SO CIA L AND EMOTIONA L L EARNING PRO GRA M S FOR SCHOO LS
A G u i d e to P ro g ra m S e l e cti o n
1st Edition
John C. LeBlanc, MD, MSc, Karisa Parkington, MSc, Nirupa Varasarathan,
Adam Donato, BSc, &Tanya Bilsbury, MSc
Copyright (©) 2013 (First edition) by John LeBlanc, Karisa Parkington, Nirupa Varasarathan, Adam Donato, and Tanya Bilsbury
Social and Emotional Learning Programs for Schools: A Guide to Program Selection. – 1st ed.
ISBN (Print): 978-0-9940205-2-9
Printed in Canada by Dalhousie University Press
ISBN (PDF): 978-0-9940205-3-6
Last updated 21 May 2013
Published by CPSC Atlantic
c/o Dr. John LeBlanc
L5117, IWK Health Centre
5980 University Avenue
Halifax, NS, B3K 6R8 Canada
John.LeBlanc@dal.ca
www.cpscatlantic.org
All rights reserved. This manuscript or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the
express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review.
About the Authors
John LeBlanc, MD, MSc, is associate professor of Pediatrics, Psychiatry, and Community Health & Epidemiology at
Dalhousie University and a staff pediatrician at the IWK Health Centre. He is the director of CPSC Atlantic.
Karisa Parkington is a research assistant at CPSC Atlantic and a BSc candidate with the Department of Psychology and
Neuroscience at Dalhousie University.
Nirupa Varasarathan, BSc, is a research assistant at CPSC Atlantic and an MSc candidate with Department of
Community Health & Epidemiology at Dalhousie University.
Adam Donato, BSc, is a research assistant at CPSC Atlantic and a BSc candidate with the Department of Psychology at
Saint Mary’s University
Tanya Bilsbury, BSc, is a research assistant at CPSC Atlantic and an MSc candidate with Department of Community
Health and Epidemiology at Dalhousie University.
Acknowledgements
The Canadian Prevention Science Cluster (CPSC) Atlantic included representatives from the Nova Scotia Department of
Education and Early Childhood Education, the Department of Health and Wellness, and Dalhousie University. The CPSC
and this research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
We thank all principals and school officials from across Nova Scotia who participated in an environmental scan that
provided us with a sample of school-based programs implemented across the province. We thank the regional directors of
the CPSC for their input throughout the development process: David Wolfe, Ontario; Shelley Hymel, British Columbia; and
Marie Battiste, Saskatchewan. Thanks are also extended to Kathryn Yuill, MA and Becky Clements, BSc Candidate, for
their contributions to the preliminary work and development of this toolkit.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Social and Emotional Learning and Program Evaluation: An Introduction ............................................................................ 2
What is Social and Emotional Learning? ........................................................................................................................... 2
Evaluation of Social and Emotional Learning .................................................................................................................... 2
Selection of Programs ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Evaluating the Strength of Evidence – The GRADE Approach .......................................................................................... 4
Information Provided for Evidence-Based Program Recommendations ............................................................................ 6
Where to Find the Articles Reviewed and Additional Information ...................................................................................... 6
Evidence-Based Social and Emotional Learning Programs for Schools ............................................................................... 7
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS).......................................................................................................... 8
Second Step .................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Caring School Community (CSC) .................................................................................................................................... 12
Roots of Empathy ............................................................................................................................................................ 14
The Fourth R ................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Non-Evidence-Based Social and Emotional Learning Programs for Schools...................................................................... 18
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) ..................................................................................................................... 19
Lion’s Quest: Skills for Adolescence ................................................................................................................................ 20
Options to Anger .............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Room 14: A Social Language Program ........................................................................................................................... 22
Stop Now And Plan (SNAP) ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Tribes............................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Noteworthy Programs.......................................................................................................................................................... 25
The Good Behavior Game ............................................................................................................................................... 26
The Virtues Project .......................................................................................................................................................... 27
Programs to Consider for Future Review ............................................................................................................................ 28
References by SEL Program ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Resource Information .......................................................................................................................................................... 36
Executive Summary
This toolkit was created by the Canadian Prevention Science Cluster – Atlantic (www.cpscatlantic.org), an organization
funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Our mission is to promote programs that
help students develop healthy relationships and reduce various types of violence including bullying and cyberbullying.
The toolkit is designed to help those who work with youth (especially staff from schools and school boards) choose
effective and evidence-based programs that promote social and emotional skills.
Importance of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)
SEL skills are: self-management, responsible decision-making, self-awareness, social-awareness and relationship
skills
Schools where SEL programs are implemented have healthier environments and better academic outcomes
(www.casel.org)
SEL is a key feature of effective anti-bullying programs
Principal findings
Programs for review were chosen based on a survey conducted in 135 schools in Nova Scotia, Canada in 2011 &
2012. This list of programs is not meant to be exclusive.
Evidence-based programs: PATHS, Second Step, Caring School Community, Roots of Empathy, The Fourth R. At
present, PATHS and Second Step have the strongest evidence of effectiveness.
Programs without evidence of effectiveness in the school setting: DARE, Lion’s Quest, Options to Anger, Room 14,
SNAP (strong evidence in community settings), Tribes
Recommendations
Departments of Education and school boards should consider officially endorsing a small number of evidencebased programs. This would allow schools flexibility in choice while providing some opportunity for consistency and
effectiveness across jurisdictions.
Evaluation, whether basic or in depth, should be a formal part of implementation. This will promote consistency in
program training and delivery and will help assess whether programs have the same effect in different settings.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
1
Social and Emotional Learning and Program Evaluation: An Introduction
What is Social and Emotional Learning?
The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) organization defines social and
emotional learning (SEL) as: “a process for helping children and even adults develop the fundamental skills for life
effectiveness. SEL teaches the skills we need to handle ourselves, our relationships, and our work, effectively and
ethically.” - CASEL, 2011.
SEL Skills:
1) Self-management, 2) Responsible decision-making, 3) Self-awareness,
4) Social-awareness and 5) Relationship skills.
SEL is increasingly discussed in education policies for children and youth and there are now many programs that
promote themselves as teaching SEL skills. Many programs are marketed as ‘evidence-based’, although the quantity and
quality of the evidence is not always clear from program websites or materials. This makes it difficult for school
administrators and school-board staff to choose programs that are effective and feasible.
Evaluation of Social and Emotional Learning
Several organizations have evaluated available SEL programs, and have created different recommendations
depending on their standards (e.g., What Works Clearing House, CASEL). They have been comprehensive – a plus in
that numerous programs have been evaluated – but have created a dilemma for the busy administrator who must sift
through many programs to find a suitable one. They also have not been explicit in their criteria for assessing the quality of
the evidence that shows whether programs work, making it difficult to assess whether one is likely to see a real change if
implemented in one’s school.
We have taken a more focused approach and have deliberately restricted our toolkit to SEL programs that are used
in Nova Scotia schools, as well as additional programs we believe should be considered because of the evidence showing
that they work. We have explicitly and thoroughly evaluated the evidence for each program in this document. This toolkit
summarizes evidence-based and non-evidence-based school programs, along with implementation recommendations to
assist decision-makers in choosing programs that promote SEL for their schools.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
2
For the purposes of this toolkit, the authors define ‘evidence-based programs’ as programs that were scientifically
evaluated using a study method that includes a comparison or control group, with the evaluation findings published in a
peer-reviewed scientific journal and reporting at least one SEL outcome. ‘Non-evidence-based’ programs include
programs that, although based on SEL and psychological learning theories, have not had SEL outcomes formally
evaluated with the findings published in recognized scientific journals, or are currently in the preliminary stages of
evaluation. These programs are promising but have not yet been shown to work.
Selection of Programs
The programs included in this toolkit came from two sources. The most important was a preliminary list of programs
reported by 135 school officials from six of nine regional school boards across Nova Scotia as part of a larger survey
conducted from 2010 to 2012. Principals identified over 300 initiatives designed to improve SEL outcomes. We defined
28 programs as having a structured curriculum delivered over more than one session.
For this toolkit we selected and extensively reviewed 11 programs based on the following criteria: 1) the program
was identified by more than one survey respondent or was identified by the authors as being of potential relevance to
Nova Scotia schools, 2) the program must have the capacity to be implemented at the classroom or school level (e.g., we
excluded programs delivered solely in a community setting), and 3) the program must focus (or claim to focus) on at least
some of the SEL characteristics listed above. Two noteworthy programs were also included because they show potential
for indirect effects on the main components of SEL listed above. Although survey respondents identified Positive Effective
Behaviour Support (PEBS) as an SEL program, it was not included in this toolkit. PEBS is a school-wide system of
support that can incorporate SEL programs such as those reviewed in this toolkit.
For each program, the toolkit provides the following: a general overview, the specific outcomes evaluated, the
strongest available evidence we were able to find (if any), required resources (i.e. money, curriculum materials, classroom
and teacher time), as well as the targeted grade ranges and populations (i.e. universal programs vs. targeted programs).
Universal programs are delivered to all children in a setting, whereas targeted programs are delivered only to children or
adolescents who have been identified as having behavioural problems. Each evidence-based program also has a
summary chart that shows how we arrived at our overall recommendation. For programs without evidence, we make
suggestions to aid decision-makers in making informed decisions.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
3
Evaluating the Strength of Evidence – The GRADE Approach
Our recommendations were developed using a structured analysis of published evidence. After assessing a
number of published tools and approaches to evaluating scientific evidence, we chose the Grading of Recommendations,
Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach developed by international guideline developers (e.g.,
McMaster University, the World Health Organization, USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The advantage
of the GRADE approach is that it is commonly used, internationally endorsed, and outcome-based. The standard GRADE
approach implements a systematic review of all articles available for the program or intervention of interest, followed by a
qualitative and quantitative analysis of its main outcomes. GRADE was initially designed to help decision-makers choose
specific interventions or treatments in a health care setting, and relies heavily on study quality to arrive at
recommendations. It gives greater weight to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) than to observational studies, and almost
no weight to expert opinion or anecdotal evidence.
Because of the nature of the evidence available for SEL outcomes, the authors made two changes to the GRADE
approach. First, we emphasized a type of study design commonly used in program evaluations but only briefly mentioned
in the GRADE literature: quasi-experimental designs. A quasi-experimental study is one in which researchers have partial
control over the allocation of students or schools to intervention or control groups (to ensure maximum comparability
between groups) in cases where randomization is impossible. Second, due to the limited number of studies for each
program, we were not able to quantify the impact of programs on SEL outcomes (e.g., effect sizes). Therefore, all
conclusions are solely descriptive in nature.
The modified GRADE approach was implemented as follows: 1) peer-reviewed journals were searched for any
papers reporting evaluations of the program of interest and the highest quality studies (e.g., RCTs, quasi-experimental
designs or longitudinal observational studies) were selected, 2) a list of main outcomes (i.e., SEL characteristics
postulated to improve due to program implementation) was created for each program, 3) two reviewers independently
evaluated each paper and abstracted information on the main outcomes, study design and execution, 4) the quality of
evidence for each of the main outcomes was assessed, considering factors that could improve or degrade the evidence
(e.g., risk of bias, blinding of participants or observers (i.e., participants and/or observers were not aware of group
assignment), attrition rates, large or small effect sizes, etc.), and 5) a program recommendation was established based on
the following scale used in the GRADE system:
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
4
Strong recommendation for
the program
Provisional recommendation
against the program
Provisional recommendation
for the program
Strong recommendation
against the program
Following independent evaluation of each program, the reviewers outlined discrepancies and agreed upon one of
the four GRADE recommendations described above.
A strong recommendation in favour of the program implies that the reviewers feel confident that the benefits of a
program outweigh the risks. A provisional recommendation implies that the benefits probably outweigh the risks, but the
quantity or quality of evidence is insufficient to make a firm conclusion at this time. Note that a provisional
recommendation for a program does not necessarily indicate that the program is less effective than one with a strong
recommendation. The typical reasons for a provisional recommendation are that the program lacks evidence for the
outcomes of interest (e.g., focusing on bullying rather than SEL outcomes), the program has not been tested in a carefully
controlled experiment where alternative explanations for program effectiveness can be ruled out, or there is little research
available evaluating the effectiveness of the program and further investigation is required before making a stronger
recommendation. The implication for those choosing a program with a provisional recommendation is to consider carefully
why the program will be effective in their setting (e.g., a school or school board) and to take special care to evaluate the
program because its effectiveness is not assured given the available evidence.
Note that according to the GRADE approach, the quality of evidence is assessed for each outcome (e.g., social
competence, relationship skills, responsible decision-making), not for the program as a whole or even each study in
isolation. In accordance with the GRADE approach, ‘low quality evidence’ implies that few studies evaluated the
outcome(s) of interest, and/or there were many important limitations to the evaluation of the outcome(s). ‘Moderate
quality evidence’ implies that some evidence was available for the outcome(s), with limitations in study design (e.g., high
attrition rates, study samples that aren’t representative of the schools from which they come) that might affect the
conclusions. ‘High quality evidence’ implies that several studies evaluated the outcomes of interest, with positive (or
negative) outcomes that are unlikely to be changed even if there are some limitations in how some studies were designed
or implemented.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
5
Information Provided for Evidence-Based Program Recommendations
The main factors influencing the evidence-based program recommendation are detailed in a recommendation chart
following the program’s summary chart. These charts detail three specific areas that were influential in the program
recommendation process: ‘High or moderate quality evidence’, ‘Certainty about the balance of benefits versus downsides’
and ‘Resource implications’. ‘High or moderate quality evidence’ describes the basic findings from the articles reviewed
and details the effects of the outcomes according to these studies. Small effect sizes indicate small and perhaps
unimportant differences in SEL outcomes between schools that received and did not receive an SEL program whereas
large effect sizes indicate large differences between the two groups of schools. ‘Certainty about the balance of benefits
versus downsides’ includes information regarding how beneficial the program may be in improving aspects of SEL, as well
as whether discrepancies between studies were found for the program outcomes. Finally, ‘Resource implications’
explains factors relating to time and economic costs in relation to the reported program effects.
Where to Find the Articles Reviewed and Additional Information
All of the articles reviewed using the GRADE approach can be found in the ‘References by SEL Program’ section
at the end of this toolkit. Additional articles are available for Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE), Lion’s Quest:
Skills for Adolescence, Stop Now And Plan (SNAP) and the Good Behavior Game. The DARE and Lion’s Quest: Skills for
Adolescence programs are classified as non-evidence-based programs because no research is currently available
evaluating SEL outcomes for these programs. However, research evaluating the effectiveness of DARE and Lion’s
Quest: Skills for Adolescence as substance use prevention programs has been included as supplementary articles. The
SNAP program is classified as a non-evidence-based program because it has only been formally evaluated in a
community setting, although research in the school setting is forthcoming. The Good Behavior Game (a well-established
program that decreases disruptive classroom behaviour) is included as a noteworthy program because it is a potentially
useful program that does not specifically target SEL outcomes, but could be combined with other programs that do, and
has extensive evaluation research available.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
6
Evidence-Based Social and Emotional Learning
Programs for Schools
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
7
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)
http://www.channing-bete.com/prevention-programs/paths/paths.html
Grade Range
&
Recommendation for SEL
General Description & Outcomes
Program Resources
Target
Outcomes
Population
Duration of Program:
40 – 52 lessons
General Description:
(dependent upon grade
Focused on improving interpersonal
Evidence:
level)
behaviours and reducing disruptive
High quality evidence for
Approximately 20 – 40
behaviours
endorsing SEL behaviours
minutes per lesson
Lessons on emotion awareness,
and reducing disruptive or
Grades K – 6
conflict resolution and self-control
aggressive behaviours
Financial Resources:
Outcomes:
Increases in problem solving skills,
emotional awareness and social
competence
Reductions in aggressive / disruptive
behaviours and interpersonal
disputes
Universal
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
$399 - $700 for
curriculum (dependent
upon grade level)
Strong recommendation
towards the program for
SEL outcomes
Instructor:
Teacher-led using
available manuals and
materials
8
Recommendation for PATHS:
Factors:
Decision:
High or moderate
quality evidence
Certainty about the
balance of benefits
versus downsides
Resource implications
Overall Strength:
Explanation:
EVIDENCE:
Moderate to high quality evidence (see References 1 – 4).
Two RCTs and one quasi-experimental study based in the USA. One
observational study conducted in the UK.
Studies evaluated children from preschool to grade 3 from predominantly low
income families.
All of the SEL outcomes listed above were evaluated across the four studies.
Yes
No
COMMENTS:
Shown to be effective in both general and special education classrooms.
Large program benefits were shown for most of the outcomes evaluated.
No studies conducted a follow-up evaluation beyond 6 months after the end of
the program.
Teachers were not blinded to PATHS implementation. This may have
influenced teacher-rated outcomes.
There is reasonable certainty that PATHS provides benefits and improvements in
Yes
SEL in children from low or middle income families.
No
There were no reported downsides to the implementation of the PATHS program.
PATHS requires structured lessons and material costs are moderately high.
However, evaluations have shown large improvements in SEL behaviours, and
Yes
many of the materials can be re-used annually.
No
The program is teacher-led and does not require outside personnel except
possibly for training and skills maintenance.
STRONG recommendation TOWARDS using the PATHS program as a school-based SEL
program.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
9
Second Step
http://www.cfchildren.org/second-step/early-learning.aspx
Grade Range
&
General Description & Outcomes
Program Resources
Target
Population
Duration of Program:
13 – 25 lessons
General Description:
(dependent upon grade
level)
Focused on promoting executive
functioning and self-regulation skills
Approximately 30 – 60
minutes per lesson
Lessons on empathy,
communication, emotion
Financial Resources:
management and problem solving
$279 - $339 each
Middle school programs also include
Grades K - 8
(dependent upon grade
lessons on bullying and substancelevel)
abuse prevention
Universal
$1649 for K – 5
Outcomes:
package
Increases in empathy, social
$919 for Gr 7 – 9
competence, anger-management
package
skills and impulse control
Instructor:
Reductions in aggressive or antisocial behaviours
Teacher-led using
available materials and
manuals
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
Recommendation for SEL
Outcomes
Evidence:
Moderate quality evidence
for improving SEL
behaviours and reducing
aggressive or anti-social
behaviours.
Strong recommendation
towards the program for
SEL outcomes
10
Recommendation for Second Step:
Factors:
Decision: Explanation:
EVIDENCE:
Low to moderate quality evidence (see References 5 – 9).
One RCT, three quasi-experimental designs and one observational study
conducted in the USA and Canada.
Studies evaluated students in Grades 2 – 8, predominantly from low income
families.
High or moderate
All of the SEL outcomes mentioned above were evaluated across the five
Yes
quality evidence
studies.
No
COMMENTS:
Many of the studies did not control for differences in school implementation
rates and one of the studies did not have a control group (Reference 5).
Teachers were not blinded to Second Step implementation. This may have
influenced teacher-rated outcomes.
Only one study was well designed with sufficient follow-up data of 6 months
(Reference 7). This study showed minimal effect sizes.
Regardless of study quality, all studies agreed that Second Step had a positive
Certainty about the
Yes
balance of benefits
influence on students’ behaviour
No
versus downsides
There were no reported downsides to Second Step program implementation.
Second Step requires dedicated in-class lessons and specific materials;
however, many of the materials can be re-used annually.
Yes
Resource implications
No
The program is teacher-led and does not require outside personnel except
possibly for training and skills maintenance.
Overall Strength:
STRONG recommendation TOWARDS using Second Step as a school-based SEL program.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
11
Caring School Community (CSC)
http://www.devstu.org/caring-school-community
Grade Range
&
General Description & Outcomes
Program RESOURCES
Target
Population
General Description:
Focused on endorsing a sense of
community in the school environment
Based on a universal school
implementation with class meetings
and cross-age buddy programs, as
well as school-wide and home-based
activities
Duration of Program:
One school year
The program can be
flexibly integrated into
the class curriculum
Grades K – 6
Universal
Outcomes:
Increases in a sense of school
community, prosocial skills and
academic motivation / achievement
Reductions in drug use, violence and
delinquency
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
Financial Resources:
$250 per grade
$1605 for Grades K – 6
package
Instructor:
Teacher-led based on
manuals and materials
available
Recommendation for SEL
Outcomes
Evidence:
Low quality evidence
suggesting small positive
effects on SEL behaviours
Provisional
recommendation towards
the program for SEL
outcomes
12
Recommendation for Caring School Community:
Factors:
Decision: Explanation:
EVIDENCE:
Low quality evidence (see References 10 – 13).
Two RCTs, one follow-up to an RCT, and one quasi-experimental study, all
conducted in the USA.
Studies evaluated students in Kindergarten – Grade 6, and one study
High or moderate
Yes
followed up on students during middle school (Reference 11).
quality evidence
No
All SEL outcomes mentioned above were evaluated across the four
studies.
COMMENTS:
All studies demonstrated small effect sizes in favour of the program.
Teachers were not blinded to Caring School Community implementation.
This may have influenced some teacher-rated outcomes.
All studies showed similar certainty in the effects of program implementation,
although all reported benefits were minimal.
Certainty about the
Yes
No reported downsides to implementation of the Caring School Community
balance of benefits
No
program.
versus downsides
Program effectiveness was influenced by differing rates of implementation
across schools included in the program evaluations (e.g., Reference 12).
Cost of program implementation is moderate compared to other SEL
programs.
Program can be incorporated into daily lessons or taught independently.
Resource implications
Yes
No
Most materials can be re-used annually with minimal teacher training costs.
The program is teacher-led and does not require outside personnel except
possibly for training and skills maintenance.
PROVISIONAL recommendation TOWARDS using the Caring School Community program as
Overall Strength:
a school-based SEL program.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
13
Roots of Empathy
General Description & Outcomes
General Description:
Focused on promoting social
competence and increasing empathy
Based on an experiential learning
approach by having students observe
the relationship between a
neighbourhood parent and infant who
come into the classroom
Program implemented on a classroom
by classroom basis
http://www.rootsofempathy.org
Grade Range
&
Program Resources
Target
Population
Duration of Program:
27 weekly lessons
implemented across the
school year
Grades K - 8
Financial Resources:
For financial details,
please contact the
program administrators
Universal
Outcomes:
Increases in prosocial behaviours
Reductions in aggressive or anti-social
behaviours
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
Instructor:
Teacher-led based on
available materials and
manuals
Additional visits from a
neighbourhood infant
and parent
Recommendation for SEL
Outcomes
Evidence:
Moderate quality evidence
demonstrating
improvements in prosocial
behaviours and decreases in
aggressive or anti-social
behaviours
Provisional
recommendation towards
the program for SEL
outcomes
14
Recommendation for Roots of Empathy:
Factors:
Decision: Explanation:
EVIDENCE:
Low to moderate quality evidence (see References 14 – 15).
One RCT and one quasi-experimental study, conducted in Canada.
Studies evaluated students in Kindergarten and Grades 4 – 8.
All SEL outcomes mentioned above were evaluated in both studies.
High or moderate
COMMENTS:
Yes
quality evidence
Only 2 studies were available for review.
No
One of the studies (Reference 14) included a follow-up evaluation 3 years
post-intervention.
Children in the intervention group were more likely to rate their peers as
more prosocial than children from control schools.
Teachers were not blinded to Roots of Empathy implementation. This may
have influenced some of the teacher-rated outcomes.
Both studies showed benefits for the Roots of Empathy program.
Effect sizes of student and teacher-rated outcomes ranged from insignificant to
Certainty about the
Yes
large. Most peer-rated prosocial behaviour outcomes were in the moderate to
balance of benefits
No
large range.
versus downsides
No reported downsides to the implementation of the Roots of Empathy
program.
Resource implications
Overall Strength:
Yes
No
Resource information is not readily available on the program website.
PROVISIONAL recommendation TOWARDS Roots of Empathy as a school-based SEL
program.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
15
The Fourth R
General Description & Outcomes
General Description:
Focused on improving relationship
skills to prevent peer and dating
violence and substance abuse
Lessons on assertiveness,
communication and problem-solving
Promotion of healthy sexuality
http://www.youthrelationships.org/
Grade Range
&
Program Resources
Target
Population
Duration of Program:
21-30 lessons of 45- 75
minutes (dependent
upon grade level)
Grades 7 - 12
Universal
Outcomes:
Increases in negotiation skills and
delayed responding to pressure
Reductions in peer and dating
violence
Financial Resources:
$65 – $200 for lesson
unit packages
$200 - $695 for
curriculum and
comprehensive
packages
All prices are
dependent upon grade
level and course
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
Recommendation for SEL
Outcomes
Evidence:
Moderate quality evidence
that The Fourth R increases
positive relationship skills
and decreases peer and
dating violence.
Provisional
recommendation towards
the program for SEL
outcomes
Instructor:
Teacher-led using
available materials and
manuals
16
Recommendation for the Fourth R:
Factors
High or moderate quality
evidence
Certainty about the balance
of benefits versus
downsides
Decision
Yes
No
Yes
No
Explanation
EVIDENCE:
Low to moderate quality evidence (see References 16 - 17).
One RCT and one observational study, both based in Canada.
Study evaluated students in Grade 9.
Intervention students were more likely to show delay responses and
negotiation skills, and were more likely to show lower rates of dating
violence.
COMMENTS:
The same overall sample was used for both studies.
Some results (e.g., reductions in dating violence) were found mainly
for males with smaller effects for females.
No reported downsides to the implementation of the Fourth R program.
Resource implications
Overall Strength:
Program costs of training and materials are variable depending on the
grade and lesson.
Yes
The program can be interwoven into daily lessons, and has demonstrated
No
some positive benefits to implementation.
PROVISIONAL recommendation TOWARDS using The Fourth R as a school-based SEL
program.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
17
Non-Evidence-Based Social and Emotional
Learning Programs for Schools
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
18
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)
General Description, Outcomes &
Evidence
General Description:
Focused on drug and violence
prevention and creating interpersonal
relationships with peers and police
officers
Outcomes:
Increases in drug knowledge, selfesteem and interpersonal
relationships
Reductions in alcohol use, cigarette
use and/or marijuana use, and
violence
Evidence;
Moderate to high quality evidence
that there are no short- or long-term
effects on substance use prevention
(see References 18 - 22)
No empirical evidence is currently
available for SEL outcomes
http://www.dare.com/home/default.asp
Grade Range
& Target
Program Resources
Population
Additional Comments
Duration of Program:
10 weekly lessons
Approximately 45 – 60
minutes per lesson
Grades 5 - 8
Universal
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
Financial Resources:
Approximately $173 $268 per student
(American prices).
Accurate Canadian
figures were not
available.
The DARE program was
revised after the cited
studies were done. No new
studies are available to
assess the impact of these
revisions.
Instructor:
Police officers
19
Lion’s Quest: Skills for Adolescence
General Description, Outcomes &
Evidence
General Description:
Focused on promoting a supportive
relationship between parents, school
and community
Lessons on bullying, self-confidence,
communication, emotion
management, interpersonal
relationships, healthy living and
substance-abuse prevention
Outcomes:
Increases in personal and social
responsibility skills, service to others,
problem solving skills, healthy living
skills
Reductions in substance use
Evidence:
Low quality evidence for decreases
in marijuana consumption (see
References 23 - 24)
No empirical evidence is currently
available for SEL outcomes
http://www.lionsquest.ca
Grade Range
& Target
Program Resources
Population
Additional Comments
Duration of Program:
80 lessons available
22 additional sessions
available for multi-year
implementation
Grades 6 - 8
Universal
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
Financial Resources:
$6300 - $6500 for a 20teacher training seminar
$145.99 for the
Teacher’s Curriculum
$7.90 per student for
Student & Parent
Workbooks
Program originated in
Ontario and has recently
been expanded to other
areas of Canada
Instructor:
Teacher-led using
available materials and
manuals
20
Options to Anger
http://vstreet.com/learnmore/curriculum/options.jsp?movie=/learnmore/flash/options.swf
Grade Range
General Description, Outcomes &
& Target
Program Resources
Additional Comments
Evidence
Population
Duration of Program:
General Description:
19 lessons in total
Focused on understanding anger
Approximately 1 hour of
cycles and exploring alternatives to
Low-cost program that is
classroom instruction &
anger behaviours
easy to implement
10 -30 minutes of activity
Lessons on earning respect, calming
online per lesson
Targeted to
down, self-talk and negotiation skills
Modifiable according to
youth with
class needs
Financial Resources:
angerOutcomes:
$495 for the Curriculum
management
Increase in anger-management
Based on angerGuide & DVD
difficulties
strategies
management principles
Instructor:
Evidence:
Teacher-led using
No empirical evidence is currently
available materials and
available for SEL outcomes
manuals
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
21
Room 14: A Social Language Program
http://www.linguisystems.com/products/product/display?itemid=10058
Grade Range
General Description, Outcomes &
&
Program Resources
Additional Comments
Evidence
Target
Population
General Description:
Focused on social language skills
and social problem solving skills
Lessons taught through character
vignettes, discussion, activity sheets
and games
Grades 1 – 5
Outcomes:
Increases in emotion recognition and
regulation, responsible decision
making and self-control
Universal
Evidence:
No empirical evidence is currently
available for SEL outcomes
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
Duration of Program:
31 lessons
Flexible implementation
into daily routine or
independent lessons
Financial Resources:
$ 61.95 for Instructor’s
manual and additional
materials
Instructor:
Teacher-led using
available materials and
manuals
Low-cost program that is
easy to implement
Modifiable according to
class needs
Suited for general or special
education classrooms
Based on SEL and language
theories
22
Stop Now And Plan (SNAP)
General Description, Outcomes &
Evidence
General Description:
Focused on reducing anti-social and
aggressive behaviours and
promoting social competence
Cognitive-behavioural strategy that
emphasizes stopping, thinking and
planning before acting
Outcomes:
Increases in self-confidence,
prosocial behaviours and anger
management strategies
Reduction in aggressive and criminal
behaviours
http://www.stopnowandplan.com
Grade Range
& Target
Program Resources
Population
Duration of Program:
12 weekly lessons
Approximately 20 – 45
minutes per lesson
Grades K - 12
Targeted to
students with
aggression
problems
Evidence:
No empirical evidence is currently
available for SEL outcomes in a
school-based setting
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
Financial Resources:
$820 in set-up fees and
$250 - $370 for annual
fees per school
Instructor:
Facilitator-led program
with teacher and
principal training
available
Additional Comments
Community-based program
has shown positive benefits
for SEL-related behaviours
and reductions in aggressive
behaviour (see References
25 - 30)
The school-based program
is in the preliminary
evaluation stages (see
Reference 31)
Program originated in
Ontario and has recently
been expanded to other
areas of Canada
23
Tribes
General Description, Outcomes &
Evidence
General Description:
Focused on creating a culture that
maximizes learning and human
development
Lessons incorporate helping others,
setting and achieving goals,
monitoring and assessing progress,
and celebrating achievement
Outcomes:
Increases in conflict management
skills and academic achievement
Reductions in bullying and discipline
http://www.tribes.com
Grade Range
& Target
Program Resources
Population
Grades K - 12
Universal
Evidence:
No empirical evidence is currently
available for SEL outcomes
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
Duration of Program:
Four key principles that
can be flexibly integrated
into daily classroom
routines
Financial Resources:
$183.95 per classroom
Additional materials also
available
Additional Comments
Promising program that has
been implemented in
Canada, USA and Australia
Chosen as one of CASEL’s
22 SELect programs
Instructor:
Teacher-led program
using available materials
and resources
24
Noteworthy Programs
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
25
The Good Behavior Game
http://www.paxis.org/content/goodbehavior.aspx
Grade Range
General Description, Outcomes &
&
Program Resources
Evidence
Target
Population
General Description:
Focused on creating a more
harmonious classroom environment
Game-like program based on reward
for positive behaviours
Outcomes:
Increases in productive behaviours
Decreases in disruptive behaviours
and substance abuse
Additional Comments
Duration of Program:
Flexible program that
can be implemented at
teacher discretion
Grades K – 12
Universal
Evidence:
Moderate quality evidence for
decreasing disruptive behaviours and
long-term access to services, as well
as increasing on-task behaviours
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
Financial Resources:
Free resources
available online
Only costs are for
reward materials
Instructor:
Teacher-led using
available resources
Promising program that
shows reductions in
problematic behaviour (see
References 32 – 35)
Potential for indirect effects
on components of SEL
26
The Virtues Project
General Description, Outcomes &
Evidence
General Description:
Focused on promoting virtues (e.g.,
kindness, justice) in personal, family
and academic environments
Mission to “inspire people… to
remember who they really are and to
live by our highest values”
Outcomes:
Increases in acceptance of self and
others
http://www.virtuesproject.com
Grade Range
&
Program Resources
Target
Population
Duration of Program:
Flexible program that
can be integrated into
daily routine or 15 – 20
minute sessions
Grades K - 12
Universal
Evidence:
No empirical evidence is currently
available for SEL outcomes
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
Financial Resources:
Free resources
available online
Inexpensive pamphlets
available
Instructor:
Teacher- or facilitatorled using available
resources and materials
Additional Comments
Promising program that has
been implemented in 95
countries world-wide
Recognized during the
International Year of the
Family by the United Nations
Potential for indirect effects
on components of SEL
27
Programs to Consider for Future Review
In addition to the programs mentioned throughout this toolkit, several other programs promoting SEL, healthy sexuality,
drug prevention and/or mental health awareness were identified as part of the survey of Nova Scotia schools. Although
not formally addressed in the current toolkit, we will consider some of these programs for inclusion in future versions.
These programs include:
A Question of Influence http://www.ednet.ns.ca/pdfdocs/curriculum/Question-of-influence/CurriculumPRF5.pdf
Big Brothers Big Sisters http://www.bigbrothersbigsisters.ca
Bucket Filling (http://bucketfillers101.com
Character Bound http://www.fitnessfinders.net/Character-Education-s/6.htm
Free 2 B U http://gashahealthconnections.ca/free2bu.htm
Go Girls http://www.bigbrothersbigsisters.ca/en/Home/Programs/GoGirls.aspx
Healthy Mind, Healthy Body http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20091005001
I Care Cat http://store.peaceeducation.org/helpingnothurtinglearningthei-carerulesthroughliterature.aspx
Living Values http://www.livingvalues.net
MindUp http://thehawnfoundation.org/mindup/
Project Wisdom http://www.projectwisdom.com
RespectED http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=000294
Students Against Violence Everywhere (SAVE) http://www.nationalsave.org
Social Thinking http://www.socialthinking.com
Strong Kids / Strong Teens http://strongkids.uoregon.edu
WITS (Walk Away, Ignore, Talk It Out, Seek Help) http://www.witsprogram.ca/
Additional SEL programs that have been recognized by CASEL (a leading organization for SEL promotion) and that could
be considered for future evaluation include:
High Scope Educational Approach for Preschool and Primary Grades http://www.highscope.org
I Can Problem Solve (ICPS) http://www.researchpress.com
Know Your Body http://www.kendalhunt.com
Learning for Life http://www.learning-for-life.org
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
28
Michigan Model for Comprehensive Health Education http://www.emc.cmich.edu
Peace Works (Peace Education Foundation) http://www.peaceeducation.com
Productive Conflict Resolution Program: A Whole School Approach http://www.scholmediationcenter.org
Project ACHIEVE http://www.coedu.usf.edu/projectachieve
Quest (Violence Prevention Series)
Reach Out Schools: Social Competence Program (Open Circle Curriculum) http://www.open-circle.org
Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (RCCP) http://www.esrnational.org
Responsive Classroom http://www.responsiveclassroom.org
Skills, Opportunities And Recognition (SOAR) http://www.preventionscience.com
Social Decision Making and Problem Solving Program http://www.umdnj.edu/spsweb
Teenage Health Teaching Module http://www.thtm.org
Voices: A Comprehensive Reading, Writing and Character Education Program http://www.aboutwlf.com
Several programs targeting violence prevention and bullying were also identified as part of the environmental survey,
including:
Safe School Ambassadors http://www.community-matters.org/safe-school-ambassadors
Bullies to Buddies https://bullies2buddies.com
Bully SMART http://www.hrmvideo.com/resources/696_Bully_Smart.pdf
Focus on Bullying http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/sco/resourcedocs/bullying.pdf
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program http://www.clemson.edu/olweus
Premier / School Specialty Sunburst Publications: Stop Bullying & Stand Up / Speak Out
http://he.premieragendas.com/index.php?option=com_ag_supplemental_programs&Itemid=47
X-Out Bullying http://www.antigonishcrimeprevention.ca/our-programs/x-out-bullying/
KiVa http://www.kivakoulu.fi
Friendly Schools Friendly Families http://www.friendlyschools.com.au/
Imagine http://chd.region.waterloo.on.ca/en/childfamilyhealth/bullyingprevention.asp
Steps to Respect http://www.cfchildren.org/steps-to-respect.aspx
In response to the large collection and demand of programs in this field, the CPSC Atlantic hub plans on developing and
distributing a toolkit specifically designed for school-based bullying and violence prevention programs in the near future.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
29
References by SEL Program
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)
1. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2010). The effects of a multiyear universal social-emotional
learning program: The role of student and school characteristics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 78, 156 – 168. doi: 10.1037/a0018607.
2. Curtis, C., & Norgate, R. (2007). An evaluation of the promoting alternative thinking strategies curriculum at key
stage 1. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23, 33- 44. doi: 10.1080/02667360601154717.
3. Domitrovich, C.E., Cortes, R.C., & Greenberg, M.T. (2007). Improving young children’s social and emotional
competence: a randomized trial of the preschool “PATHS” curriculum. The Journal of Primary Prevention,
28, 67 – 90. doi: 10.1007/s10935-007-0081-0.
4. Greenberg, M.T., Kusche, C.A., Cooke, E.T., & Quamma, J.P. (1995). Promoting emotional competence in school
aged children: the effects of the PATHS curriculum. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 117 – 136. doi:
10.1017/S095457900006374.
Second Step
5. Edwards, D., Hunt, M.H., Meyers, J., Grogg, K.R., & Jarrett, O. (2005). Acceptability and student outcomes of a
Violence prevention curriculum. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 401 – 418. doi: 10.1007/s10935005-0002-z.
6. Frey, K.S., Nolen, S.B., Van Schoiack Edstrom, L., & Hirschstein, M.K. (2005). Effects of a school-based social
emotional competence program: linking children’s goals, attritions and behavior. Applied Developmental
Psychology, 26, 171 – 200. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2004.12.002.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
30
7. Grossman, D.C., Neckerman, H.J., Koepsell, T.D., Liu, P.Y., Asher, K.N., Beland, K., Frey, K., & Rivara, F.P.
(1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school: a
randomized controlled trial. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(20), 1605 – 1611.
8. Taub (2001). Evaluation of the Second Step violence prevention program at a rural elementary school. School
Psychology Review, 31(2), 186 – 200.
9. 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(2).
201 – 216.
Caring School Community (CSC)
10. Battistich, V. (2003). Effects of a school-based program to enhance prosocial development on children’s peer
relations and social adjustment. Journal of Research in Character Education, 1(1), 1 – 17.
11. Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Wilson, N. (2004). Effects of an elementary school intervention on students’
“connectedness” to school and social adjustment during middle school. The Journal of Primary Prevention,
24, 243 – 262. doi: 10.1023/B:JOPP.0000018048.38517.cd.
12. 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. School Psychology of Education, 4, 3 – 51. doi:
10.1023/A:1009609606692.
13. 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 – 554. doi: 10.2307/1163128.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
31
Roots of Empathy
14. Santos, R.G., Chartier, M.J., Whalen, J.C., Chateau, D., & Boyd, L. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based violence
prevention for children and youth: a research report. Healthcare Quarterly, 14(2), 80 – 91.
15. Schonert-Reichl, K.A., Smith, V., Zaidman-Zait, A., & Hertzman, C. (2012). Promoting children’s prosocial
behaviors in school: impact of the “Roots of Empathy” program on the social and emotional competence of
school-aged children. School Mental Health, 4, 1 – 21. doi: 10.1007/s12310-011-9064-7.
The Fourth R
16. Wolfe, D.A., Crooks, C.V., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., & Ellis, W. (2012). Observations of adolescent peer resistance
skills following a classroom-based healthy relationship program: A post-intervention comparison. Prevention
Science, 13, 196 – 205. doi: 10.1007/s11121-011-0256-z.
17. Wolfe, D.A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., Ellis, W., Stitt, L., & Donner, A. (2009). A school-based
program to prevent adolescent dating violence: a cluster randomized trial. The Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine, 163, 692 – 699. doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.69.
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)
18. Ahmed, N.U., Ahmed, N.S., Bennett, C.R., & Hinds, J.E. (2002). Impact of a drug abuse resistance education
(D.A.R.E.) program in preventing the initiation of cigarette smoking in fifth- and sixth-grade students. Journal
of the National Medical Association, 94(4), 249 – 256.
19. Clayton, R.R., Cattarello, A.M., & Johnstone, B.M. (1996). The effectiveness of drug abuse resistance education
(Project DARE): 5-year follow-up results. Preventive Medicine, 25, 307 – 318. doi:
10.1006/pmed.1996.0061.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
32
20. Lynam, D.R., Milich, R., Zimmerman, R., Novak, S.P., Logan, T.K., Martin, C., Leukefeld, C., & Clayton, R. (1999).
Project DARE: No effects at 10-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 590 –
593. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.67.4.590.
21. Perry, C.L., Komro, K.A., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Bosma, L.M., Farbakhsh, K., Munson, K.A., Stigler, M.H., & Lytle,
L.A. (2003). A randomized controlled trial of the middle and junior high school D.A.R.E. and D.A.R.E. Plus
programs. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 157(2), 178 – 184.
22. Rosenbaum, D.P., & Hanson, G.S. (1998). Assessing the effects of school-based drug education: a six-year
multilevel analysis of project D.A.R.E. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 381 – 412. Doi:
10.1177/0022427898035004002.
Lion’s Quest: Skills for Adolescence
23. Eisen, M., Zellman, G.L., Massett, H.A., & Murray, D.M. (2002). Evaluating the Lions-Quest “Skills for
Adolescence” drug education program: first-year behavior outcomes. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 619 – 632.
doi: 10.1016/S0306-4603(01)00197-6.
24. Eisen, M., Zellman, G.L., & Murray, D.M. (2003). Evaluating the Lions-Quest “Skills for Adolescence” drug
education program second-year behavior outcomes. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 883 – 897. doi:
10.1016/S0306-4603(01)00292-1.
Stop Now And Plan (SNAP): Community-based Program
25. Augimeri, L.K., Farrington, D.P., Koegl, C.J., & Day, D.M. (2007). The SNAP Under 12 Outreach Project: effects of
a community based program for children with conduct problems. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16,
799 – 807. doi: 10.1007/s10826-006-9126-x.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
33
26. Koegl, C.J, Farrington, D.P., Augimeri, L.K., & Day, D.M. (2008). Evaluation of a targeted cognitive-behavioral
program for children with conduct problems – The SNAP Under 12 Outreach Project: service intensity, age
and gender effects on short- and long-term outcomes. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 13, 419 –
434. doi: 10.1177/1359104508090606.
27. Lipman, E.L., Kenny, M., Brennan, E., O’Grady, s., & Augimeri, L. (2011). Helping boys at-risk of criminal activity:
qualitative results of a multi-component intervention. Public Health, 11, 364 – 374. doi: 10.1186/1471-245811-364.
28. Lipman, E.L., Kenny, M., Sniderman, C., O’Grady, S., Augimeri, L., Khayutin, S., & Boyle, M.H. (2008). Evaluation
of a community-based program for young boys at-risk of antisocial behaviour: Results and issues. Journal of
Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 17(1), 12 – 19.
29. Pepler, D., Walsh, M., Yuille, A., Levene, K., Jiang, D., Vaughan, A., & Webber, J. (2010). Bridging the gender
gap: interventions with aggressive girls and their parents. Prevention Science, 11, 229 – 238. doi:
10.1007/s1121-009-0167-4.
30. Walsh, M.M., Pepler, D.J., & Levene, K.S. (2002). A model intervention for girls with disruptive behaviour
problems: The Earlscourt girls connection. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 36(4), 297 – 311.
Stop Now and Plan (SNAP) – School-based Preliminary Findings
31. Child Development Institute (Spring, 2012). Responding to children with externalizing behaviours within the
classroom: From research to practice – SNAP for Schools (SNAP-S). Poster presented at the Child Welfare
League of Canada conference.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
34
The Good Behavior Game
32. Donaldson, J.M., Vollmer, T.R., Krous, T., Downs, S., & Berard, K.P. (2011). An evaluation of the Good Behavior
Game in kindergarten classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 605 – 609. doi:
10.1901/jaba.2011.44-605.
33. Kleinman, K.E., & Saigh, P.A. (2011). The effects of the Good Behavior Game on the conduct of regular education
New York City high school students. Behavior Modification, 35, 95 – 105. doi: 10.1177/0145445510392213.
34. Lannie, A.L., & McCurdy, B.L. (2007). Preventing disruptive behavior in the urban classroom: Effects of the Good
Behavior Game on student and teacher behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 85 – 98. doi:
10.1353/etc.2007.0002.
35. Poduska, J., Kellam, S., Wang, W., Brown, C.H., Ialongo, N., & Toyinbo, P. (2008). Impact of the Good Behavior
Game, a universal classroom-based behavior intervention, on young adult service use for problems with
emotions, behavior or drugs or alcohol. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 95, S29 – S44. doi:
10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.10.009.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
35
Resource Information
The Canadian Prevention Science Cluster – Atlantic
Website: http://cpscatlantic.org/
Contact Email: cpscatlantic@gmail.com
Hub Director: Dr. John C. LeBlanc, MD, MSc
IWK Health Centre, 5850 University Avenue, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3K 6R8
Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Psychiatry, Community Health & Epidemiology, Dalhousie University
The Canadian Prevention Science Cluster (CPSC): Atlantic HUB is one of four regional hubs across Canada. The Atlantic
hub focuses on bullying, cyberbullying and social and emotional learning in public schools across Nova Scotia.
The Canadian Prevention Science Cluster
Website: www.preventionsciencecluster.org
Coordinating HUB Contact Information: (519) 858-5154; thefourthr@uwo.ca
The CPSC is a Canadian organization with four regional hubs across Canada in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario
and Nova Scotia. Students and professionals work together to organize programs, resources and ideas, as well as
expanding research and general knowledge about violence prevention into the community. The aim of the CPSC is to
increase awareness towards violence prevention and healthy strategies for youth, educators and the community.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
36
Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL)
Website: http://www.casel.org
Contact Email: info@casel.org
CASEL is an organization that aims to promote the scientific background of SEL as well as expanding SEL program
practice to enhance the field and impact of SEL across the lifespan. CASEL has also evaluated several SEL programs
(i.e., CASEL SELect programs), based on program instruction, evidence of effectiveness and professional development.
22 programs have been selected as CASEL SELect programs, some of which are evaluated throughout this toolkit.
Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluations (GRADE)
Website: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org
The Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is a widely
recognized method used to evaluate the balance of outcomes for interventions (e.g., vaccinations, programs). GRADE
was developed by international guideline developers (e.g., World Health Organization, Centres for Disease Control and
Prevention) and uses a qualitative and quantitative approach to intervention evaluation.
What Works Clearinghouse
Website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
What Works Clearing House is an organization developed in association with the U.S. Department of Education's Institute
of Education Sciences. The purpose of the What Works Clearinghouse is to be a trusted source for scientific evidence for
education. What Works Clearinghouse has evaluated several SEL programs, some of which are included in this guide.
SOCIAL & EMOTIONAL LEARNING PROGRAMS FOR SCHOOLS
37