It is proba-

ble that the presence of one or both of these

variables reduced program impact for many

multicomponent interventions. For example, many

multicomponent programs involved either or both

a parent and schoolwide component, and these

additional elements require careful planning and

integration. Others have found that more compli-

cated and extensive programs are likely to encoun-

ter problems in implementation (Durlak & Dupre,

2008; Wilson & Lipsey, 2007; Wilson et al., 2003).

It is also important to point out that few studies

compared directly the effects of classroom-based

programming with classroom programming plus

coordinated schoolwide and parent components

(e.g., Flay, Graumlich, Segawa, Burns, & Holliday,

2004). An important priority for future research is

to determine through randomized trials the extent

to which additional components add value to class-

room training.

How much confidence can be placed in the cur-

rent findings? Our general approach and analytic

strategy had several strengths: the careful search

for relevant published and unpublished studies,

testing of a priori hypotheses, and subsequent anal-

yses ruling out plausible alternative explanations

for the findings. We also reanalyzed our initial find-

ings to account for nested designs that could inflate

Type I error rates. Furthermore, we used only

school records of grades and standardized achieve-

ment test scores as measures of academic perfor-

mance, not students' self-reports, and when

examining follow-up results, we required data

418 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

collection to be at least 6 months postintervention.

Overall, findings from the current meta-analysis

point to the benefits of SEL programming. Never-

theless, current findings are not definitive. The

longitudinal research of Duncan et al. (2007) pre-

sented an alternative perspective in pointing out

that attention skills, but not social skills, predict

achievement outcomes. They noted, however, that

social-emotional competencies may predict other

mediators of school success such as self-concept,

school adjustment, school engagement, motivation

for learning, and relationships with peers and

teachers. Future research on SEL programming can

be improved in several ways to shed light on if and

how newly developed SEL skills in school children

relate to their subsequent adjustment and academic

performance.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

More data across multiple outcome areas are

needed. Only 16% of the studies collected informa-

tion on academic achievement at post, and more

follow-up investigations are needed to confirm

the durability of program impact. Although all

reviewed studies targeted the development of

social and emotional skills in one way or another,

only 32% assessed skills as an outcome. This is

essential to confirm that the program was success-

ful at achieving one of its core proximal objectives.

Because there is no standardized approach in mea-

suring social and emotional skills, there is a need

for theory-driven research that not only aids in the

accurate assessment of various skills but also iden-

tifies how different skills are related (Dirks, Treat,

& Weersing, 2007). More rigorous research on the

presumed mediational role of SEL skill develop-

ment is also warranted. Only a few studies tested

and found a temporal relation between skill

enhancement and other positive outcomes (e.g.,

Ngwe, Liu, Flay, Segawa, & Aban-aya Co-Investi-

gators, 2004). In addition, conducting subgroup

analyses can determine if certain participant charac-

teristics are related to differential program benefits.

For example, factors such as ethnicity, developmen-

tal level, socioeconomic status, or gender may each

influence who receives more or less benefit from an

intervention (Reid, Eddy, Fetrow, & Stoolmiller,

1999; Taylor, Liang, Tracy, Williams, & Seigle, 2002;

Wilson & Lipsey, 2007).

In addition to person-centered explanations for

why SEL programming promotes positive out-

comes, our findings indicate that it is important to

attend to systemic and environmental factors

(Greenberg et al., 2003). Programs that occur in

classrooms or throughout the school are likely to be

impacted by the organizational and ecological fea-

tures of these environments. A few prevention and

promotion studies have begun to explore the

importance of classroom, school, and neighborhood

context on program outcomes to illustrate how a

broader ecological perspective can enhance our

understanding of program effects (Aber, Jones,

Brown, Chaudry, & Samples, 1998; Boxer, Guerra,

Huesmann, & Morales, 2005; Metropolitan Area

Child Study Research Group, 2002; Tolan et al.,

1995). As a final example, analyses of the effects of

the Child Development Project have indicated that

improvements in the psychosocial environment of

the school that were obtained during intervention

mediated almost all of the positive student out-

comes (Solomon, Battistich, Watson, Schaps, &

Lewis, 2000).

More attention should focus on other potential

moderators of program outcomes. We evaluated

the composite effects of following four recom-

mended practices (Sequential, Active, Focused, and

Explicit) relating to effective skill training because

previous authors have emphasized that these fac-

tors act in combination to produce better results.

However, it is possible that some practices may

be more important than others depending on the

nature and number of targeted skills and the devel-

opmental abilities of students. For example, youn-

ger students may need more time to acquire more

complex skills. Moreover, the four practices we

evaluated do not capture every aspect of effective

skill development such as procedures to encourage

generalization of newly learned skills and training

that is developmentally and culturally appropriate

(Dusenbury & Falco, 1995; Gresham, 1995). We

could not examine these other features due to lack

of information in study reports, but their impact on

skill development merits future attention. Further-

more, it would be preferable to evaluate SAFE

practices as continuous rather than dichotomous

variables. That is, program staff can be compared

in terms of how much they focus on skill develop-

ment and the extent of their use of active learning

techniques instead of viewing these practices as

all-or-none phenomena. An observational system

has been developed to assess the use of SAFE prac-

tices as continuous variables in youth settings

(Pechman, Russell, & Birmingham, 2008).

Although current results support the impact of

implementation on outcomes, 43% of the studies

did not monitor implementation in any way and

thus were excluded from that analysis. Assessing

Social and Emotional Learning 419

implementation should be seen as a fundamental

and necessary aspect of any future program evalua-

tions and efforts should be undertaken to evaluate

the multiple ecological factors that can hinder or

promote effective delivery of new programs

(Durlak & Dupre, 2008; Greenhalgh et al., 2005).

Raising Healthy Children: Implications for Policy

and Practice

Overall, research on school-based mental health

and competence promotion has advanced greatly

during the past 15 years. The Institute of Medi-

cine's (1994) first report on prevention concluded

there was not enough evidence to consider mental

health promotion as a preventive intervention.

However, the new Institute of Medicine (2009)

report on prevention represents a major shift in

thinking about promotion efforts. Based on its

examination of recent outcome studies, the new

Institute of Medicine report indicated that the pro-

motion of competence, self-esteem, mastery, and

social inclusion can serve as a foundation for both

prevention and treatment of mental, emotional, and

behavioral disorders. The Report of the Surgeon

General's Conference on Children's Mental Health

expressed similar sentiments about the importance

of mental health promotion and SEL for optimal

child development and school performance by pro-

claiming: ''Mental health is a critical component of

children's learning and general health. Fostering

social and emotional health in children as a part of

healthy child development must therefore be a

national priority'' (U.S. Public Health Service, 2000,

p. 3).

Although more research is needed to advance

our understanding of the impacts of SEL program-

ming, it is also important to consider next steps for

policy and practice at the federal, state, and local

levels. At the federal level, there is bipartisan spon-

sorship of HR 4223: The Academic, Social, and

Emotional Learning Act. This bill authorizes the

Secretary of Education to award a 5-year grant to

establish a National Technical Assistance and

Training Center for Social and Emotional Learning

that provides technical assistance and training to

states, local educational agencies, and community-

based organizations to identify, promote, and

support evidence-based SEL standards and pro-

gramming in elementary and secondary schools. A

recent review of U.S. school practices found that

59% of schools already have in place programming

to address the development and support of chil-

dren's social and emotional competencies (Foster

et al., 2005). It is critical to ensure that these efforts

are informed by theory and research about best

SEL practice. Incorporating provisions of HR 4223

into the reauthorization of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act will help to achieve that

objective.

Furthermore, there are active efforts in some

states (e.g., Illinois, New York) and internationally

(e.g., Singapore) to establish and implement SEL

standards for what students should know and be

able to do. For example, as the result of recent legis-

lative action, Illinois became the first state to

require every school district to develop a plan for

the implementation of SEL programming in their

schools. In addition, the Illinois State Board of Edu-

cation recently incorporated SEL skills as part of

their student learning standards, identifying three

broad learning goals: (a) develop self-awareness

and self-management skills to achieve school and

life success, (b) use social awareness and inter-

personal skills to establish and maintain positive

relationships, and (c) demonstrate decision-making

skills and responsible behaviors in personal, school,

and community contexts (see http://isbe.net/ils/

social_emotional/standards.htm). Increasingly, policy-

makers at the federal, state, and local level are

embracing a vision of schooling in which SEL

competencies are important.

Unfortunately, surveys indicate that many

schools do not use evidence-based prevention pro-

grams or use them with poor fidelity (Gottfredson

& Gottfredson, 2002; Ringwalt et al., 2009). This

may occur for a variety of reasons: Schools may not

be aware of effective programs, fail to choose them

from among alternatives, do not implement the

interventions correctly, or do not continue pro-

grams even if they are successful during a pilot or

demonstration period. In other words, there is a

wide gap between research and practice in school-

based prevention and promotion just as there is

with many clinical interventions for children and

adolescents (Weisz, Sandler, Durlak, & Anton,

2005).

If effective programs are to be used more widely,

then concerted efforts are needed to help schools

through the multiple steps of the diffusion process.

These steps include the dissemination of infor-

mation about available programs, adoption of pro-

grams that fit best with local settings, proper

implementation of newly adopted programs, effec-

tive program evaluation to assess progress toward

desired goals, and methods to sustain beneficial

interventions over the long term (Wandersman &

Florin, 2003). A variety of efforts are needed

420 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

to develop state and local capacity to encourage

widespread evidence-based programming (Fixsen,

Naoom, Blase

´, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). It is

especially important to document the costs and

benefits of prevention programming. Recent analy-

ses suggest that some SEL programs (e.g., Hawkins

et al., 2004) are a good financial investment; how-

ever, future studies must include more cost analy-

ses in their evaluation designs (Aos, Lieb, Mayfield,

Miller, & Pennucci, 2004). With adequate funding,

capacity can be built through providing policy

supports, professional development, and technical

assistance to promote educator knowledge and

motivation for the best ways to identify, select,

plan, implement, evaluate, and sustain effective

SEL interventions (Devaney, O'Brien, Resnik,

Keister, & Weissberg, 2006; Osher, Dwyer, & Jackson,

2004). Effective leadership and planning also pro-

mote quality program implementation through

ensuring adequate financial, personnel, and admin-

istrative support as well as providing professional

development and technical assistance (Devaney

et al., 2006; Kam, Greenberg, & Walls, 2003). Along

with this effective planning and programming,

there is a need to establish assessment and account-

ability systems for SEL programs in relation to

student outcomes (Greenberg et al., 2003; Marzano,

2006). Addressing these issues will increase the

likelihood that more evidence-based programs will

be effectively implemented and sustained in more

schools, which, in turn, will support the healthy

academic, social, and emotional development of

more children.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies

included in the meta-analysis.

*Aber, J. L., Brown, J., & Jones, S. M. (1999). Resolving

Conflict Creatively: Year 1 impact on teacher-reported

aggressive and prosocial behavior and child academic

achievement. New York, NY: Columbia University,

National Center for Children in Poverty.

*Aber, J. L., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Chaudry, N., &

Samples, F. (1998). Resolving conflict creatively: Evalu-

ating the developmental effects of a school-based vio-

lence prevention program in neighborhood and

classroom context. Development and Psychopathology , 10,

187–213.

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior

Checklist ⁄ 4-18 and the 1991 profile. Unpublished manu-

script, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.

*Adalbjarnardottir, S. (1993). Promoting children's social

growth in the schools: An intervention study. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 461–484.

*Allen, G. J., Chinsky, J. M., Larcen, S. W., Lochman, J. E.,

& Selinger, H. V. (1976). Community psychology and the

schools: A behaviorally-oriented multilevel preventive

approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

*Allred, C. G. (1984). The development and evaluation of

Positive Action: A systematic elementary school self-

concept enhancement curriculum, 1977-1983. Disserta-

tion Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and

Social Sciences, 45(11), 3244.

Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A.

(2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early interven-

tion programs for youth (Document ID: 04-07-3901).

Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public

Policy. Last retrieved Nov. 29, 2010 from http://www.

wsipp.wa.gov/title.asp?ltr=B

Aronson, J. (Ed.). (2002). Improving academic achievement:

Impact of psychological factors on education. New York:

Academic Press.

*Artley, C. W. (1985). Modification of children's behavior.

Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities

and Social Sciences, 46(11), 3288.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-

ment. (2007). The learning compact redefined: A call to

action—A report of the Commission on the Whole Child.

Alexandria, VA: Author. Last retrieved Nov. 29, 2010

from http://www.ascd.org/learningcompact

*Ayotte, V., Saucier, J. F., Bowen, F., Laurendeau, M. C.,

Fournier, M., & Blais, J. G. (2003). Teaching multiethnic

urban adolescents how to enhance their competencies:

Effects of a middle school primary prevention program

on adaptation. Journal of Primary Prevention , 24 , 7–23.

*Baker, B. B., & Butler, J. N. (1984). Effects of preventive

cognitive self-instruction training on adolescent atti-

tudes, experiences, and state anxiety. Journal of Primary

Prevention,5, 17–26.

*Battistich, V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., Solomon, D., &

Lewis, C. (2000). Effects of the Child Development

Project on students' drug use and other problem

behaviors. Journal of Primary Prevention ,21, 75–99.

*Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Wilson, N. (2004). Effects of

an elementary school intervention on students' ''con-

nectedness'' to school and social adjustment during

middle school. The Journal of Primary Prevention , 24,

243–262.

*Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., Solomon, J., &

Schaps, E. (1989). Effects of an elementary school

program to enhance prosocial behavior on children's

cognitive social problem-solving skills and strategies.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 147–169.

*Bauer, N. S., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2007). The effec-

tiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in

public middle schools: A controlled trial. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 40, 266–274.

Bear, G. G., & Watkins, J. M. (2006). Developing self-dis-

cipline. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children's

Social and Emotional Learning 421

needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp.

29–44). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School

Psychologists.

*Beets, M. W., Flay, B. R., Vuchinich, S., Snyder, F. J.,

Acock, A., Li, K., et al. (2009). Using a social and char-

acter development program to prevent substance use,

violent behaviors, and sexual activity among elemen-

tary-school students in Hawai'i. American Journal of

Public Health, 99, 1438–1445.

Benson, P. L. (2006). All kids are our kids: What communities

must do to raise caring and responsible children and adoles-

cents (2nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

*Bhadwal, S. C., & Panda, P. K. (1992). The composite

effect of a curricular programme on the test anxiety of

rural primary school students: A one-year study.

Educational Review, 44, 205–220.

Blum, R. W., & Libbey, H. P. (2004). School connected-

ness—Strengthening health and education outcomes

for teenagers. Journal of School Health , 74 , 229–299.

Bond, L. A., & Hauf, A. M. C. (2004). Taking stock and

putting stock in primary prevention: Characteristics of

effective programs. Journal of Primary Prevention , 24,

199–221.

*Bosworth, K., Espelage, D., DuBay, T., Daytner, G., &

Karageorge, K. (2000). Preliminary evaluation of a

multimedia violence prevention program for ado-

lescents. American Journal of Health Behavior ,24,

268–280.

*Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E. M., &

Diaz, T. (1995). Long-term follow-up results of a ran-

domized drug abuse prevention trial in a White mid-

dle-class population. Journal of the American Medical

Association,273, 1106–1112.

*Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Tortu, S., & Bot-

vin, E. M. (1990). Preventing adolescent drug abuse

through a multimodal cognitive-behavioral approach:

Results of a 3-year study. Journal of Consulting and Clini-

cal Psychology, 58, 437–446.

*Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Filazzola, A. D., & Botvin, E. M.

(1990). A cognitive-behavioral approach to substance

abuse prevention: One-year follow-up. Addictive Behav-

iors,15, 47–63.

*Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Renick, N. L., Filazzola, A. D., &

Botvin, E. M. (1984). A cognitive-behavioral approach

to substance abuse prevention. Addictive Behaviors , 9,

137–147.

*Botvin, G. J., Epstein, J. A., Baker, E., Diaz, T., & Ifill-

Williams, M. (1997). School-based drug abuse preven-

tion with inner-city minority youth. Journal of Child and

Adolescent Substance Abuse, 6, 5–19.

*Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., Diaz, T., & Ifill-Williams, M.

(2001). Preventing binge drinking during early adoles-

cence: One- and two-year follow-up of a school-based

preventive intervention. Psychology of Addictive Behav-

iors,15, 360–365.

*Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., Diaz, T., Scheier, L. M.,

Williams, C., & Epstein, J. A. (2000). Preventing illicit

drug use in adolescents: Long-term follow-up data from

a randomized control trial of a school population.

Addictive Behaviors, 25, 769–774.

*Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., & Ifill-Williams, M. (2001).

Drug abuse prevention among minority adolescents:

Post-test and one year follow-up of a school-based pre-

ventive intervention. Prevention Science , 2 , 1–13.

*Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., & Nichols, T. D. (2006). Pre-

venting youth violence and delinquency through a uni-

versal school-based prevention approach. Prevention

Science,7, 403–408.

*Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., Paul, E., & Macaulay, A. P.

(2003). Preventing tobacco and alcohol use among ele-

mentary school students through life skills training.

Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 12, 1–17.

*Botvin, G. J., Schinke, S. P., Epstein, J. A., & Diaz, T.

(1994). Effectiveness of culturally focused and generic

skills training approaches to alcohol and drug abuse

prevention among minority youths. Psychology of Addic-

tive Behaviors, 8, 116–127.

*Botvin, G. J., Schinke, S. P., Epstein, J. A., Diaz, T., & Bot-

vin, E. M. (1995). Effectiveness of culturally focused

and generic skills training approaches to alcohol and

drug abuse prevention among minority adolescents:

Two-year follow-up results. Psychology of Addictive

Behaviors,9, 183–194.

Boxer, P., Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., & Morales, J.

(2005). Proximal peer-level effects of a small-group

selected prevention on aggression on elementary school

children: An investigation of the peer contagion

hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology ,33,

325–338.

*Boyle, M. H., Cunningham, C. E., Heale, J., Hundert, J.,

McDonald, J., Offord, D. R., et al. (1999). Helping chil-

dren adjust—A Tri-Ministry study: II. Evaluation meth-

odology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry ,40,

1051–1060.

*Caplan, M., Weissberg, R. P., Grober, J., Sivo, P. J.,

Grady, K., & Jacoby, C. (1992). Social competence pro-

motion with inner-city and suburban young adoles-

cents: Effects on social adjustment and alcohol use.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 56–63.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura,

A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000). Prosocial foundations of

children's academic achievement. Psychological Science,

11, 302–306.

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak,

H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positive youth develop-

ment in the United States: Research findings on evalua-

tions of positive youth development programs.

Prevention & Treatment, 5, Article 15. doi: 10.1037/1522-

3736.5.1.515a.

*Cauce, A. M., Comer, J. P., & Schwartz, D. (1987). Long

term effects of a systems-oriented school prevention

program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry ,57, 127–

131.

*Cecchini, T. B. (1997). An interpersonal and cognitive-

behavioral approach to childhood depression: A

school-based primary prevention study. Dissertation

422 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineer-

ing,58(12), 6803.

*Center for Evaluation and Research with Children and

Adolescents. (1999). The impact of The Great Body Shop

on student health risk behaviors and other risk and protective

factors using the Minnesota Student Survey: An evaluation

report to the Children's Health Market. Boston: Author.

*Chalmers-MacDonald, J. H. (2006). The effects of a cul-

ture based social skills program on the prosocial behav-

iour of elementary school boys and girls. Dissertation

Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineer-

ing,66(07), 3995.

*Ciechalski, J. C., & Schmidt, M. W. (1995). The effects of

social skills training on students with exceptionalities.

Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 29, 217–222.

*Cochrane, L., & Saroyan, A. (1997, March). Finding evi-

dence to support violence prevention program. Paper pre-

sented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral

sciences (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

*Coleman, J. K. (2000). A controlled evaluation of the

effects of Classroom Coping Skills training on chil-

dren's aggressive and externalizing behaviors. Disserta-

tion Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and

Engineering,61(07), 3836.

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learn-

ing. (2005). Safe and sound: An educational leader's guide

to evidence-based social and emotional learning pro-

grams—Illinois edition. Chicago: Author.

*Collier, C. H. (1992). Measured effects of the Positive

Mental Health curriculum for children: A primary

prevention program. Dissertation Abstracts International:

Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 53(5), 1388.

Collins, L. M., Murphy, S. A., Nair, V. N., & Strecher, V.

J. (2005). A strategy for optimizing and evaluating

behavioral interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine,

30, 65–73.

*Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999).

Initial impact of the fast track prevention trial for con-

duct problems II. Classroom effects. Journal of Consult-

ing and Clinical Psychology, 67, 648–657.

*Cook, T. D., Habib, F., Phillips, M., Settersten, R. A., Sha-

gle, S. C., & Degirmencioglu, S. M. (1999). Comer's

school development program in Prince George's

County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. Ameri-

can Educational Research Journal, 36, 543–597.

*Cook, T. D., Murphy, R. F., & Hunt, H. D. (2000).

Comer's school development program in Chicago: A

theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research

Journal,37, 535–597.

*Cowen, E. L., Izzo, L. D., Miles, H., Telschow, E. F.,

Trost, M. A., & Zax, M. (1963). A preventive mental

health program in the school setting: Description and

evaluation. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and

Applied,56, 307–356.

*Cowen, E. L., Zax, M., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. A. (1966).

Prevention of emotional disorders in the school setting:

A further investigation. Journal of Consulting Psychology,

30, 381–387.

Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and refor-

mulation of social information-processing mechanisms

in children's social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,

115, 74–101.

Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye:

Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data.

American Psychologist, 60, 170–180.

*Cunningham, E. G., Brandon, C. M., & Frydenberg, E.

(2002). Enhancing coping resources in early adoles-

cence through a school-based program teaching opti-

mistic thinking skills. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping , 15,

369–381.

Devaney, E., O'Brien, M. U., Resnik, H., Keister, S., &

Weissberg, R. P. (2006). Sustainable schoolwide social and

emotional learning: Implementation guide and toolkit.

Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emo-

tional Learning.

*Diguiseppe, R., & Kassinove, H. (1976). Effects of a

rational-emotive school mental health program on chil-

dren's emotional adjustment. Journal of Community Psy-

chology,4, 382–387.

Dirks, M. A., Treat, T. A., & Weersing, V. R. (2007). Inte-

grating theoretical, measurement, and intervention

models of youth social competence. Clinical Psychology

Review,27, 327–347.

Dryfoos, J. G. (1997). The prevalence of problem behav-

iors: Implications for programs. In R. P. Weissberg, T.

P. Gullotta, R. L. Hampton, B. A. Ryan, & G. R. Adams

(Eds.), Healthy children 2010: Enhancing children's well-

ness (pp. 17–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper,

H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for

youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 30, 157–198.

*Dubow, E. F., Schmidt, D., McBride, J., Edwards, S., &

Merk, F. L. (1993). Teaching children to cope with

stressful experiences: Initial implementation and evalu-

ation of a primary prevention program. Journal of

Clinical Child Psychology, 22, 428–440.

Duckworth, A. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Self-

discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic per-

formance of adolescents. Psychological Science , 16,

939–944.

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson,

K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School

readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychol-

ogy,43, 1428–1446.

*Durant, R. H., Barkin, S., & Krowchuk, D. P. (2001).

Evaluation of a peaceful conflict resolution and vio-

lence prevention curriculum for sixth-grade students.

Journal of Adolescent Health, 28, 386–393.

Durlak, J. A. (1997). Successful prevention programs for

children and adolescents. New York: Plenum.

Durlak, J. A. (2009). How to select, calculate, and inter-

pret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology , 34 , 917–

928.

Social and Emotional Learning 423

Durlak, J. A., & Dupre, E. . P. (2008). Implementation

matters: A review of research on the influence of imple-

mentation on program outcomes and the factors affect-

ing implementation. American Journal of Community

Psychology,41, 327–350.

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A

meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to

promote personal and social skills in children and

adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology,

45, 294–309.

Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1997). Primary prevention

mental health programs for children and adolescents:

A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community

Psychology,25, 115–152.

Dusenbury, L., & Falco, M. (1995). Eleven components of

effective drug abuse prevention curricula. Journal of

School Health, 65(10), 420–425.

Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple

funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for

publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics , 56 , 455–

463.

Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Ross, J.,

Hawkins, J., et al. (2008). Youth risk behavior surveil-

lance—United States, 2007. MMWR Surveillance Summa-

ries,57(SS04), 1–131. Retrieved November 29, 2010, from

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss57

04a1.htm?s_cid=ss5704a1_e

Eisenberg, N. (Ed.). (2006). Volume 3: Social, emotional,

and personality development. In W. Damon & R. M.

Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th

ed). New York: Wiley.

Eisenberg, N. (Ed.). (2006). Volume 3: Social, emotional,

and personality development. In W. Damon & R. M.

Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook of child psychology , 6th

ed. New York: Wiley.

*Eiserman, W. D. (1990). An evaluation of the first year pilot

implementation of Positive Action at Montclair Elementary.

Unpublished summary report. Educational Research

and Development Center, The University of West Florida.

*Elias, M. J. (2002). Evidence of effectiveness articles: The

Social Decision Making ⁄ Problem Solving Program. Unpub-

lished technical report, University of Medicine & Den-

tistry of New Jersey.

*Elias, M. J., Gara, M. A., Schuyler, T. F., Branden-Muller,

L. R., & Sayette, M. A. (1991). The promotion of social

competence: Longitudinal study of a preventive school-

based program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 61,

409–417.

*Elias, M. J., Gara, M., Ubriaco, M., Rothbaum, P. A.,

Clabby, J. F., & Schuyler, T. (1986). Impact of a preven-

tive social problem solving intervention on children's

coping with middle school stressors. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 14, 259–275.

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S.,

Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., et al. (1997). Promot-

ing social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of

competence and motivation. New York: Guilford.

*Elliott, S. N. (1995). Final evaluation report: The Responsive

Classroom approach: Its effectiveness and acceptability.

Washington, DC: Author.

*Elliott, S. N. (1997). The Responsive Classroom approach: Its

effectiveness and acceptability in promoting social and aca-

demic competence. University of Wisconsin, Madison,

Prepared for The Northeast Foundation for Children.

Retrieved November 29, 2010, from http://www.

responsiveclassroom.org/pdf_files/rc_evaluation_project.

pdf

Elliott, S. N., Gresham, F. M., Freeman, T., & McCloskey,

G. (1988). Teacher and observer ratings of children's

social skills: Validation of the Social Skills Rating

Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment ,6, 152–

161.

*Enright, R. D. (1980). An integration of social cognitive

development and cognitive processing: Educational

applications. American Educational Research Journal ,17,

21–41.

*Facing History and Ourselves. (1998). Improving inter-

group relations among youth: A study of the processes and

outcomes of Facing History and Ourselves. Carnegie

Corporation Initiative on Race and Ethnic Relations.

Chicago: Author.

*Farrell, A. D., & Meyer, A. L. (1997). The effectiveness of

a school-based curriculum for reducing violence among

urban sixth-grade students. American Journal of Public

Health,87, 979–984.

*Farrell, A., Meyer, A., Sullivan, T., & Kung, E. (2003).

Evaluation of the Responding in Peaceful and Positive

ways seventh grade (RIPP-7) universal violence pre-

vention program. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 12,

101–120.

*Farrell, A. D., Meyer, A. L., & White, K. S. (2001). Evalua-

tion of Responding in Peaceful and Positive ways

(RIPP): A school-based prevention program for reduc-

ing violence among urban adolescents. Journal of Clinical

Child Psychology, 30, 451–463.

*Farrell, A., Valois, R., Meyer, A., & Tidwell, R. (2003).

Impact of the RIPP violence prevention program on

rural middle school students. Journal of Primary Preven-

tion,24, 143–167.

*Felner, R. D., Brand, S., Adan, A. M., Mulhall, P. F.,

Flowers, N., Sartain, B., et al. (1993). Restructuring the

ecology of the school as an approach to prevention dur-

ing school transitions: Longitudinal follow-ups and

extensions of the School Transitional Environment Pro-

ject (STEP). Prevention in Human Services , 10 , 103–136.

*Felner, R. D., Ginter, M., & Primavera, J. (1982). Primary

prevention during school transitions: Social support and

environmental structure. American Journal of Community

Psychology,10, 277–290.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase

´, K. A., Friedman, R. M.,

& Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis

of the literature (FMHI Publication No. 231) Tampa:

University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida

424 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

Mental Health Institute, National Implementation

Research Network. Retrieved November 29, 2010, from

http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/resources/publications/

Monograph/index.cfm

*Flay, B., Acock, A., Vuchinich, S., & Beets, M. (2006). Pro-

gress report of the randomized trial of Positive Action in

Hawaii: End of third year of intervention (Spring, 2005).

Unpublished manuscript, Oregon State University.

*Flay, B. R., & Allred, C. G. (2003). Long-term effects of

the Positive Action program—A comprehensive, posi-

tive youth development program. American Journal of

Health Behavior, 27(Suppl. 1), S6–S21.

*Flay, B. R., Allred, C. G., & Ordway, N. (2001). Effects of

the positive action program on achievement and disci-

pline: Two matched-control comparisons. Prevention

Science,2, 71–89.

*Flay, B. R., Graumlich, S., Segawa, E., Burns, J. L., &

Holliday, M. Y. (2004). Effects of 2 prevention programs

on high-risk behaviors among African American youth.

Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 158, 377–384.

*Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Arriaga, X. B., Helms, R.

W., Koch, G. G., & Linder, G. F. (1998). An evaluation

of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating and violence pre-

vention program. American Journal of Public Health , 88,

45–50.

*Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Linder, F.,

Benefield, T., & Suchindran, C. (2004). Assessing the

long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a

booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating

violence victimization and perpetration. American

Journal of Public Health, 94, 619–624.

*Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Ennett, S. T., Suchindran,

C., Benefield, T., & Linder, G. F. (2005). Assessing the

effects of the dating violence prevention program ''Safe

Dates'' using random coefficient regression modeling.

Prevention Science, 6, 245–258.

*Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K. E., Greene, W. F., Koch, G. G.,

Linder, G. F., & MacDougall, J. E. (2000). The Safe

Dates program: 1-year follow-up results. American Jour-

nal of Public Health, 90, 1619–1622.

Foster, S., Rollefson, M., Doksum, T., Noonan, D., Robin-

son, G., & Teich, J. (2005). School mental health services

in the United States, 2002–2003 [DHHS Pub. No. (SMA)

05-4068]. Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health

Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration.

*Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Van Schoiack

Edstrom, L., Mackenzie, E. P., & Broderick, C. J. (2005).

Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs:

An experimental trial of the Steps to Respect program.

Developmental Psychology, 41, 479–490.

*Frey, K. S., Nolen, S. B., Van Schoiack Edstrom, L., &

Hirschstein, M. (2001, June). Second Step: Effects of a

social competence program on social goals and behavior.

Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the

Society for Prevention Research, Washington, DC.

*Frey, K. S., Nolen, S. B., Van Schoiack Edstrom, L., &

Hirschstein, M. K. (2005). Effects of a school-based

social-emotional competence program: Linking chil-

dren's goals, attributions, and behavior. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 171–200.

*Gainer, P. S., Webster, D. W., & Champion, H. R. (1993).

A youth violence prevention program: Description and

preliminary evaluation. Archives of Surgery , 128 , 303–

308.

*Garaigordobil, M., & Echebarria, A. (1995). Assessment

of a peer-helping game program on children's develop-

ment. Journal of Research in Childhood Education ,10,

63–69.

*Gesten, E. L., Rains, M. H., Rapkin, B. D., Weissberg,

R. P., Flores de Apodaca, R., Cowen, E. L., et al. (1982).

Training children in social problem-solving competen-

cies: A first and second look. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 10, 95–115.

*Gosin, M. N., Dustman, P. A., Drapeau, A. E., & Har-

thun, M. L. (2003). Participatory action research: Creat-

ing an effective prevention curriculum for adolescents

in the Southwestern US. Health Education Research , 18,

363–379.

*Gottfredson, D. C. (1986). An empirical test of school-

based environmental and individual interventions to

reduce the risk of delinquent behavior. Criminology , 24,

705–731.

*Gottfredson, D. C. (1988). An evaluation of an organiza-

tion development approach to reducing school disor-

der. Evaluation Review ,11, 739–763.

Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality

of school-based prevention programs: Results from a

national survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-

quency,39, 3–35.

*Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., & Hybl, L. G.

(1993). Managing adolescent behavior: A multiyear,

multischool study. American Educational Research Jour-

nal,30, 179–215.

*Gottfredson, G. D., Jones, E. M., & Gore, T. W. (2002).

Implementation and evaluation of a cognitive-behav-

ioral intervention to prevent problem behavior in a

disorganized school. Prevention Science , 3 , 43–56.

Greenberg, M. T. (2006). Promoting resilience in chil-

dren and youth: Preventive interventions and their

interface with neuroscience. Annals of the New York

Academy of Science, 1094, 139–150.

Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C., & Bumbarger, B.

(2001). The prevention of mental disorders in school-

aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention &

Treatment,4, 1–62.

*Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1998). Preventive

intervention for school-age deaf children: The PATHS

curriculum. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education ,3,

49–63.

*Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., Cook, E. T., & Qua-

mma, J. P. (1995). Promoting emotional competence in

school-aged children: The effects of the PATHS curricu-

lum. Development and Psychopathology ,7, 117–136.

Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O'Brien, M. U., Zins,

J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., et al. (2003). Enhancing

Social and Emotional Learning 425

school-based prevention and youth development

through coordinated social, emotional, and academic

learning. American Psychologist ,58, 466–474.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P.,

Kyriakidou, O., & Peacock, R. (2005). Diffusion of inno-

vations in health service organizations: A systematic litera-

ture review. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Gresham, F. M. (1995). Best practices in social skills train-

ing. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in

school psychology-III (pp. 1021–1030). Washington, DC:

National Association of School Psychologists.

*Griffin, K. W., Botvin, G. J., & Nichols, T. R. (2004).

Long-term follow-up effects of a school-based drug

abuse prevention program on adolescent risky driving.

Prevention Science, 5, 207–212.

*Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Koepsell, T. D., Liu,

P. Y., & Asher, K. N. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence

prevention curriculum among children in elementary

school: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the

American Medical Association, 277, 1605–1611.

Guerra, N. G., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2008). Linking the

prevention of problem behaviors and positive youth

development: Core competencies for positive youth

development and risk prevention. New Directions for

Child and Adolescent Development, 122, 1–17.

Hahn, R., Fuqua-Whitley, D., Wethington, H., Lowy, J.,

Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of

universal school-based programs to prevent violent and

aggressive behavior: A systematic review. American

Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(2, Suppl. 1), S114–S129.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student-teacher

relationships. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Chil-

dren's needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention

(pp. 59–71). Bethesda, MD: National Association of

School Psychologists.

Haney, P., & Durlak, J. A. (1998). Changing self-esteem in

children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review.

Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 423–433.

*Hansen, W. B., & Dusenbury, L. (2004). All Stars Plus:

A competence and motivation enhancement approach

to prevention. Health Education , 104 , 371–381.

*Harrington, N. G., Giles, S. M., Hoyle, R. H., Feeney,

G. J., & Yungbluth, S. C. (2001). Evaluation of the

All Stars character education and problem behav-

ior prevention program: Effects on mediator and out-

come variables for middle school students. Health

Education and Behavior, 28, 533–546.

*Harris, P. A. (1998). Teaching conflict resolution skills to

children: A comparison between a curriculum based

and a modified peer mediation program. Dissertation

Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social

Sciences,59(09), 3397.

*Hausman, A., Pierce, G., & Briggs, L. (1996). Evaluation

of a comprehensive violence prevention education:

Effects on student behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health,

19, 104–110.

*Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Kosterman, R., Abbott,

R., & Hill, K. G. (1999). Preventing adolescent health-

risk behaviors by strengthening protection during

childhood. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,

153, 226–234.

Hawkins, J. D., Smith, B. H., & Catalano, R. F. (2004).

Social development and social and emotional learning.

In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Wal-

berg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emo-

tional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 135–150).

New York: Teachers College Press.

*Haynes, L. A., & Avery, A. W. (1979). Training adoles-

cents in self-disclosure and empathy skills. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 26, 526–530.

*Heckenlaible-Gotto, M. J. (1996). Classroom-based social

skills training program: Impact on social behavior and

peer acceptance of first grade students. Dissertation

Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social

Sciences,57(03), 1025.

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for

meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.

*Heinemann, G. H. (1990). The effects of the Lions-Quest

''Skills for Adolescence'' program on self-esteem

development and academic achievement at the

middle school level. Dissertation Abstracts Inter-

national: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 51(06),

1890A.

*Hennessey, B. A. (2004). Promoting social competence in

school-aged children: The effects of the Open Circle program.

Unpublished manuscript.

*Hepler, J. B., & Rose, S. F. (1988). Evaluation of a

multi-component group approach for improving the

social skills of elementary school children. Journal of

Social Service Research, 11, 1–18.

*Hiebert, B., Kirby, B., & Jaknavorian, A. (1989). School-

based relaxation: Attempting primary prevention.

Canadian Journal of Counseling, 23, 273–287.

Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D.

G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560.

Hill, C. J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W.

(2007). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect

sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives , 2 , 172–

177.

Horowitz, J. L., & Garber, J. (2007). The prevention of

depressive symptoms in children and adolescents: A

meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology,74, 401–415.

*Houtz, J. C., & Feldhusen, J. C. (1976). The modification

of fourth graders' problem solving abilities. Journal of

Psychology,93, 229–237.

*Hudgins, E. W. (1979). Examining the effectiveness of

affective education. Psychology in the Schools , 16 , 581–

585.

*Hundert, J., Boyle, M. H., Cunningham, C. E., Duku, E.,

Heale, J., McDonald, J., et al. (1999). Helping children

adjust—A Tri-Ministry Study: II. Program effects. Jour-

nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 1061–1073.

*Hunter, L. (1998). Preventing violence through the pro-

motion of social competence and positive interethnic

426 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

contact: An evaluation of three elementary school-

based violence prevention instructional approaches.

Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities

and Social Sciences, 59(08), 2851.

*Ialongo, N., Poduska, J., Werthamer, L., & Kellam, S.

(2001). The distal impact of two first-grade preventive

interventions on conduct problems and disorder in

early adolescence. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral

Disorders,9, 146–161.

*Ialongo, N. S., Werthamer, L., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C.

H., Wang, S., & Lin, Y. (1999). Proximal impact of two

first-grade preventive interventions on the early risk

behaviors for later substance abuse, depression, and

antisocial behavior. American Journal of Community Psy-

chology,27, 599–641.

Institute of Education Sciences. (2008a). Technical details of

WWC-conducted computations. Retrieved November 29,

2010, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/conducted_

computations.pdf

Institute of Education Sciences. (2008b). What Works

Clearinghouse procedures and standards workbook, Version

2.0. Retrieved November 29, 2010, from http://ies.ed.

gov/ncee/wwc_procedures_v2_standards_handbook.pdf

Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing risks for mental dis-

orders: Frontiers for preventive intervention research. Wash-

ington, DC: National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional,

and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and

possibilities. Washington, DC: National Academies

Press.

Izard, C. E. (2002). Translating emotion theory and

research into preventive interventions. Psychological

Bulletin,128, 796–824.

Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial

classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence

in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review

of Educational Research, 79, 491–525.

*Johnson, D. L., & Johnson, R. (1997). The impact of

conflict resolution training on middle school students.

Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 11–21.

*Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Dudley, B. (1992).

Effects of peer mediation training on elementary school

students. Mediation Quarterly ,10, 89–99.

*Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Dudley, B., & Magnuson,

D. (1995). Training elementary school students to

manage conflict. Journal of Social Psychology , 135 , 673–

686.

*Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., Dudley, B., Ward, M., &

Magnuson, D. (1995). The impact of peer mediation

training on the management of school and home con-

flicts. American Educational Research Journal ,32, 829–844.

*Kam, C.-M., Greenberg, M. T., & Walls, C. T. (2003).

Examining the role of implementation quality in school-

based prevention using the PATHS curriculum. Preven-

tion Science, 4, 55–63.

*Kenney, D. J., & Watson, T. S. (1996). Reducing fear in

the schools: Managing conflict through student prob-

lem solving. Education and Urban Society , 28 , 436–455.

Kitano, H. L. (1960). Validity of the Children's Manifest

Anxiety Scale and the modified revised California

Inventory. Child Development , 31 , 67–72.

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter:

Linking teacher support to student engagement and

achievement. Journal of School Health ,74, 262–273.

*Knoff, H. M., & Batsche, G. M. (1995). Project ACHIEVE:

Analyzing a school reform process for at-risk and

underachieving students. School Psychology Review , 24,

579–603.

*Krogh, S. L. (1985). Encouraging positive justice reason-

ing and perspective-taking skills: Two educational

interventions. Journal of Moral Education ,14, 102–110.

*Krug, E. G., Brener, N. D., Dahlberg, L. L., Ryan, G. W.,

& Powell, K. E. (1997). The impact of an elementary

school-based violence prevention program on visits to

the school nurse. American Journal of Preventive Medi-

cine,13, 459–463.

*Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., Tait, C., & Turner, C.

(2002). Effectiveness of school-based family and chil-

dren's skills training for substance abuse prevention

among 6-8-year-old rural children. Psychology of Addic-

tive Behaviors, 16(Suppl. 4), S65–S71.

*Kutnick, P., & Marshall, D. (1993). Development of social

skills and the use of the microcomputer in the primary

school classroom. British Educational Research Journal,

19, 517–534.

Ladd, G. W., & Mize, J. (1983). A cognitive social learning

model of social skill training. Psychological Review , 90,

127–157.

*LaFromboise, T., & Howard-Pitney, B. (1995). The Zuni

life skills development curriculum: Description and

evaluation of a suicide prevention program. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 42, 479–486.

*Larson, J. D. (1992). Anger and aggression management

techniques through the Think First curriculum. Journal

of Offender Rehabilitation, 18, 101–117.

*Leadbeater, B., Hoglund, W., & Woods, T. (2003).

Changing contexts? The effects of a primary prevention

program on classroom levels of peer relational and

physical victimization, Journal of Community Psychology,

31, 397–418.

Learning First Alliance. (2001). Every child learning: Safe

and supportive schools. Washington, DC: Author.

*LeCroy, C. W., & Rose, S. D. (1986). Evaluation of preven-

tive interventions for enhancing social competence in

adolescents. Social Work Research & Abstracts ,22, 8–16.

Lemerise, E. A., & Arsenio, W. F. (2000). An integrated

model of emotion processes and cognition in social

information processing. Child Development , 71 , 107–118.

*Leming, J. S. (1998). An evaluation of the Heartwood Insti-

tute's: An ethics curriculum for children. Murphysboro,

IL: Character Evaluation.

*Leming, J. S. (2000). Tell me a story: An evaluation of a

literature-based character education programme. Jour-

nal of Moral Education, 29, 413–427.

*Leming, J. S. (2001). Integrating a structured ethical

reflection curriculum into high school community

Social and Emotional Learning 427

service experiences: Impact on students' sociomoral

development. Adolescence ,36, 33–45.

*Lewis, T. J., Powers, L. J., Kelk, M. J., & Newcomer, L. L.

(2002). Reducing problem behaviors on the play-

ground: An investigation of the application of school-

wide positive behavior supports. Psychology in the

Schools,39, 181–190.

*Lillenstein, J. A. (2001). Efficacy of a social skills training

curriculum with early elementary students in four

parochial schools. Dissertation Abstracts International:

Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 62(09), 2971.

*Linares, L. O., Rosbruch, N., Stern, M. B., Edwards, M.

E., Walker, G., Abikoff, H.B., et al. (2005). Developing

cognitive-social-emotional competencies to enhance

academic learning. Psychology in the Schools , 42 , 405–

417.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-anal-

ysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*Lonczak, H. S., Abbott, R., Hawkins, J. D., Kosterman,

R., & Catalano, R. F. (2002). Effects of the Seattle Social

Development Project on sexual behavior, pregnancy,

birth, and sexually transmitted disease outcomes by

age 21 years. Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine , 156,

438–447.

*Lopez, B. G., & Lopez, R. G. (1998). The improvement of

moral development through an increase in reflection: A

training programme. Journal of Moral Education , 27,

225–241.

*LoSciuto, L., Rajala, A. K., Townsend, T. N., & Taylor,

A. S. (1996). An outcome evaluation of Across Ages:

An intergenerational mentoring approach to drug

prevention. Journal of Adolescent Research ,11, 116–

129.

Lo

¨sel, F., & Beelman, A. (2003). Effects of child skills

training in preventing antisocial behavior: A systematic

review of randomized evaluations. Annals of the Ameri-

can Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 84–109.

*Lynch, K. B., & McCracken, K. (2001). Highlights of find-

ings of the Al's Pals intervention Hampton city public

schools. Richmond: Virginia Institute for Developmental

Disabilities.

Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment and grading that

works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The develop-

ment of competence in favorable and unfavorable

environments: Lessons from research on successful chil-

dren. American Psychologist ,53, 205–220.

*Masters, J. R., & Laverty, G. E. (1977). The relationship

between changes in attitude and changes in behavior

in the Schools Without Failure program. Journal of

Research and Development in Education, 10(2), 36–49.

*McClowry, S., Snow, D. L., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S.

(2005). An evaluation of the effects of INSIGHTS on the

behavior of inner city primary school children. Journal

of Primary Prevention, 26, 567–584.

*McClure, L. F., Chinsky, J. M., & Larcen, S. W. (1978).

Enhancing social problem-solving performance in an

elementary school setting. Journal of Educational Psychol-

ogy,70, 504–513.

*McNeese, R. M. F. (1999). Reducing violent behavior in

the classroom: A comparison of two middle schools.

Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities

and Social Sciences, 60(08), 2756.

*Menesini, E., Codecasa, E., Benelli, B., & Cowie, H.

(2003). Enhancing children's responsibility to take

action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending

intervention in Italian middle schools. Aggressive Behav-

ior,29, 1–14.

*Merry, S., McDowell, H., Wild, C. J., Julliet, B., & Cun-

liffe, R. (2004). A randomized placebo-controlled trial

of a school-based depression prevention program. Jour-

nal of American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,

43, 538–547.

Metropolitan Area Child Study Research Group. (2002).

A cognitive-ecological approach to preventing aggres-

sion in urban settings: Initial outcomes for high-risk

children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

70, 179–194.

*Michelson, L., & Wood, R. (1980). A group assertive

training program for elementary school children. Child

Behavior Therapy, 2(1), 1–9.

*Miller, A. L., Gouley, K. K., Seifer, R., & Zakriski, A.

(2003, June). Evaluating the effectiveness of the PATHS

curriculum in an urban elementary school. Paper pre-

sented at the meeting of the Society for Prevention

Research, Washington, DC.

*Morrison, S. (1994). A description and a comparative

evaluation of a social skills training program. Disserta-

tion Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and

Social Sciences, 55(05), 1226.

*Munoz, M. A., & Vanderhaar, J. E. (2006). Literacy-

embedded character education in a large urban district:

Effects of the Child Development Project on elementary

school students and teachers. Journal of Research in

Character Education, 4, 27–44.

*Muuss, R. E. (1960). The effects of a one- and two-year

causal-learning program. Journal of Personality , 28 , 479–

491.

*Nelson, G., & Carson, P. (1988). Evaluation of a social

problem-solving skills program for third- and fourth-

grade students. American Journal of Community Psychol-

ogy,16, 79–99.

*Nelson, J. R., Martella, R. M., & Marchand-Martella, N.

(2002). Maximizing student learning: The effects of a

comprehensive school-based program for preventing

problem behaviors. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Dis-

orders,10, 136–148.

Ngwe, J. E., Liu, L. C., Flay, B. R., Segawa, E., & Aban-

aya Co-Investigators. (2004). Violence prevention

among African American adolescent males. American

Journal of Health Behavior, 28(Suppl. 1), S24–S37.

*Norris, K. (2001). The ninth grade seminar: A ninth

grade transition program evaluation. Dissertation

Abstracts International: Section A. Humanities and Social

Sciences,62(04), 1370.

428 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

*O'Donnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Abbott, R.,

& Day, L. E. (1995). Preventing school failure, drug

use, and delinquency among low-income children:

Long-term intervention in elementary schools. American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 87–100.

*O'Hearn, T. C., & Gatz, M. (1999). Evaluating a psycho-

social competence program for urban adolescents. Jour-

nal of Primary Prevention, 20, 119–144.

*Ojemann, R. H., Levitt, E. E., Lyle, W. H., & Whiteside, M.

F. (1955). The effects of a ''causal'' teacher-training pro-

gram and certain curricular changes on grade school

children. Journal of Experimental Education ,24, 95–114.

*Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic

facts and effects of a school based intervention pro-

gram. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 35,

1171–1190.

*Omizo, M. M., Omizo, S. A., & D'Andrea, M. J. (1992).

Promoting wellness among elementary school children.

Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 194–198.

*Orpinas, P., Kelder, S., Frankowski, R., Murray, N.,

Zhang, Q., & McAlister, A. (2000). Outcome evaluation

of a multi-component violence-prevention program for

middle schools: The Students for Peace project. Health

Education Research, 15, 45–58.

*Orpinas, P., Parcel, G. S., McAlister, A., & Frankowski,

R. (1995). Violence prevention in middle schools: A

pilot evaluation. Journal of Adolescent Health , 17 , 360–

371.

Osher, D., Dwyer, K., & Jackson, S. (2004). Safe, supportive,

and successful schools step by step. Longmont, CO: Sopris

West.

*Oyersman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Possible

selves and academic outcomes: How and when possi-

ble selves impel action. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,91, 188–204.

*Patton, G. C., Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Butler,

H., Glover, S., et al. (2006). Promoting social inclusion

in schools: A group-randomized trial of effects on stu-

dent health risk behavior and well-being. American

Journal of Public Health, 96, 1582–1587.

Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A.

B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B., et al. (2008). The

positive impact of social and emotional learning for kinder-

garten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scien-

tific reviews. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic,

Social, and Emotional Learning.

Pechman, E. M., Russell, C. A., & Birmingham, J. (2008).

Out-of-school time (OST) observation instrument: Report of

the validation study. Washington, DC: Policy Studies.

Retrieved November 29, 2010, from http://www.

policystudies.com

Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., &

Rushton, L. (2007). Performance of the trim and fill

method in the presence of publication bias and

between-study heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine , 26,

4544–4562.

*Philliber, S., & Allen, J. P. (1992). Life options and com-

munity service: Teen Outreach program. In B. C. Miller

(Ed.), Preventing adolescent pregnancy: Model programs and

evaluations (pp. 139–155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

*Possel, P., Horn, A. B., Goren, G., & Hautzinger, M.

(2004). School-based prevention of depressive symp-

toms in adolescents: A 6-month follow-up. Journal of the

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43,

1003–1010.

*Quest International. (1995). Report for U.S Department of

Education expert panel on safe, disciplined, and drug-free

schools: Lions-Quest Skills for Growing. Newark, OH:

Author.

*Reid, J. B., Eddy, M., Fetrow, A., & Stoolmiller, M.

(1999). Description and immediate impacts of a preven-

tive intervention for conduct problems. American Jour-

nal of Community Psychology, 27, 483–517.

*Renfro, J., Huebner, R., & Ritchey, B. (2003). School vio-

lence prevention: The effects of a university and high

school partnership. Journal of School Violence , 2 (2), 81–99.

*Reyes, O., & Jason, L. A. (1991). An evaluation of a high

school dropout prevention program. Journal of Com-

munity Psychology, 19, 221–230.

*Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Fan, X., Chiu, Y.-J., & You, W.

(2007). The contribution of the Responsive Classroom

Approach on children's academic achievement: Results

from a three year longitudinal study. Journal of School

Psychology,45, 401–421.

Ringwalt, C., Vincus, A. A., Hanley, S., Ennett, S. T.,

Bowling, J. M., & Rohrbach, L. A. (2009). The preva-

lence of evidence-based drug use prevention curricula

in U.S. middle schools in 2005. Prevention Science , 10,

33–40.

*Roberts, L., White, G., & Yeomans, P. (2004). Theory

development and evaluation of project WIN: A vio-

lence reduction program for early adolescents. Journal

of Early Adolescence, 24, 460–483.

*Rollin, S. A., Rubin, R., Marcil, R., Ferullo, U., &

Buncher, R. (1995). Project KICK: a school-based drug

education health promotion research project. Counseling

Psychology Quarterly, 8, 345–359.

*Roseberry, L. (1997). An applied experimental evaluation

of conflict resolution curriculum and social skills devel-

opment. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section A.

Humanities and Social Sciences, 58(03), 724.

*Rotheram, M. J. (1982). Social skills training with

underachievers, disruptive, and exceptional children.

Psychology in the Schools, 19, 532–539.

*Rotheram, M. J., & Armstrong, M. (1980). Assertiveness

training with high school students. Adolescence , 15 , 267–

276.

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of

training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of

Psychology,52, 471–499.

*Salzman, M., & D'Andrea, M. (2001). Assessing the

impact of a prejudice prevention project. Journal of

Counseling and Development, 79, 341–346.

*Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1981). Teaching cognitive

and social skills to high school students. Journal of Con-

sulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 908–919.

Social and Emotional Learning 429

*Sawyer, M. G., Macmullin, C., Graetz, B., Said, J. A.,

Clark, J. J., & Baghurst, P. (1997). Social skills training

for primary school children: A 1-year follow-up study.

Journal of Pediatric Child Health, 33, 378–383.

Schaps, E., Battistich, V., & Solomon, D. (2004). Commu-

nity in school as key to student growth: Findings from

the Child Development Project. In J. E. Zins, R. P.

Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Build-

ing academic success on social and emotional learning: What

does the research say? (pp. 189–205). New York: Teachers

College Press.

*Schaps, E., Moskowitz, J. M., Condon, J. W., & Malvin, J.

(1984). A process and outcome evaluation of an affective

teacher training primary prevention program. Journal of

Alcohol and Drug Education, 29(3), 35–64.

*Schulman, J. L., Ford, R. C., & Busk, P. (1973). A class-

room program to improve self-concept. Psychology in the

Schools,10, 481–486.

*Schultz, L. H., Barr, D. J., & Selman, R. L. (2001). The

value of a developmental approach to evaluating char-

acter development programmes: An outcome study of

Facing History and Ourselves. Journal of Moral Educa-

tion,30, 3–27.

*Shapiro, J. P., Burgoon, J. D., Welker, C. J., & Clough, J. B.

(2002). Evaluation of the peacemakers program: School-

based violence prevention for students in grades four

through eight. Psychology in the Schools , 39 , 87–100.

*Sharma, M., Petosa, R., & Heaney, C. A. (1999). Evalua-

tion of a brief intervention based on social cognitive

theory to develop problem-solving skills among sixth-

grade children. Health Education and Behavior , 26 , 465–

477.

*Sharpe, T. L., Brown, M., & Crider, K. (1995). The effects

of a sportsmanship curriculum intervention on general-

ized positive social behavior of urban elementary

school students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 28,

401–416.

*Sharpe, T., Crider, K., Vyhlidal, T., & Brown, M. (1996).

Description and effects of prosocial instruction in an

elementary physical education setting. Education and

Treatment of Children, 19, 435–457.

*Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Holland, D., Whitefield, K.,

Harnett, P. H., & Osgarby, S. M. (2001). The efficacy of a

universal school-based program to prevent adolescent

depression. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology ,30, 303–

315.

*Simons-Morton, B., Haynie, D., Saylor, K., Crump, A. D.,

& Chen, R. (2005). The effects of the Going Places Pro-

gram on early adolescent substance use and antisocial

behavior. Prevention Science ,6, 187–197.

*Skye, D. L. (2001). Arts-based guidance intervention for

enhancement of empathy, locus of control, and prevention of

violence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University

of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou,

K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole-school antibully-

ing programs: A synthesis of evaluation research.

School Psychology Review, 33, 547–560.

*Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.). (1994). School bullying:

Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge.

*Smokowski, P. R., Fraser, M. W., Day, S. H., Galinsky,

M. J., & Bacallao, M. L. (2004). School-based skills train-

ing to prevent aggressive behavior and peer rejection

in childhood: Evaluating the Making Choices program.

Journal of Primary Prevention, 25, 233–251.

*Solomon, D., Battistich, V., & Watson, M. (1993, March).

A longitudinal investigation of the effects of a school inter-

vention program on children's social development. Paper

presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for

Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA.

*Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., &

Lewis, C. (2000). A six-district study of educational

change: Direct and mediated effects of the Child

Development Project. Social Psychology of Education , 4,

3–51.

*Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., Delucchi, K. L., Schaps, E.,

& Battistich, V. (1988). Enhancing children's prosocial

behavior in the classroom. American Educational

Research Journal, 25, 527–555.

*Sorsdahl, S. N., & Sanche, R. P. (1985). The effects

of classroom meetings on self-concept and behavior.

Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 20, 49–56.

*Sprague, J., Walker, H., Golly, A., White, K., Myers, D.,

& Shannon, T. (2001). Translating research into effec-

tive practice: The effects of a universal staff and

student intervention on key indicators of school safety

and discipline. Education and Treatment of Children , 24,

495–511.

*Sprinthall, N. A., & Scott, J. R. (1989). Promoting psycho-

logical development, math achievement, and success

attribution of female students through deliberate psy-

chological education. Journal of Consulting Psychology,

36, 440–446.

*Stacey, S., & Rust, J. O. (1985). Evaluating the effective-

ness of the DUSO-1 (revised) program. Elementary

School Guidance & Counseling, 20, 84–90.

*Stafford, W. B., & Hill, J. D. (1989). Planned program

to foster positive self-concepts in kindergarten chil-

dren. Elementary School Guidance & Counseling ,24,

47–57.

*Stephenson, D. (1979). Evaluation of the Twin Falls Pri-

mary Positive Action Program 1978-1979. Unpublished

report, College of Southern Idaho, Twin Falls, ID.

*Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Oberle, K., &

Wahl, L. (2000). Effects of conflict resolution training

integrated into a kindergarten curriculum. Child Devel-

opment,71, 772–784.

*Stevahn, L., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Real, D.

(1996). The impact of a cooperative or individualistic

context on the effectiveness of conflict resolution

training. American Educational Research Journal ,33, 801–

823.

*Switzer, G. E., Simmons, R. G., Dew, M. A., Regalski, J.

M., & Wang, C. (1995). The effect of a school-based

helper program on adolescent self-image, attitudes,

and behavior. Journal of Early Adolescence , 15 , 429–455.

430 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

*Taub, J. (2001). Evaluation of the Second Step violence

prevention program at a rural elementary school. School

Psychology Review, 31, 186–200.

*Taylor, C. A., Liang, B., Tracy, A. J., Williams, L. M., &

Seigle, P. (2002). Gender differences in middle school

adjustment, physical fighting, and social skills: Evalua-

tion of a social competency program. Journal of Primary

Prevention,23, 259–272.

*Thompson, K. L., Bundy, K. A., & Wolfe, W. R. (1996).

Social skills training for young adolescents: Cognitive

and performance components. Adolescence , 31 , 505–521.

*Thomson-Rountree, P., & Woodruff, A. E. (1982). An

examination of Project AWARE: The effects on chil-

dren's attitudes towards themselves, others, and

school. Journal of School Psychology ,20, 20–30.

Tobler, N. S., Roona, M. R., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D. G.,

Streke, A. V., & Stackpole, K. M. (2000). School-based

adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-anal-

ysis. Journal of Primary Prevention ,30, 275–336.

Tolan, P. H., Guerra, N. G., & Kendall, P. C. (1995). A

developmental-ecological perspective on antisocial

behavior in children and adolescents: Toward a unified

risk and intervention framework. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 63, 579–584.

*Trudeau, L., Spoth, R., Lillehoj, C., Redmond, C., &

Wickrama, K. A. S. (2003). Effects of a preventive inter-

vention on adolescent substance use initiation, expec-

tancies, and refusal intentions. Prevention Science , 4,

109–122.

*Twemlow, S., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F., Gies, M., Evans, R.,

& Ewbank, R. (2001). Creating a peaceful school learn-

ing environment: A controlled study of an elementary

school intervention to reduce violence. American Journal

of Psychiatry, 158, 808–810.

U.S. Public Health Service. (2000). Report of the Surgeon

General's Conference on Children's Mental Health.

Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human

Services.

*Van Schoiack-Edstrom, L., Frey, K. S., & Beland, K.

(2002). Changing adolescents' attitudes about relational

and physical aggression: An early evaluation of a

school-based intervention. School Psychology Review , 31,

201–216.

*Vicary, J. R., Henry, K. L., Bechtel, L. J., Swisher, J. D.,

Smith, E. A., Wylie, R., et al. (2004). Life skills training

effects for high and low risk rural junior high school

females. Journal of Primary Prevention ,25, 399–416.

*Vogrin, D., & Kassinove, H. (1979). Effects of behavior

rehearsal, audio taped observation, and intelligence on

assertiveness and adjustment in third-grade children.

Psychology in the Schools, 16, 422–429.

*Waksman, S. A. (1984). Assertion training with adoles-

cents. Adolescence ,19 , 123–130.

Wandersman, A., & Florin, P. (2003). Community inter-

ventions and effective prevention. American Psycholo-

gist, 58, 441–448.

Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1997).

Learning influences. In H. J. Walberg & G. D. Haertel

(Eds.), Psychology and educational practice (pp. 199–211).

Berkeley, CA: McCatchan.

Waters, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Social competence as a

developmental construct. Developmental Review , 3 , 79–

97.

*Watson, M., Battistich, V., & Solomon, D. (1997). Enhanc-

ing students' social and ethical development in schools:

An intervention program and its effects. International

Journal of Educational Research, 27, 571–586.

*Weissberg, R. P., & Caplan, M. (1994). Promoting social

competence and preventing antisocial behavior in young

urban adolescents. Unpublished manuscript.

Weissberg, R. P., Caplan, M. Z., & Sivo, P. J. (1989). A new

conceptual framework for establishing school-based

social competence promotion programs. In L. A. Bond

& B. E. Compas (Eds.), Primary prevention and promotion

in the schools (pp. 255–296). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

*Weissberg, R. P., Gesten, E. L., Carnrike, C. L., Toro, P.

A., Rapkin, B. D., Davidson, E., et al. (1981). Social

problem-solving skills training: A competence-building

intervention with second- to fourth-grade children.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 411–423.

*Weissberg, R. P., Gesten, E. L., Rapkin, B. D., Cowen, E.

L., Davidson, E., Flores de Apodaca, R., et al. (1981).

Evaluation of a social-problem-solving training

program for suburban and inner-city third-grade chil-

dren. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology ,49,

251–261.

Weissberg, R. P., & Greenberg, M. T. (1998). School and

community competence-enhancement and prevention

programs. In I. E. Siegel & K. A. Renninger (Vol. Eds.),

Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 4. Child psychology in

practice (5th ed., pp. 877–954). New York: Wiley.

Weissberg, R. P., Kumpfer, K., & Seligman, M. E. P.

(Eds.). (2003). Prevention that works for children and

youth: An introduction. American Psychologist , 58 , 425–

432.

Weisz, J. R., Sandler, I. N., Durlak, J. A., & Anton, B. S.

(2005). Promoting and protecting youth mental health

through evidence-based prevention and treatment.

American Psychologist, 60, 628–648.

*Welch, F. C., & Dolly, J. (1980). A systematic evaluation

of Glasser's techniques. Psychology in the Schools , 17,

385–389.

Wilson, D. B., Gottfredson, D. C., & Najaka, S. S. (2001).

School-based prevention of problem behaviors: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 17,

247–272.

Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School-based inter-

ventions for aggressive and disruptive behavior: Update

of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine,33(Suppl. 2S), 130–143.

Wilson, S. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (2003). The

effects of school-based intervention programs on

aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Con-

sulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 136–149.

*Work, W. C., & Olsen, K. H. (1990). Evaluation of a

revised fourth grade social problem solving curriculum:

Social and Emotional Learning 431

Empathy as a moderator of adjustive gain. Journal of Pri-

mary Prevention, 11, 143–157.

Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2002). Can

emotional intelligence be schooled? A critical review

Educational Psychologist, 37, 215–231.

Zins, J. E., & Elias, M. J. (2006). Social and emotional

learning. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children's

needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp.

1–13). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School

Psychologists.

Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H.

J. (Eds.). (2004). Building academic success on social and

emotional learning: What does the research say? New York:

Teachers College Press.

432 Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger

... When the relevant literature is examined, it has been seen that there is a significant decrease in the problems such as behavioral problems and emotional distress of the students who participated in the skills training programs within the framework of the SEL model and that their positive attitudes towards themselves, others and the school have improved (Taylor et al., 2017). In addition, this model has shown positive results in many areas such as improving peer relationships (Sawyer et al., 1997), mental health, adjustment, and communication (Brackett et al., 2012;Ladd et al., 1999; as well as decreasing emotional stress (Durlak et al., 2011), depressive symptoms (Horowitz & Garber, 2006), aggressive and criminal behaviors (Wilson & Lipsey, 2007), substance use and other risky behaviors Hawkins et al., 2008;Taylor et al., 2017). According to the results of a meta-analysis study (Durlak et al., 2011), SEL skills improved individuals' attitudes towards themselves and others, social behaviors in a positive way, increased their academic achievement, reduced behavioral problems and emotional distress levels. ...

... In addition, this model has shown positive results in many areas such as improving peer relationships (Sawyer et al., 1997), mental health, adjustment, and communication (Brackett et al., 2012;Ladd et al., 1999; as well as decreasing emotional stress (Durlak et al., 2011), depressive symptoms (Horowitz & Garber, 2006), aggressive and criminal behaviors (Wilson & Lipsey, 2007), substance use and other risky behaviors Hawkins et al., 2008;Taylor et al., 2017). According to the results of a meta-analysis study (Durlak et al., 2011), SEL skills improved individuals' attitudes towards themselves and others, social behaviors in a positive way, increased their academic achievement, reduced behavioral problems and emotional distress levels. Elias and Zins (2006) stated that SEL skills are helpful in preventing students from certain problematic behaviors such as substance use, violence, bullying, and low academic achievement. ...

... SEL skills include many skills that will have an impact in the personal and social life, such as being aware of one's abilities and weaknesses, recognizing and managing one's emotions, setting goals and achieving them, being conscious of one's own needs and values, solving interpersonal problems in a constructive way, etc. Damon (2004) stated that individuals might encounter many problems such as emotional disorders, economic inadequacies, low motivation and academic success, psychosocial crises and substance use during the growth process. The SEL model has positive results for the development of the individual in many areas such as mental health, adaptation and communication (Brackett et al., 2012;, emotional stress (Durlak et al., 2011) and depressive symptoms (Horowitz & Garber, 2006). In addition, Denham and Brown (2010) stated that SEL skills support a person's well-being. ...

... While principals and school counselors cannot provide primary mental health care for students, it is essential that they foster educational systems that facilitate access to appropriate care providers both within the school environment and outside community. This support can manifest in a variety of ways, such as enhancing the development of students' social and emotional skills (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011); creating systems for school counselors to perform role-appropriate duties that include conferencing with students and listening to their needs (Dahir, Burnham, Stone, & Cobb, 2010); providing wraparound services like professional mental health services (Sanders, 2016); building a transparent and accessible network of school and community interventions and supports (Stephan, Sugai, Lever, & Connors, 2015); and developing and sustaining trauma-informed schools (Overstreet & Chafouleas, 2016). Preservice and current practitioner principals and school counselors must have knowledge of these standards of practice, as well as how to collaborate together effectively to support the implementation of school-based services and community partnerships. ...

... In addition to hiring personnel and providing professional development, principals can support a variety of other initiatives that promote student mental health, which may or may not require the school to dedicate additional financial resources. Durlak et al. (2011) found that students in schools that implemented SEL programs not only demonstrated significantly improved social and emotional skills and academic achievement, but that these programs were effectively conducted by classroom teachers and other school staff and could be incorporated into the routine curriculum. Frabutt and Speech (2012) also found that principals saw a benefit in specific curricula and programs aimed to promote student mental health, and reported that it was important to establish and maintain high-quality, home-school relationships to prevent student mental health concerns. ...

• Rachel Geesa

Studies report that most children with mental health disorders do not receive the adequate amount and type of mental health care and support they should receive to effectively guide growth and development. Often, schools are one of the only places where students and their families can receive mental health care, though unfortunately, many school leaders do not receive sufficient training to support students in their mental health needs. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to present an overview of essential knowledge and skills necessary for principals and school counselors to develop collaborative relationships that better position them to support the mental health of P-12 students. The discussion is framed through the lens of relational leadership theory and highlights how the school counselor and principal roles are effectively operationalized within a collaborative, multitiered system of supports. Finally, how to move forward with collaborative pre- and in-service mental health training for principals and school counselors is discussed.

... Moreover, only one in five children under the age of 12 receives adequate treatment for mental illness [3]. As such, it has been recommended that empirical, evidence-based prevention strategies are developed and implemented in school settings to help foster greater well-being in youth and to render mental health services accessible to a larger number of children [4]. ...

Background: Philosophy for children (P4C) was initially developed in the 1970s and served as an educational program to promote critical thinking, caring, creative reasoning and inquiry in the educational environment. Quasi-experimental research on P4C, a school-based approach that aims to develop children's capacity to think by and for themselves, has suggested it could be an interesting intervention to foster greater basic psychological need satisfaction in children in school settings. Objective: The goal of the present study was to evaluate the impact of P4C on basic psychological need satisfaction and mental health in elementary school students. Method: Students from grades one to three (N = 57) took part in this study and completed pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. A randomized cluster trial with a wait-list control group was implemented to compare the effects of P4C on students' mental health. Results: Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) revealed a significant effect of group condition on levels of autonomy and anxiety, after controlling for baseline levels. Participants in the experimental group showed higher scores in autonomy, when compared to participants in the control group, and participants in the experimental group showed lower anxiety scores, when compared to participants in the control group. Conclusion: Overall, results from this study show that P4C may be a promising intervention to foster greater autonomy in elementary school children, while also improving mental health.

... Similarly, it is important to note that no changes were observed in depressive symptoms. This result supports the idea that socio-emotional learning programs do not tend to modify indicators of psychopathology in young people, or that at best their influence is small: this has also been observed in universal prevention social-emotional learning programs carried out in school environments [58,59], although some specific suicide prevention programs have obtained positive results in reducing depressive symptoms [55]. With regard to the present program, this result may indicate that suicidal ideation and nonsuicidal self-harm are modified even though indicators of depression do not present major changes. ...

The aim of the study was to carry out a pilot implementation and evaluation of the OverCome-AAI program, a pioneering program for the prevention of suicidal behavior through animal-assisted interventions for young people with high risk factors for suicidal behavior. The study sample consisted of 30 adolescents (11 boys and 19 girls) aged between 14 and 17 years (Mean age = 15.50, SD = 1.60) from the Basque Country (Northern Spain). After the intervention, subjects presented reductions in suicidal ideation, suicide plans, and non-suicidal self-harm, as well as a greater predisposition to seek help. A reduction in the intensity of mental pain was also found, although no differences were observed in indicators of hopelessness and depression. The preliminary results obtained in this pilot study suggest that the OverCome-AAI program may be effective in reducing suicidal behavior and non-suicidal self-harm in young people in residential care who present high risk factors for suicide.

... Guerra (2018) proposed to focus on self-regulatory skills, regulation of action, and positive social engagement, complemented by strategies that address the risk of serious youth violence (see Bowers et al., 2015). Social-emotional learning programs have increasingly emphasized the need to integrate ethically relevant dimensions beyond empathy/sympathy, such as prosocial behaviors, into their program models (see Durlak et al., 2011). Character education programs continued to consider the promotion of morally relevant social-emotional skills, such as sympathy, and combined this with an increasingly explicit focus on lived ethics (e.g., through the facilitation of a nurturing and inclusive school climate; see Berkowitz, 2012;Lickona, 2004). ...

This article provides a selective review of research on moral development in adolescence during the past decade. We begin with introducing key concepts and reviewing critical theoretical advances in the field of adolescent moral development. This includes integrative models to the developmental study of morality and dynamic socialization models of moral development. Next, related major empirical findings are presented on moral emotion–behavior links, morality in intergroup contexts, and the socialization of moral development. Next, methodological innovations are presented, including new techniques to assess and analyze moral emotions and moral behaviors. We conclude by pointing to promising future directions for moral development research and practices aimed at promoting ethical growth and civic responsibility in adolescents around the globe.

We use Hamilton's (1999) tripartite conception of the positive youth development (PYD) literature – that is, PYD as a theoretical construct, PYD as a frame for program design, and PYD as an instance of specific youth development programs – as a framework for reviewing scholarship involved in the PYD field across the second decade of the 21st century. Advances were made in all three domains and, as well, new issues emerged; chief among them was a focus on the promotion of social justice. We discuss ways in which social justice issues are being addressed within each of these domains and we present a vision for enhancing the PYD-social justice relation in future scholarship involving theory, research, program design, and community-based PYD programs.

• Robert Crosnoe

What happens during adolescence emerges from early in life and sets the stage for later in life. This linking function of adolescence within the life course is grounded in social, psychological, and biological development and is fundamental to the intergenerational transmission of societal inequalities. This article explores this life course phenomenon by focusing on how the social ups and downs of secondary school shape adolescents' educational trajectories, translating their backgrounds into their futures through the interplay of their personal agency with the constraints imposed by the stratified institutions they navigate. Illustrative examples include gender differences in risky behavior, racialized experiences of school discipline, immigrant youths' family relations, LGBTQ students' school safety, STEM education, adverse childhood experiences, and mindset interventions.

Interest in social emotional learning (SEL) is higher than ever, as parents, educators, and policymakers recognize that children need more than cognitive skills for later life success. However, most SEL research has been conducted in formal education settings. This article describes results from an empirical study of 4–5 years old SEL in two informal learning settings, including children's museums and community playgrounds. Members of the Children's Museum Research Network observed 606 preschool children using the Revised/Shortened Minnesota Preschool Affect Checklist (MPAC-R/S). Findings show that preschool children engaged in SEL in both settings, but that significantly more instances of SEL were seen in children's museums compared with community playgrounds. We argue that children's museums may provide an important, peer-to-peer opportunity for children to develop and practice their SEL, one that is unique from the more common teacher-child interactions provided in schools.

We used meta‐analysis to review 55 evaluations of the effects of mentoring programs on youth. Overall, findings provide evidence of only a modest or small benefit of program participation for the average youth. Program effects are enhanced significantly, however, when greater numbers of both theory‐based and empirically based "best practices" are utilized and when strong relationships are formed between mentors and youth. Youth from backgrounds of environmental risk and disadvantage appear most likely to benefit from participation in mentoring programs. Outcomes for youth at‐risk due to personal vulnerabilities have varied substantially in relation to program characteristics, with a noteworthy potential evident for poorly implemented programs to actually have an adverse effect on such youth. Recommendations include greater adherence to guidelines for the design and implementation of effective mentoring programs as well as more in‐depth assessment of relationship and contextual factors in the evaluation of programs.

• Carroll E. Izard

Scientific advances in the field of emotions suggest a framework for conceptualizing the emotion-related aspects of prevention programs that aim to enhance children's socioemotional competence and prevent the emergence of behavior problems and psychopathology. A conception of emotions as inherently adaptive and motivational and the related empirical evidence from several disciplines and specialities suggest 7 principles for developing preventive interventions: the utilization of positive and negative emotions, emotion modulation as a mediator of emotion utilization, emotion patterns in states and traits, different processes of emotion activation, emotion communication in early life, and the development of connections for the modular and relatively independent emotions and cognitive systems. Each principle's practical implications and application in current prevention programs are discussed.

• Joseph A Durlak

Basic Concepts in Prevention. Prevention of Behavioral and Social Problems. Prevention of Learning Problems. Drug Prevention. Programs to Improve Physical Health. Injury Prevention. Child Maltreatment. Is Prevention Cost-Effective/ Importance of Policy. Current Status and Future Directions. Appendix A: Characteristics of Effective Skill Training Programs. Appendix B: Helpful Resources on Prevention. Indexes.

Posted 3/30/2001. The authors reviewed scores of primary prevention programs to identify preventive interventions that had undergone quasi-experimental or randomized trials and been found to reduce symptoms of psychopathology (aggression, depression, or anxiety) or factors commonly associated with an increased risk for later mental disorders. In this review, the authors identify and describe 34 universal and targeted interventions that have demonstrated positive outcomes under rigorous evaluation. The authors go on to examine common characteristics of successful prevention programs and make recommendations based on these characteristics for policy and practice in school- and community-based prevention of childhood psychopathology.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49807966_The_Impact_of_Enhancing_Students%27_Social_and_Emotional_Learning_A_Meta-Analysis_of_School-Based_Universal_Interventions

Posted by: openerdoor.blogspot.com