Social-Emotional Competence: An Essential Factor for Promoting Positive Adjustment and Reducing Risk in School Children

Abstract

Social-emotional competence is a critical factor to target with universal preventive interventions that are conducted in schools because the construct (a) associates with social, behavioral, and academic outcomes that are important for healthy development; (b) predicts important life outcomes in adulthood; (c) can be improved with feasible and cost-effective interventions; and (d) plays a critical role in the behavior change process. This article reviews this research and what is known about effective intervention approaches. Based on that, an intervention model is proposed for how schools should enhance the social and emotional learning of students in order to promote resilience. Suggestions are also offered for how to support implementation of this intervention model at scale.

Full text

This article is part of a special section entitled Developmental Research and Trans-
lational Science: Evidence-based Interventions for At-risk Youth and Families,
edited by Suniya S. Luthar and Nancy Eisenberg.
Social-Emotional Competence: An Essential Factor for Promoting Positive
Adjustment and Reducing Risk in School Children
Celene E. Domitrovich
Georgetown University and The Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity and Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning (CASEL)
Joseph A. Durlak
Loyola University
Katharine C. Staley
The Pennsylvania State University
Roger P. Weissberg
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning
(CASEL) and University of Illinois at Chicago
Social-emotional competence is a critical factor to target with universal preventive interventions that are con-
ducted in schools because the construct (a) associates with social, behavioral, and academic outcomes that are
important for healthy development; (b) predicts important life outcomes in adulthood; (c) can be improved
with feasible and cost-effective interventions; and (d) plays a critical role in the behavior change process. This
article reviews this research and what is known about effective intervention approaches. Based on that, an
intervention model is proposed for how schools should enhance the social and emotional learning of students
in order to promote resilience. Suggestions are also offered for how to support implementation of this inter-
vention model at scale.
This special issue of Child Development focuses on
research that informs the development of interven-
tions that maximize the well-being of at-risk chil-
dren. Authors identify and justify what they believe
are the most important variables to concentrate on
to reduce risk and increase protection for youth.
We have chosen social-emotional competence, a
multidimensional construct that is critical to success
in school and life for all children, including those at
risk due to economic disadvantage, minority status,
and early emotional or behavioral problems.
Social and emotional learning (SEL) is the pro-
cess through which social-emotional competence
develops. Through SEL, children and youth acquire
and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and
skills necessary to understand and manage emo-
tions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show
empathy for others, establish and maintain positive
relationships, and make responsible decisions
(Weissberg, Durlak, Domitrovich, & Gullotta, 2015).
The knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are needed
to demonstrate social-emotional competence require
integration across affective, cognitive, and behav-
ioral systems (Beauchamp & Anderson, 2010;
Greenberg et al., 2003). It can be helpful to frame
the broad construct of social-emotional competence
into two domains, that of intrapersonal and interper-
sonal competencies; this serves to better organize the
This article is supported by grants from the Einhorn Family
Charitable Trust, 1440 Foundation, and NoVo Foundation
awarded to Roger P. Weissberg. Celene E. Domitrovich is an
author of the PATHS Curriculum and has a royalty agreement
with Channing-Bete, Inc., which is reviewed and managed by
Penn State’s Individual Conflict of Interest Committee.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Celene E. Domitrovich, Center for Child and Human Develop-
ment, Georgetown University, 3303 Whitehaven Street NW, Suite
3300, Washington, DC 20007. Electronic mail may be sent to
cd1029@georgetown.edu.
©2017 The Authors
Child Development ©2017 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2017/xxxx-xxxx
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12739
Child Development, xxxx 2017, Volume 00, Number 0, Pages 1–9

multitude of terms and definitions that align with SEL
(Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning, 2013, 2015; Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012). As
such, intrapersonal skills (e.g., realistic goal setting,
positive mindsets, self-control, emotion regulation,
and coping strategies) are those that are needed for
globally effective functioning as an individual,
whereas interpersonal skills (e.g., listening, communi-
cation, perspective taking, negotiation, and social
problem solving) are those that are needed to interact
successfully with others. In this article, we review the
research and the outcomes illustrating effective SEL
interventions using this organizing lens.
Individuals who thrive developmentally despite
being exposed to high levels of risk are referred to as
manifesting or demonstrating resilience (Luthar, Cic-
chetti, & Becker, 2000). We focus on social-emotional
competence because of the empirical evidence that it
is an individual characteristic that is critical for
healthy development and for counteracting the nega-
tive effects of exposure to risk. The review of the
research evidence justifying our selection is organized
into three levels. The first is longitudinal research
demonstrating that social-emotional competence is a
promotive factor associated with success in key devel-
opmental tasks over time, and that deficits in this area
of functioning are associated with poor outcomes
over time. There is also evidence that social-emotional
competence is a protective factor moderating the rela-
tionship between a number of individual risk factors
and developmentally significant outcomes.
The second level of evidence comes from research
on interventions designed to promote social-emo-
tional competence. These studies document the mal-
leability of the construct, that positive effects from
interventions endure over time, and that these inter-
ventions are feasible and can be very cost-effective.
The third level of evidence comes from studies of
interventions designed to promote student adjust-
ment that show how social-emotional competence
mediates the relationship between identified risk fac-
tors and developmentally significant outcomes. After
summarizing the evidence, our review will describe
common intervention approaches used by programs
that target the development of social-emotional com-
petence and meta-analytic research regarding the rel-
ative effectiveness of different approaches. The article
ends with a description of an intervention strategy
and recommendations for implementing at scale.
We limit our review to universal interventions
delivered in schools because, as prevention scien-
tists, we are dedicated to intervening before the
effects of risk exposure are evident in children’s
functioning. Prevention is grounded in a public
health approach to addressing the needs of vulnera-
ble populations and, by definition, involves the
combination of universal, selected, and indicated
intervention approaches (O’Connell, Boat, & War-
ner, 2009). As the first level of intervention in edu-
cational systems, universal interventions that
promote social-emotional competence can raise the
overall level of adjustment for all schoolchildren
and provide guidance for more intensive services
for those in need of further assistance (Greenberg,
Domitrovich, Weissberg, & Durlak, in press).
Universal interventions are likely to be of much
greater overall public health benefit than interven-
tions that only target those with current problems
(Greenberg et al., in press). This is because epidemi-
ological research on several types of negative out-
comes indicates that the general total population
will eventually develop more instances of various
problems than a subpopulation of that total which
is currently having some difficulties. It is a matter
of population size and the probabilities of later dys-
function. For example, consider the current popula-
tion of 50.1 million schoolchildren in the United
States (Population A) of which approximately 20%
(10 million, Population B) currently manifest some
adjustment problems of at least a fairly serious
degree. Suppose that 30% of Population B continues
to have problems over time, but only 10% of Popu-
lation A develops problems later in life (which are
reasonable projections). Based on these projections,
Population A will eventually contain 2 million more
individuals with later adjustment problems than
Population B (5 vs. 3 million). Even if universal
intervention was successful in preventing later
problems for a modest percentage of youth, it
would still have a major public health impact.
Of course, those who are already manifesting
problems require attention, but our argument to
focus on universal school-based programs is in the
spirit of this special issue, that is, the improvement of
the overall level of health in our society. This is possi-
ble through interventions that enhance social-emo-
tional competence. We show that these interventions
are helpful for groups of schoolchildren who are at
risk due to their geographic or demographic charac-
teristics (i.e., members of a minority group or those
of lower socioeconomic status) or their behavior (i.e.,
temperament or level of disruptive behavior).
Level 1: Longitudinal Research
There is growing interest in the role that social-
emotional competence has on students both while
2 Domitrovich, Durlak, Staley, and Weissberg

they are in school and when they are adults (Far-
rington et al., 2012; Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012).
There is considerable evidence indicating that both
intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies
enhance the ability of youth to behave appropri-
ately, avoid risk behaviors, develop healthy rela-
tionships with adults and peers, and achieve
academic success (Epstein, Griffin, & Botvin, 2000;
Trentacosta & Fine, 2010). This is especially true for
children who are vulnerable due to higher levels of
behavioral dysregulation or exposure to the numer-
ous risk factors associated with poverty (Elias &
Haynes, 2008; Valiente et al., 2011). Longitudinal
studies document that social-emotional deficits are
predictive of problem behaviors including aggres-
sion, delinquency, and substance use (Arsenio,
Adams, & Gold, 2009; Cook, Williams, Guerra,
Kim, & Sadek, 2010; Moffitt et al., 2011; Trentacosta
& Fine, 2010).
Educational, psychological, and econometric
research suggests that social-emotional competence
is fundamental to increasing students’postsec-
ondary performance and completion, to enhancing
workplace success, and for adult life outcomes
including rates of incarceration, marital status, and
levels of depression (Heckman, Stixrud, & Urzua,
2006; Moffitt et al., 2011). In a recent analysis of
outcomes in a longitudinal study of racially diverse,
low-income students living in both rural and urban
communities in four states, teacher ratings of stu-
dents’interpersonal competence made in kinder-
garten were examined in relation to adult outcomes
in multiple domains assessed 13–19 years later
(Jones, Greenberg, & Crowley, 2015). After account-
ing for a number of individual and school-level
covariates, higher levels of competence were inver-
sely related to receiving public assistance, being
involved in criminal activity, and substance use
(Jones et al., 2015). Students rated by teachers as
more competent in kindergarten were more likely
to have stable employment at age 25.
Level 2: School-Based Intervention Research
Space does not allow us to review results for
all interventions. Table 1 summarizes the findings
from five representative meta-analyses of
school-based interventions targeting different com-
binations of social-emotional competencies. There is
some overlap in the studies, but collectively, these
reviews cover over 300 published and unpublished
studies involving over 300,000 students. For the
sake of comparison, the mean effect obtained on
measures of aggression and disruptive behavior is
presented as well as the findings for several poten-
tial moderators of that outcome were examined in
these reviews.
The findings are fairly consistent with respect to
the mean posttest effect size (ranging from .21 to
.26). Of note, the Taylor, Oberle, Durlak, and Weiss-
berg (in press) meta-analysis of 82 SEL studies
found that significant positive effects on disruptive
behaviors were obtained at a mean follow-up per-
iod of 2 years, indicating the durability of effects
over time. Moreover, the strongest predictor of fol-
low-up effects was the mean effect at posttest
reflecting the level of students’social-emotional
competence. In other words, students with higher
levels of social-emotional competence at the end of
intervention fared the best over the longer term.
In addition to the findings for aggressive and
disruptive behaviors noted in Table 1, meta-ana-
lyses of school-based social competence interven-
tions have also reported significant positive effects
at posttest for other outcomes that are important
for healthy development including academic perfor-
mance, positive social behaviors, drug use, and
Table 1
Major Findings From Meta-Analyses of Universal School-Based Programs Using the Promotion of Social-Emotional Competence To Promote Posi-
tive Adjustment and Reduce Risk
Review
Moderating variables Outcome
Gender Ethnicity SES Age Risk Location Problem behavior
Barnes et al. (2014) No .23
Durlak et al. (2011) No No No .22
Garrard and Lipsey (2007) No No Older>No .26
Taylor et al. (in press) No No .14
Wilson and Lipsey (2007) No No Lower>.21
Note. Blank cell means that variable was not analyzed as a potential moderator; No indicates the variable did not emerge as a signifi-
cant moderator. Older> means students aged 14–17 did better than those 5–9or10–13. Lower> means children at low SES level did
better than their middle SES peers. Location in Durlak et al. (2011) referred to urban, suburban, or rural schools.
Process of Social and Emotional Learning 3

emotional distress (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki,
Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; January, Casey, & Paul-
son, 2011; Korpershoek, Harms, de Boer, van Kuijk,
& Doolaard, 2016; Sklad, Diekstra, Ritter, Ben, &
Gravesteijn, 2012).
Of interest is whether interventions are more
effective for some participants than others. Overall,
the data in Table 1 reflect that intervention effects
were comparable for students of different ethnicities
(examined in all five reviews) and for both genders
(assessed in three of the five). In other cases, stu-
dents’socioeconomic status either did not make a
difference (Durlak et al., 2011) or favored those
from a lower as compared to a middle economic
class (Wilson & Lipsey, 2007). Initially, age emerged
as a moderator in four of the five reviews but only
remained significant in one after the relative influ-
ence of other variables was assessed (Garrard &
Lipsey, 2007). School location, in urban, suburban,
or rural settings, was examined in one study but
was not a significant factor (Durlak et al., 2011).
Only one review examined behavioral risk levels
coded as the combination of initial problems and
attendance at an inner city school but did not find
it to be a moderating factor (Garrard & Lipsey,
2007). In general, the results from Table 1 suggest
that school-based social-emotional competence
interventions are suitable and effective for all stu-
dents, and in some cases, these interventions were
more favorable for students from low-income fami-
lies (Durlak et al., 2011).
Level 3: Research Examining Intervention
Mechanisms
One way to confirm the importance of social-emo-
tional competence is to demonstrate that it plays an
important role in the behavior change process. This
can be achieved empirically with mediation analyses
conducted in the context of intervention studies or
with meta-analysis by coding program approaches
or characteristics and testing for differential effects.
Intervention studies that examine mediation are lim-
ited, but one review identified nine studies con-
ducted in school-based elementary settings in which
variables responsible for the positive effects on overt
aggression were identified (Dymnicki, Weissberg, &
Henry, 2011). In seven of these nine studies, social-
emotional competencies were a key change mecha-
nism. These included the acquisition of attitudes
favoring prosocial over aggressive solutions to prob-
lems, and skills related to social problem solving,
conflict resolution, and interpersonal relationships.
A 4-year longitudinal study that took place in
the context of an intervention trial tested the effect
of a combined (i.e., instructional and environmen-
tal) approach to promoting social and emotional
competence and demonstrated with mediation anal-
yses that reductions in violent behavior were a
function of students’improvements in competence
(Ngwe, Liu, Flay, Segawa, & the Aban Aya Co-Inves-
tigators, 2004). The study took place in 12 Chicago
schools with a sample of 571 African American male
students who were randomly assigned either to the
intervention or to receive a curriculum that focused
on health-enhancing behaviors from fifth through
eighth grades. The competence dimensions that
mediated the intervention effects were behavioral
intentions, attitudes toward aggression, and percep-
tions of peer norms for aggression (Ngwe et al.,
2004).
School-Based Intervention Approaches
Interventions vary in their approaches to promoting
students’social and emotional competence, and
while some use an eclectic mix of strategies, most
interventions either foster student social and behav-
ioral adjustment directly by teaching student com-
petencies (i.e., social skills training) or indirectly by
creating a positive learning environment that fosters
the development of social-emotional competence
(Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional
Learning, 2013, 2015). Programs that include expli-
cit instruction typically include a sequence of les-
sons offered to the entire class, and focus on the
development of one or more competencies. Lesson
plans usually consist of explanation of the target
skills, a live or videotaped demonstration of their
execution, opportunities for students to practice the
skills through role playing or other exercises, and
then feedback and support to encourage skill mas-
tery. These lessons either stand alone or are inte-
grated with academic instruction (Collaborative for
Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, 2013,
2015).
Programs that are designed to create a positive
learning environment typically use classroom or
schoolwide strategies to enhance one of several
indicators of school climate such as (a) the quality
of relationships and support among teachers, stu-
dents, and staff; (b) school safety; and (c) norms
related to respect, diversity, or positive civic values
(Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro,
2013). One of the most common environmental
strategies at the classroom level is to train teachers
4 Domitrovich, Durlak, Staley, and Weissberg

in developmentally appropriate instructional tech-
niques (e.g., cooperative learning), classroom man-
agement, and emotionally supportive teaching
practices (Dusenbury, Calin, Domitrovich, & Weiss-
berg, 2015). School-level strategies take several forms
and may include changing school structures to foster
a sense of community (e.g., smaller class sizes, cre-
ation of special advisories, and organizing special
assemblies), establishing policies (e.g., restorative
discipline) that increase the use of effective teaching
practices by adults, or creating natural opportunities
for students to learn and practice specific social-emo-
tional skills (Dusenbury, Newman, et al., 2015).
Several meta-analyses have attempted to evalu-
ate the advantages of different program approaches
by including these features in their coding systems.
Using this method, there appears to be little evi-
dence that one approach is superior to another. In a
meta-analysis by Garrard and Lipsey (2007), conflict
education programs were coded according to the
method by which they helped students learn to
manage interpersonal conflicts. These included
direct instruction, peer mediation, and embedding
concepts and strategies into the academic curricu-
lum. There were no significant differences in effect
sizes by program focus. Similarly, in their meta-
analysis of school-based psychosocial interventions,
Wilson and Lipsey (2007) classified programs
according to whether they used an anger manage-
ment, social problem solving, or social skills train-
ing reflecting a behavioral, cognitive, or
interpersonal approach. Effects were similar across
these different treatment modalities.
Korpershoek et al. (2016) used meta-analysis to
assess the relative influence of major components
present in school-based interventions on different
categories of student outcomes. These authors
examined four components consisting of (a)
attempts to improve teachers’classroom manage-
ment strategies, (b) efforts at improving the quality
of teacher–student relationships, (c) efforts to
change student behaviors through positive or nega-
tive contingencies, and finally, (d) approaches that
explicitly focused on enhancing students’social and
emotional development. Analyses suggested that
the presence of these components was associated
with small but significant and comparable improve-
ment (mean effect using Hedge’sg) in students’
behavior (from .21 to .25) and academic performance
(from .17 to .24). However, a focus on students’social
and emotional development was the only component
associated with a significant improvement (.14) in
students’academic motivation, and their commit-
ment to and engagement with school.
One meta-analysis categorized interventions in
terms of whether or not they followed four general
practices represented by the acronym, SAFE. These
practices included whether or not the intervention
was: (a) Sequenced—a connected and coordinated set of
activities to foster skill development, (b) Active—active
forms of learning to help students master new skills,
(c) Focused—specific sections of the intervention
devoted to developing personal and social skills, and
(d) Explicit—skills targeted in the program were clearly
identified so students knew what was expected
of them (Durlak et al., 2011). Programs containing
all four of these practices were associated with signifi-
cant improvement in students’prosocial behavior
(e.g., cooperation, helping others), whereas programs
lacking all four features were not effective in this
regard (Hedges gvalues of .24 vs. .02, respectively).
In a meta-analysis of 28 studies of school-based
interventions with elementary-aged students
designed to promote social-emotional competence,
studies were coded as to whether programs used
active (e.g., role play) or passive (e.g., lecture) inter-
vention methods and demonstrated that this was
an important distinction that moderated effects
(January et al., 2011). Programs that used passive
approaches had an overall effect of .12, whereas
those that used active approaches had an overall
effect of .37. This finding is consistent with the “ac-
tive”component of the SAFE framework.
A Proposed Strategy to Promote Student Social-
Emotional Competence
Authors in this special issue were asked to propose
an intervention strategy based on the factors and
mechanisms they identify as critical to promoting
wellness for at-risk students. Based on the research
reviewed here and what meta-analyses suggest are
the benefits of interventions that include an explicit
and active (i.e., SAFE) approach to instruction in
social and emotional skills for younger children, we
advocate for the use of these programs in all grades
from preschool through elementary school (Durlak
et al., 2011; January et al., 2011). There are a num-
ber of programs listed on national registries that
are considered “proven”effective with unique pro-
gramming that can be delivered across multiple
years at these developmental levels.
Additional research is needed on the specific
knowledge, skills, and behaviors that should be
absolute priorities for programs to cover in order to
produce a full range of positive outcomes. Compo-
nent analyses of interventions are almost nonexistent
Process of Social and Emotional Learning 5

so for now the most rigorous empirical information
regarding program content is what was coded in
meta-analyses. Until more detailed coding of subdo-
mains of competence (e.g., self-management vs. social
awareness) is conducted, we suggest that schools use
programs that provide coordinated coverage of both
the intrapersonal and interpersonal domains (Collab-
orative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning,
2013, 2015; Greenberg et al., 2003).
There is support from meta-analytic studies to
show that universal interventions focused on pro-
moting social-emotional competence are equally
effective at middle and high school (Durlak et al.,
2011); however, there are also examples of interven-
tions producing unintended negative outcomes (Mul-
tisite Violence Prevention Project, 2009). During
adolescence when students are more susceptible to
the influence of peers, the intervention delivery struc-
ture is extremely important, and small group formats
may make low-risk students vulnerable to deviance
training (Dodge, Lansford, & Dishion, 2006).
Many universal interventions at this develop-
mental level are designed to be “risk reduction”
programs that target specific outcomes like violence
or substance use. In these programs, interpersonal
competence often includes “resistance skills”which
help students avoid peer pressure to engage in
risky behavior and its inclusion is important for
program effectiveness (Tobler et al., 2000). One
study used structural equation modeling to exam-
ine how general aspects of social-emotional compe-
tence (decision making and self-efficacy) and
resistance skills related to substance use for inner-
city adolescents (Epstein et al., 2000). They found
that general competence predicted effective use of
refusal skills suggesting that it may be important to
target a broader array of skills in preventive inter-
ventions that target substance use.
When proposing a school-based intervention
strategy to promote wellness for students in middle
and high school, it is important to consider the lit-
erature on school climate because ratings of this
construct are associated with academic functioning,
mental health, and substance use at these develop-
mental levels (Thapa et al., 2013). Perceptions of
school climate evolve out of repeated social interac-
tions and experiences that take place within relation-
ships, physical spaces, and organizational structures.
When these perceptions are positive, they can serve
as a protective factor moderating how students’defi-
cits in social-emotional competence are associated
with poor outcomes. In one longitudinal study of an
ethnically and socioeconomically diverse group of
middle school students with deficits in intrapersonal
competence (i.e., low self-efficacy and high levels of
self-criticism), students’perceptions of a positive
school climate reduced the negative effects these
characteristics had on their levels of internalizing
and externalizing symptoms (Kuperminc, Lead-
beater, & Blatt, 2001). These findings suggest inter-
ventions that combine skills instruction and
strategies to improve school climate may be more
effective. While there are successful examples of this
at the elementary level, more research is needed to
determine how best to create effective models at the
secondary level (Flay, 2000). Research suggests that
definitions of competence, mechanisms of behavior
change, and the outcomes that are relevant to target
may vary by contexts (e.g., affluent vs. disadvan-
taged communities; Luthar & Barkin, 2012).
Taking Interventions to Scale
There are two important factors that favor the
wider use and implementation of universal social-
emotional competence interventions. First, is that
meta-analyses have indicated that these programs
achieve similar (Barnes, Smith, & Miller, 2014) or
better (Durlak et al., 2011) outcomes when they are
conducted by school faculty and staff compared to
those from outside the school system. This indicates
that such programs can be integrated into routine
educational practice. Second, an economic review of
seven SEL programs that have been replicated in
multiple settings found they produced an average
return of $11 for every dollar expended (Belfield
et al., 2015). This indicates that some school-based
interventions are very cost-effective. Nevertheless,
there are major challenges to overcome in attempts
to take successful programs to scale. We cannot dis-
cuss all the issues, but the single most important
factor in scaling up is clear: High-quality program
implementation is essential for maximizing the
effects of evidence-based interventions (Barnes et al.,
2014; Durlak et al., 2011; Wilson & Lipsey, 2007).
High-quality implementation requires that
schools secure professional development services
from program developers who have expertise in the
chosen program. Indeed, one feature of a high-qual-
ity program is that it offers these services, which
typically involve both preprogram training and
ongoing technical assistance via consultation or
coaching strategies. Therefore, schools must commit
the necessary financial resources and time to
increase the likelihood of effective implementation
that, in turn, will enhance the probability of pro-
gram success. Unfortunately, some schools do not
6 Domitrovich, Durlak, Staley, and Weissberg

have the necessary resources available to conduct,
adopt, and sustain evidence-based programs.
There is a growing field of scientific study
devoted to better understanding the implementa-
tion process in order to support dissemination. Sev-
eral sources discuss the multiple factors that can
serve to either impede or enhance the chances of
achieving high-quality implementation when pro-
grams are conducted in new settings (Domitrovich
et al., 2008; Durlak, 2016; Fixsen, Naoom, Blas
e,
Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). This research is being
incorporated into technical assistance systems that
are used in community settings (Mihalic, Irwin,
Fagan, Ballard, & Elliott, 2004; Wandersman et al.,
2008). There are also organizations working to sup-
port districts that are interested in introducing and
integrating a focus on SEL throughout the educa-
tional system (Collaborative for Academic, Social,
and Emotional Learning, 2016). An independent
evaluation of a large-scale demonstration project
with eight large urban school districts suggests that
this work is feasible, and preliminary results sug-
gest that higher levels of implementation are associ-
ated with improvements in student outcomes
(Kendziora & Osher, 2016).
Conclusions
Given the amount of time that children spend in
schools, this setting is an important location for pre-
vention efforts designed to promote the wellness of
at-risk students. In this article, we argue that uni-
versal interventions that promote students’social
and emotional competence should be implemented
in preK-12 as part of a public health strategy. There
are a number of evidence-based SEL programs that
could be used immediately and are identified in
registries, but additional research is needed to dis-
cern the active ingredients of these interventions so
that they can be streamlined and tailored to the
needs of different schools and communities. Addi-
tional research is also needed to determine how
individual and contextual factors interact in school
settings to facilitate or impede the behavior change
process for different groups of students. Finally, it
is imperative that policymakers support state and
federal policies that promote universal SEL pro-
grams as part of standard educational practice so
that schools have the resources they need to be able
to adopt and sustain these interventions (Dusen-
bury, Newman, et al., 2015; Zaslow, Mackintosh,
Mancoll, & Mandell, 2015). Doing so will be a good
economic investment (Belfield et al., 2015) as well
as a sound investment in the future by producing
young people who are knowledgeable, responsible,
caring, and contributing citizens.
References
Arsenio, W. F., Adams, E., & Gold, J. (2009). Social infor-
mation processing, moral reasoning, and emotion attri-
butions: Relations with adolescents’reactive and
proactive aggression. Child Development,80, 1739–1755.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01365.x
Barnes, T. N., Smith, S. W., & Miller, M. D. (2014).
School-based cognitive-behavioral interventions in the
treatment of aggression in the United States: A meta-
analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior,19, 311–321.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.013
Beauchamp, M. H., & Anderson, V. (2010). SOCIAL: An
integrative framework for the development of social
skills. Psychological Bulletin,136,39–64. doi:10.1037/
a0017768
Belfield, C., Bowden, B., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R.,
& Zander, S. (2015). The economic value of social and emo-
tional learning. New York, NY: Center for Benefit-Cost
Studies in Education
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learn-
ing. (2013). 2013 CASEL guide: Effective social and emo-
tional learning programs: Preschool and elementary school
edition. Chicago, IL: Author.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learn-
ing. (2015). 2015 CASEL guide: Effective social and emo-
tional learning programs: Secondary school edition.
Chicago, IL: Author.
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learn-
ing. (2016). District guide to systemic social and emotional
learning. Chicago, IL: Author.
Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., &
Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimiza-
tion in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic
investigation. School Psychology Quarterly,25,65–83.
doi:10.1037/a0020149
Dodge, K. A., Lansford, J. E., & Dishion, T. J. (2006).
The problem of deviant peer influences in intervention
programs. In K. A. Dodge, T. J. Dishion, & J. E. Lans-
ford (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in programs for
youth: Problems and solutions (pp. 3–13). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Poduska, J. M.,
Hoagwood, K., Buckley, J. A., Olin, S., . . . Ialongo, N.
S. (2008). Maximizing the implementation quality of
evidence-based preventive interventions in schools: A
conceptual framework. Advances in School Based Mental
Health Promotion,1,6–28. doi:10.1080/1754730x.2008.
9715730
Durlak, J. A. (2016). What everyone should know about
program implementation. In J. A. Durlak, C. E.
Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.),
Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and
practice (pp. 395–405). New York, NY: Guilford.
Process of Social and Emotional Learning 7

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor,
R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of
enhancing students’social and emotional learning: A
meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions.
Child Development,82, 405–432. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.
2010.01564.x
Dusenbury, L., Calin, S., Domitrovich, C. E., & Weissberg,
R. P. (2015). What does evidence-based instruction in social
and emotional learning actually look like in practice? Chi-
cago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emo-
tional Learning.
Dusenbury, L. A., Newman, J. Z., Weissberg, R. P.,
Goren, P., Domitrovich, C. E., & Mart, A. K. (2015).
The case for preschool through high school state learn-
ing standards for SEL. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitro-
vich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook
of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp.
532–548). New York, NY: Guilford.
Dymnicki, A. B., Weissberg, R. P., & Henry, D. B. (2011).
Understanding how programs work to prevent overt
aggressive behaviors: A meta-analysis of mediators of
elementary school–based programs. Journal of School
Violence,10, 315–337. doi:10.1080/15388220.2011.602599
Elias, M. J., & Haynes, N. M. (2008). Social competence,
social support, and academic achievement in minority,
low-income, urban elementary school children. School
Psychology Quarterly,23, 474–495. doi:10.1037/1045-
3830.23.4.474
Epstein, J. A., Griffin, K. W., & Botvin, G. J. (2000). Com-
petence skills help deter smoking among inner city
adolescents. Tobacco Control,9,33–39. doi:10.1136/tc.9.
1.33
Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E.,
Nagoaka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., & Nicole, O.
(2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of
non-cognitive factors in shaping school performance: A criti-
cal literature review. University of Chicago Consortium
on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from http://ccsr.
uchicago.edu/publications/teaching-adolescents-become-
learners-role-noncognitive-factors-shaping-school
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blas
e, K. A., Friedman, R. M.,
& Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis
of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida,
Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The
National Implementation Research Network (FMHI
Publication #231).
Flay, B. R. (2000). Approaches to substance use preven-
tion utilizing school curriculum plus social environ-
ment change. Addictive Behaviors,26, 861–885. doi:doi.
org/10.1016/S0306-4603(00), 00130-1
Garrard, W. M., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). Conflict resolu-
tion education and antisocial behavior in U.S. schools:
A meta-analysis. Conflict Resolution Quarterly,25,9–38.
doi:10.1002/crq
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Weissberg, R. P., &
Durlak, J. A. (in press). Social and emotional learning
and education: Adopting a public health approach. The
Future of Children.
Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins,
J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003).
Enhancing school-based prevention and youth develop-
ment through coordinated social, emotional, and aca-
demic learning. American Psychologist,58, 466–474.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466
Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J., & Urzua, S. (2006). The effects
of cognitive and noncognitive abilities on labor market
outcomes and social behavior. Journal of Labor Econom-
ics, 2006, 24, 411–482.
January, A. M., Casey, R. J., & Paulson, D. (2011). A
meta-analysis of classroom-wide interventions to build
social skills: Do they work? School Psychology Review,
40, 242–256.
Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early
social-emotional functioning and public health: The
relationship between kindergarten social competence
and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health,
105, 2283–2290. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302630
Kendziora, K., & Osher, D. (2016). Promoting children’s
and adolescents’social and emotional development:
District adaptations of a theory of action. Journal of
Clinical and Adolescent Psychology,45, 797–811. doi:10.
1080/15374416.2016.1197834
Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., &
Doolaard, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of
classroom management strategies and classroom man-
agement programs on students’academic, behavioral,
emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educa-
tional Research,86, 643–680. doi:10:3102/003465
4315626799
Kuperminc, G. P., Leadbeater, B. J., & Blatt, S. J. (2001).
School social climate and individual differences in vul-
nerability to psychopathology among middle school
students. Journal of School Psychology,39, 141–159.
doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(01)00059-0
Luthar, S. S., & Barkin, S. H. (2012). Are affluent youth
truly “at risk”? Vulnerability and resilience across three
diverse samples. Development and Psychopathology,24,
429–449. doi:10.1017/S0954579412000089
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The con-
struct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines
for future work. Child Development,71, 543–562. doi:10.
1111/1467-8624.00164
Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Fagan, A., Ballard, D., & Elliott, D.
(2004). Successful program implementation: Lessons from
Blueprints. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from www.ojp.
usdo.gov/ojjdp
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N.,
Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., . . . Caspi, A. (2011). A
gradient of childhood self-control predicts health,
wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,108,
2693–2698.
Multisite Violence Prevention Project. (2009). The ecologi-
cal effects of universal and selective violence prevention
programs for middle school students: A randomized
8 Domitrovich, Durlak, Staley, and Weissberg

trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,77,
526–542. doi:10.1037/a0014395
Ngwe, J. E., Liu, L. C., Flay, B. R., & Segawa, E.; the
Aban Aya Co-Investigators. (2004). Violence prevention
among African American adolescent males. American
Journal of Health Behavior,28(Suppl. 1), s24–s37.
O’Connell, M. E., Boat, T., & Warner, K. E. (Eds.). (2009).
Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders
among young people: Progress and possibilities. National
Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Washing-
ton, DC: National Academies Press.
Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for life and
work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st
century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Sklad, M., Diekstra, R., Ritter, M. D., Ben, J., & Gra-
vesteijn, C. (2012). Effectiveness of school based univer-
sal social, emotional, and behavioral programs: Do they
enhance students’development in the area of skill,
behavior, and adjustment? Psychology in the Schools,49,
892–909. doi:10.1002/pits.21641
Taylor, R., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (in
press). Promoting positive youth development through
school-based social and emotional learning interventions:
A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development.
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro,
A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review
of Educational Research,83, 357–385. doi:10.3102/
0034654313483907
Tobler, N. S., Roona, M. R., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D.
G., Streke, A. V., & Stackpole, A. M. (2000). School-
based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998
meta-analysis. The Journal of Primary Prevention,20,
275–336. doi:10.1023/A:1021314704811
Trentacosta, C. J., & Fine, S. E. (2010). Emotion knowl-
edge, social competence, and behavior problems in
childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review.
Social Development,19,1–29. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.
2009.00543.x
Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Haugen, R., Spinrad, T. L.,
Hofer, C., Liew, J., & Kupfer, A. (2011). Children’s
effortful control and academic achievement: Mediation
through social functioning. Early Education and Develop-
ment,22, 411–433. doi:10.1080/10409289.2010.505259
Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R.,
Lubell, K., Stillman, L., . . . Saul, J. (2008). Bridging the
gap between prevention research and practice: The
interactive systems framework for dissemination and
implementation. American Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy,41, 171–181. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z
Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gul-
lotta, T. P. (2015). Social and emotional learning: Past,
present, and future. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich,
R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of
social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 3–
19). New York, NY: Guilford.
Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School-based inter-
ventions for aggressive and disruptive behavior:
Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preven-
tive Medicine,33, S130–S143. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.
04.011
Zaslow, M., Mackintosh, B., Mancoll, S., & Mandell, S.
(2015). Federal policy initiatives and children’s SEL. In
J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T.
P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learn-
ing: Research and practice (pp. 549–565). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Process of Social and Emotional Learning 9