Supporting Systemic Social and Emotional Learning with A Schoolwide Implementation Model

Evaluation and Program Planning 73 (2019) 53–61 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Evaluation and Program Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan Supporting systemic social and emotional learning with a schoolwide T implementation model Duncan C. Meyersa,⁎, Celene E. Domitrovichb, Rawan Dissia, Jordan Trejoa, Mark T. Greenbergc a Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, United States b Georgetown University, United States c Pennsylvania State University, United States ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: A strong body of research indicates that evidence-based programs designed to promote social and emotional Social and emotional learning learning (SEL) can lead to positive developmental outcomes for children and youth. Although these evidence- Evidence-based program based programs have demonstrated benefits for students, it is also well-established that programs must be im- Implementation science plemented with quality and sustained to maximize positive outcomes. To support schools in implementing SEL Sustainability that is integrated into all aspects of a school community, the CASEL School Guide implementation model was developed to guide school leadership teams in establishing a vision; selecting, implementing, and sustaining evidence-based programs; and integrating SEL schoolwide. The School Guide model is based on CASEL’s School Theory of Action which includes planning, implementing, and monitoring schoolwide SEL. This paper describes findings about the feasibility and degree of implementation of this model as carried out by 14 school leadership teams who were supported by SEL coaches. The participating schools implemented an evidence-based SEL program as the foundation of their efforts to promote schoolwide SEL. Findings demonstrate the feasibility of implementing this model in urban schools that primarily serve students of color, as all teams successfully carried out the implementation model and demonstrated increased levels of capacity related to supporting schoolwide SEL. 1. Introduction foundational for student success and should be a goal of education (Bridgeland, Bruce, & Hariharan, 2013; DePaoli, Atwell, & Bridgeland, There is broad agreement that today’s schools must offer more than 2017). A strong body of research shows that evidence-based approaches instruction in traditional academic subjects to fully prepare students for to SEL can promote such positive development (Durlak, Weissberg, life and work (National Research Council, 2012). In addition to ac- Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011; Sklad, Diekstra, Ritter, Ben, & quiring academic knowledge and skills, children and youth benefit from Gravesteijn, 2012; Weare & Nind, 2011; Wigelsworth et al., 2016). In developing strong social-emotional competence (Domitrovich, Durlak, fact, evidence-based SEL programs have been shown to significantly Staley, & Weissberg, 2017). Social and emotional competence is the improve positive attitudes, prosocial behaviors, and academic perfor- capacity to coordinate cognition, affect, and behavior such that in- mance even after students no longer participate in these programs dividuals adapt in diverse cultures and contexts, achieve specific tasks, (Taylor, Oberle, Durlak, & Weissberg, 2017). Evidence-based SEL pro- and reach positive developmental outcomes (Elias et al., 1994). grams cultivate these competencies through classroom and school-level strategies, including direct instruction, teaching practices, embedding Social and emotional learning (SEL) is the process through which SEL with academic curriculum, and structural changes to schoolwide social-emotional competence develops. Through SEL, children, youth, practices and policies (CASEL, 2013, 2015). and adults build and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to understand and manage emotions, set and achieve Although evidence-based programs have empirically demonstrated positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain benefits for students, these programs must be implemented with fidelity positive relationships, and make responsible decisions (Durlak, to maximize positive outcomes (Barnes, Smith, & Miller, 2014; Durlak Weissberg, Domitrovich, & Gullotta, 2015). & DuPre, 2008; Durlak et al., 2011; O’Donnell, 2008; Rones & Hoagwood, 2000; Wilson & Lipsey, 2007). High-quality Most educators believe that social and emotional competence is ⁎ Corresponding author at: 815 W. Van Buren St., Suite 210, Chicago, IL, 60607, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.C. Meyers). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.11.005 Received 10 April 2018; Received in revised form 7 October 2018; Accepted 7 November 2018 Available online 10 November 2018 0149-7189/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

D.C. Meyers et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 73 (2019) 53–61 implementation requires that schools build internal and external ca- Fig. 1. CASEL School Theory of Action. pacity to conduct SEL programs with quality (Wandersman et al., 2008). Internal capacity includes administrative leadership, resources, disciplines (see Meyers et al., 2012 for a synthesis of implementation and positive attitudes of staff. External capacity includes professional frameworks), the School Guide is innovative because it customizes these learning (i.e., training) from developers of evidence-based programs implementation strategies for promoting high-quality SEL. In other who have expertise in the chosen program. However, even when evi- words, the School Guide is unique because it provides a systematic ap- dence-based programs are implemented well, they can fade quickly or proach for building the capacity of schools to effectively implement and be replaced by alternative programs. This often occurs after initial sustain evidence-based SEL programs and to improve school culture and funding and implementation support expire or are withdrawn, or when climate. these efforts were not formalized as part of everyday practice (Elias & Kamarinos Galiotos, 2004; Florian, 2001). Thus, it is also essential to The schools included in the current study used the School Guide to sustain evidence-based programs. Sustainability can be promoted by establish a schoolwide model of systemic SEL and to support an evi- gaining buy-in from stakeholders (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & dence-based program that was implemented in grades K–3 as the Wallace, 2005; Meyers, Durlak, & Wandersman, 2012), ensuring orga- foundation of this effort. Each school received the assistance of a nizational policies facilitate sustaining programs (Hall & Hord, 2015; highly-skilled coach who supported a school-level SEL team in a co- Johnson, Hays, Center, & Daley, 2004), and ensuring programs are ordinated process for introducing and planning SEL-focused program- aligned with established organizational structures and processes ming, implementing the evidence-based program with fidelity, and (Scheirer, 2005). integrating SEL into all aspects of the school’s functioning. We report findings on the feasibility and degree of implementation of the School To overcome these challenges and sustain evidence-based programs, Guide implementation model. efforts to promote SEL should take a systemic whole-school approach (CASEL, 2003; Greenberg et al., 2003). Such an approach requires the 3. Methods integration of SEL into various schoolwide structures, policies, and routines within and across grade levels (Elias et al., 2015). It also re- 3.1. Study design quires educators to implement and continuously improve how they support evidence-based programs and practices at the classroom and The current study is drawn from a larger multi-year, cluster ran- school levels to best engage students, effectively model and reinforce domized trial testing the efficacy of the School Guide intervention that social and emotional competencies, and create equitable learning op- included 28 Title I public elementary schools, nearly 900 educators, portunities across school, family, and community partnerships and over 2000 students in a large urban school district. At baseline, the (Mahoney et al., 2018). Thus, coordinating schoolwide SEL calls for a student population in participating schools was primarily Hispanic comprehensive approach to professional learning and implementation (62.90%) and Black (34.37%), and more than 93% of these students support that involves all school staff to establish consistent practices, were eligible for free or reduced lunch. The primary goal of the trial, messages, and a common language that is shared throughout the school funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Investing in Innovation community (Oberle, Domitrovich, Meyers, & Weissberg, 2016). Fund, was to improve students' social, emotional, and academic out- comes. This paper describes findings on the feasibility and degree of im- plementation of a systems-level implementation model designed to All 28 schools implemented the PATHS® Curriculum in grades K–3 promote systemic, schoolwide SEL that was designed with these specific (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2011; Kushé & goals in mind. Greenberg, 2012). Half of the participating schools were randomized to receive the School Guide implementation model, while the other half 2. The CASEL School Guide received standard support for PATHS without the School Guide. The focus of this report is limited to the 14 schools that were randomized to The systems-level implementation model described in this paper is participate in this enhanced School Guide condition. the CASEL Guide for Schoolwide Social and Emotional Learning, referred to as the School Guide (Meyers et al., 2015). The components of this model, which include the action of a school-level team, are based on implementation science research and best practices in educational re- form which have identified organizational factors that influence the attitudes and practices of staff and teachers, school climate, and student achievement (Domitrovich, Meyers, Cross, Weissberg, & Greenberg, 2018). Implementation science has been defined as the scientific study of methods for promoting systematic uptake of research findings and evidence-based practices into professional practice to improve the quality and effectiveness of service delivery (Eccles & Mittman, 2006). In education, implementation science is a specific approach for en- suring education-focused improvements and interventions are adopted, put into practice with quality, and integrated in a way that accounts for local contextual factors to ensure desired outcomes are achieved (Nordstrum, LeMahieu, & Berrena, 2017). The School Guide implementation model is structured around CASEL’s School Theory of Action, which consists of six key activities (see Fig. 1). The key activities include (1) establish a shared vision of schoolwide SEL; (2) assess resources and needs for schoolwide SEL; (3) provide ongoing professional learning; (4) adopt evidence-based SEL programs; (5) integrate SEL into the core functioning of the school; and (6) use data and a cycle of inquiry to improve SEL practice and student outcomes. While these six key activities relate to strategies that are often included in implementation frameworks that span diverse 54

D.C. Meyers et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 73 (2019) 53–61 3.2. Evidence-based SEL program 3.3.1. School leadership team The School Guide implementation model is led by an SEL leadership The School Guide is designed to be used in conjunction with evi- dence-based SEL programs. In the current project, all schools were team. The School Guide provided guidelines for how to form an SEL provided with the resources to implement the PATHS® Curriculum leadership team and to ensure its members are representative of major (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2011; Kushé & stakeholder groups in the school, including administrators, teachers, Greenberg, 2012). The PATHS curriculum is one of the most extensively student support staff (e.g., school counselors and social workers), and researched and replicated classroom-based SEL programs and has been parents. Such diverse membership ensures that the knowledge and demonstrated to promote student social-emotional skills, positive peer perspectives of multiple stakeholders are included in discussions, relationships, engagement, and learning in the classroom. PATHS in- planning, and decision-making. This is based on findings that school cludes a scope and sequence of lessons that directly teach SEL skills, leadership approaches that use shared, distributed leadership among provides teaching strategies that create a positive classroom climate principals and other team members (e.g., assistant principals; teacher and integrate SEL with academic instruction, and includes daily prac- leaders) empower staff to participate in school decision making and can tices for promoting skill generalization across the school environment. positively affect commitment from school staff (Devos, Tuytens, & It is reasonable to expect students participating in PATHS to achieve Hulpia, 2014). Schools determined the membership and structure of positive outcomes over the two years of this study given that PATHS their SEL leadership team as a function of their unique context. Speci- research studies conducted with shorter timeframes have demonstrated fically, each school decided whether to create a new team or assign the its effectiveness (e.g., Kam, Greenberg, & Walls, 2003). responsibilities for SEL to an existing group to take on the role of leading schoolwide SEL (e.g., school climate team; curriculum and in- 3.2.1. PATHS implementation support struction team). High quality PATHS implementation was promoted using a standard With the support of a coach, the SEL leadership teams implemented support model developed by PATHS Education Worldwide (pathsedu- the School Guide process during monthly team meetings over two years. cation.com) – a training organization authorized to provide certified The monthly SEL leadership team meetings used School Guide tools and PATHS training and technical assistance. practices to systematically work through the CASEL School Theory of Action. SEL leadership team meetings were typically held after regular In Year 1, PATHS was implemented in kindergarten through Grade school hours to promote initial implementation, and participants were 2. Classroom teachers participated in two days of training from a cer- paid the district’s standard non-instructional hourly rate to attend any tified PATHS trainer (one session near the beginning of school and a meetings held after school. It was expected that approximately nine second session in late fall or early winter). During the first day, teachers monthly SEL leadership team meetings would be held each year. learned fundamental PATHS concepts and effective implementation strategies. The second day deepened their knowledge and skills and 3.3.2. School Guide implementation support problem-solved any implementation challenges teachers had en- To support high quality implementation of the School Guide im- countered. All principals were invited to attend PATHS training sessions and were given a brief PATHS principal’s manual to help them integrate plementation model, a professional learning session was provided at PATHS concepts throughout their school. In Year 2 PATHS was ex- each school (this session is described in the section below). However, panded and training was provided to Grade 3 teachers. there is strong evidence that professional learning on its own, without follow-up support, may be insufficient to ensure high-quality im- Each school designated one staff member to serve as a PATHS lead plementation (Fixsen et al., 2005; Joyce & Showers, 2002; who was the point-person in each school for the PATHS curriculum. It Wandersman, Chien, & Katz, 2012). Therefore, ongoing support was required that PATHS leads participated in PATHS training to en- through coaching or consultation strategies is one approach for sure they understood the curriculum and its implementation model. strengthening the effects of innovations when they are first introduced PATHS leads had the following responsibilities: participate in monthly into systems (Domitrovich et al., 2017; Meyers et al., 2012). In the 30-minute phone calls with PATHS trainers to support their school; current project, rather than providing individualized coaching to tea- work through implementation challenges in their building; disseminate chers, systems-level coaches were employed to work with school SEL information from the monthly calls to other PATHS teachers in their leadership teams to more effectively implement the School Guide pro- school; facilitate reflection with other K–3 teachers in their school to cess. Each school was assigned a systems-level coach (hired by CASEL) share implementation successes (e.g., during grade level meetings); and to support high-quality implementation of the School Guide model. Each attend biannual PATHS professional learning community events to coach was an experienced educator with an extensive background in learn from each other. During these events, PATHS leads shared suc- SEL implementation. cesses and challenges related to implementation and discussed strate- gies for sustaining high-quality PATHS implementation after funding Coaches cultivated trusting relationships as a foundation and em- for this study was expended. ployed both facilitative and instructive strategies to promote quality implementation (Bloom, Castagna, Moir, & Warren, 2005). Facilitative 3.3. School Guide implementation model coaching strategies focus on strengthening school staff’s skills, knowl- edge, and beliefs through reflective practice. For example, coaches Guidance for putting the School Guide implementation model into helped members of the SEL leadership team gather and interpret data practice was provided in a user’s manual that was disseminated to each and feedback, develop interpretations, and identify appropriate courses participating school. The manual for the School Guide included a series of action based on those interpretations. Instructive coaching strategies of tools to accomplish each of the six key activities and a monthly scope focus on the coach sharing his or her own experience, expertise, and and sequence for school leadership teams to learn about, plan, imple- wisdom with team members through practices such as modeling and ment, and monitor SEL over a two-year period (Domitrovich, Meyers, providing resources. For example, coaches modeled specific strategies Cross, Weissberg, & Greenberg, 2018; Meyers et al., 2015). The manual for SEL leadership team members that they could use to inform, pre- included a narrative literature review to establish the importance of pare, and support other adults in their school community to implement each key activity, and included vignettes to illustrate the concepts and schoolwide SEL. At a minimum, coaches were expected to provide ap- processes related to implementation. The tools included in the manual proximately six hours of support to each school for each month of the helped school leaders learn about, plan for, and implement schoolwide study. SEL. Coaches supported SEL leadership teams by co-facilitating their monthly leadership team meetings. Coaches provided real-time support as teams worked through the School Guide process by modeling the use 55

D.C. Meyers et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 73 (2019) 53–61 of School Guide tools and ensuring that teams planned, monitored, and which enabled schools to replicate this event with new staff, parents, or continuously improved the SEL implementation process. For example, community partners as needed. An additional School Guide tool was throughout the process of developing goals in each school, coaches used used to promote awareness that all adults in the school can promote SEL both instructive and facilitative strategies to ensure the teams devel- by modeling social-emotional competence in all interactions. The tool oped clearly stated goals that were aligned with each school’s vision for was distributed to all staff and framed as a way to promote a common SEL, addressed their unique needs, and leveraged available resources. language for SEL. Coaches held monthly meetings with each building principal to During the early fall, each principal finalized membership of their discuss successes, problem-solve challenges, and collaboratively de- SEL leadership team. Guidance for forming an SEL leadership team was velop agendas for SEL leadership team meetings. Coaches also provided provided by a School Guide tool and discussion with the coach. An ideal as-needed, customized support through multiple delivery modes, in- team would include an administrator (principal or assistant principal), cluding (1) as-needed individual meetings with school staff (e.g., tea- classroom teachers from various grade bands, parents, and student chers; counselors; deans; school safety personnel), (2) group meetings support staff (e.g., school counselors). Once formed, SEL leadership to help promote SEL integration (e.g., grade level and/or subject area teams led a process of developing a vision for SEL in their school. Teams team meetings), (3) coach-facilitated and/or co-facilitated professional developed an initial SEL vision statement that was then shared with the learning events for school staff, families, and/or community partners, larger school community to get feedback and promote buy-in. Involving and (4) performing climate observations (i.e., school walkthroughs multiple stakeholders in the process of creating this vision is meant to wherein the tone, character, and atmosphere of the school is observed ensure consensus-building across the entire school community through to identify strengths and areas for improvement). This customization a “distributed leadership” approach (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002; was informed by the needs and resources assessment each SEL leader- Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Rohrbach, Grana, ship team conducted, as well as any specific requests the teams had, Sussman, & Valente, 2006), and a collaboratively developed vision for which can generate more engagement and interest in the coaching the school can create a strategic orientation that guides the programs, process (Wandersman et al., 2012). resources, and work of everyone in the school community (Fullan, 2007; Smylie et al., 2003). Finally, coaches actively supported teams in promoting sustain- ability of schoolwide SEL. For example, SEL leadership teams and their After finalizing a vision for SEL, teams used a School Guide needs coaches met with district specialists who lead SEL and school climate and resources assessment tool which guided teams to document current efforts. These meetings helped district specialists learn more about the SEL-focused activities throughout their school (e.g., in classrooms; unique schoolwide SEL needs and plans of each school, and to develop a across the building; and through family and community partnerships). strategy for continuing this work with support once the coach transi- Teams also reviewed data sources that could be used to gauge school- tioned off at the end of their two year involvement with the study. wide SEL implementation progress. The SEL team used this information to inform planning by identifying strategies for building on their ex- 3.3.3. School Guide implementation content and timing isting strengths and addressing needs to best promote SEL for students To ensure consistency between schools, a standardized strategy was and school staff. planned for schools to move through the School Guide implementation During the winter and spring of Year 1, SEL leadership teams de- model (see Table 1). During Year 1, SEL leadership teams focused on veloped S.M.A.R.T. goals for SEL. The acronym S.M.A.R.T. describes building foundational systems and structures to support SEL. In Year 2, goals that are: specific (i.e., clearly state what is to be accomplished); teams focused on improving schoolwide SEL implementation, dee- measurable (specifies measure(s) that will be used to assess goal com- pening its integration throughout the school community, and pro- pletion); attainable (i.e., goal is reachable given current resources and moting its sustainability beyond the study’s funding cycle. needs); realistic/relevant (i.e., attaining desired outcomes will make a difference in the school community); and timely (i.e., the goal has a time 3.3.3.1. Year 1. The first School Guide capacity-building activity was a frame for achieving desired outcomes). These goals established areas of schoolwide “SEL 101” professional learning session. This session built focus that SEL leadership teams would enact to achieve their vision. awareness and commitment to SEL, and provided the principal with an Goals were drafted using a School Guide tool and then disseminated opportunity to communicate SEL as a priority to the school community. throughout the school community to get broader input and promote It also provided a foundational level of knowledge about SEL and its buy-in. A School Guide tool also guided the development of im- benefits. The materials for this session are a tool in the School Guide, plementation plans for each goal to articulate action steps, identify Table 1 Standardized School Guide Implementation Strategy. Strategies and Supports Description Year Facilitate schoolwide “SEL 101” professional learning A professional learning event for all school staff that provided an overview of SEL and its evidence-base, Summer Y1 event the School Guide process, and guidance on forming an SEL leadership team. Fall Y1 Administrators recruited members of their school community to be part of an SEL leadership team. Fall Y1 Develop SEL leadership team The SEL leadership team developed a vision statement for SEL that guided the planning and Fall Y1 Establish an SEL vision implementation of schoolwide SEL. Conduct a needs and resources assessment The SEL leadership team took an inventory of the SEL strategies that were being implemented in Y1 & Y2 classrooms, across the school building, and those that promoted partnerships with families and community Establish schoolwide SEL S.M.A.R.T. goals and groups. The assessment also involved taking stock of the various data sources the school could access to Y2 implementation plan measure progress. The SEL leadership team developed a focused description of what they want to achieve through Y2 Integrate SEL schoolwide schoolwide SEL. These goals were aligned with the school’s vision for SEL and grounded in the needs and resources assessment that was conducted. Promote sustainability The SEL leadership team identified specific strategies for integrating SEL throughout the school in a coherent, coordinated way. This was achieved by deliberately integrating SEL into classrooms, across the school building, and through family and community partnerships. The SEL leadership team embedded systems and structures for SEL into school improvement plans, budgets, and district-level processes. Y1 = Year 1; Y2 = Year 2. 56

D.C. Meyers et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 73 (2019) 53–61 roles and responsibilities for school staff, and specify target completion ratings again during fall and spring of the second year of im- dates. Teams began implementing these plans during the spring of the plementation. Separately, SEL coaches also completed rubric ratings first school year. independent of each team. Each coach provided ratings during fall and spring of the first year of implementation, and then again at the be- 3.3.3.2. Year 2. The focus during the second year was to deepen ginning of the second year of implementation. integration of SEL throughout the school community. During the fall, teams focused on integrating SEL by continuing to implement their 4. Results plans. While all schools had implementation strategies that targeted multiple ecologies of their school (i.e., classroom, building, family and 4.1. SEL leadership team membership community partnerships), each school promoted schoolwide SEL in unique ways since goals and implementation plans were based on each Across schools, the SEL leadership teams that were formed had an school’s unique strengths and needs. Despite the variability in how average of 8.00 core members (SD = 2.39) during Year 1, and an schools addressed their goals, some common integration strategies average of 8.24 core members (SD = 3.65) in Year 2. Core members included: identifying teaching practices that support SEL and working were operationalized as members who attended at least two SEL lea- with grade level teams to promote use of these classroom practices dership team meetings in a given year. In Year 1, the largest SEL lea- within classrooms; working with grade level teams to monitor fidelity dership team consisted of 13 core members and the team with the of SEL implementation; sponsoring learning events with non-teaching fewest core members had five. The range was large in Year 2 as well, staff and families to build capacity to promote SEL; and, strengthening with the largest team consisting of 18 core members and the smallest school climate by focusing on staff working relationships and team consisting of three. building. During Year 1, all but three SEL leadership teams (79%) included an The second year also involved strategies to promote sustainability of administrator (i.e., principal or assistant principal) as a core member. schoolwide SEL. This included activities such as seeking additional Year 2 was similar, with all but four teams (71%) including an ad- funding opportunities to help support SEL after funding from this study ministrator as a core member. In regard to having PATHS leads as core was expended, and integrating the work of the SEL leadership team members of the SEL leadership team, all but one school (93%) followed with existing school teams (e.g., instructional leadership teams; culture this recommendation in Year 1, whereas in Year 2 all but three schools and climate teams). All schools were encouraged to embed SEL into (79%) followed this recommendation. Regarding classroom teachers’ their district school improvement plans and related budgets to ensure participation, all but one school (93%) included PATHS teachers as core SEL remained a priority. Throughout the two-year process, School Guide members in Year 1, whereas all but three schools included PATHS tools and practices remained a driver as they provided structure and teachers as core members (79%) in Year 2. It was also recommended guidance for integrating SEL throughout the school community. that SEL leadership teams include non-PATHS teachers (Grades 4–8) as core members to promote schoolwide integration, and all but two In summary, the School Guide process continued across the two-year schools (86%) followed this recommendation in both Years 1 and 2. It is implementation, and the capacity-building and support activities ex- notable that no SEL leadership teams had parents as core members. panded as needed in each school as SEL integration deepened over time. Use of School Guide tools and support from the coach was designed to 4.2. Coaching log help leadership teams align SEL with schoolwide practices and promote sustainability by embedding SEL work into ongoing district efforts. Overall there was a substantial amount of coaching support pro- vided by the SEL coaches. Table 2 contains the average number of 3.4. Implementation measures coaching hours provided across schools in Year 1 (2014–15 school year) and Year 2 (2015–16 school year). Coaches were able to meet the ex- 3.4.1. Coaching log pectation of providing approximately six hours of support to each SEL coaches used an electronic log to document all support they school during Year 1, and neared this expectation in Year 2. The average number of coaching hours was adjusted for support provided in provided to each school. The log enabled coaches to indicate the summer months in 2015 and 2016, such that the coaching support number of hours of support they provided (i.e., dosage), the type of provided in Year 1 spanned a 9.4 month interval, and coaching support coaching support they provided (e.g., SEL team meeting; individual provided in Year 2 spanned a 10.4 month interval. As evidenced by the meeting; other group meeting; coach-facilitated professional learning), large range and standard deviation, coaches individualized support and and who participated (e.g., principals, teachers, community partners, provided more hours of support to some schools as compared to others. family members). Thus, the coaching log tracked all support provided Although there was little variation in the types of coaching supports by coaches. provided by the coaches in Year 1 versus Year 2, there was a small reduction in the provision of support to schools (dosage decreased by 3.4.2. Schoolwide planning and implementation rubric 0.4 h in Year 2). A core tool of the School Guide process is the Schoolwide Planning Table 3 shows the number of coaching events the coaches attended and Implementation Rubric. This rubric is designed to assist SEL lea- per school by event type in Years 1 and 2. The primary mechanism for dership teams in reflecting on their school’s progress toward planning coaches to support planning, implementing, and monitoring schoolwide and implementing schoolwide SEL. It helps gauge progress by providing SEL was through monthly SEL team meetings. It was expected that SEL benchmarks that indicate a school’s current level of support for SEL for all students. The rubric’s benchmarks are based on the six key activities Table 2 of CASEL’s School Theory of Action, which provide a framework for Average monthly coaching hours provided across schools. assessing the school’s infrastructure for supporting SEL. Each key ac- tivity (see Fig. 1) has different performance levels that progress from a Year M SD Range rating of 1 (initial planning and implementation have begun), to 2 (partially planned and implemented), to 3 (mostly planned and im- Year 1a 6.11 1.64 2.83 - 8.21 plemented), to 4 (fully planned and implemented). As such, higher Year 2b 5.68 1.72 3.43 - 8.29 ratings correspond to a more advanced stage of planning and im- plementation of schoolwide SEL. a 9.43 months of support. b 10.43 months of support. SEL leadership teams used the rubric to self-assess during the fall of Year 1 to guide planning and set priorities. They completed rubric 57

D.C. Meyers et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 73 (2019) 53–61 Table 3 continuous improvement. For all six key activities there is substantial Average frequency of coaching events across schools. improvement over the two year implementation process in both the SEL leadership team rubric ratings and the ratings provided by coaches. Delivery Mode Year 1 Year 2 Although SEL leadership teams ranked their schools as higher in the rubric ratings compared to independent ratings of the coaches at M SD M SD baseline, by Year 2 responses were similar across respondents. Classroom Visit 11.07 9.92 6.86 5.35 5. Discussion Climate Observation 8.71 3.67 5.71 2.97 Group Meeting 8.50 4.17 10.43 6.90 The purpose of this paper was to describe the feasibility and degree Individual Meeting 18.50 5.97 21.00 9.81 to which school leadership teams carried out a systems-level im- Coach-led PL Session 1.56 0.96 1.78 1.30 plementation model designed to help school leadership teams promote SEL Team Meeting 9.57 0.73 7.43 0.85 high-quality schoolwide SEL. The components of this model are based on implementation science research, best practices in educational re- leadership teams would hold an average of nine SEL team meetings per form, and leverage school-level organizational factors that influence the year. During Year 1 there was a mean of 9.6 meetings per school, attitudes and practices of staff and teachers, school climate, and student whereas in Year 2 there was a mean of 7.4 meetings per school. This achievement (Domitrovich et al., 2018). This systems-level im- reduction in Year 2 corresponds to the finding above regarding reduc- plementation model, the CASEL School Guide, is intended to build the tion in delivered coaching hours. SEL coaches also supported schools capacity of school staff to implement, sustain, and promote the effec- through individual meetings, group meetings (e.g., grade level meet- tiveness of evidence-based SEL programs and integrate SEL schoolwide. ings), classroom visits, and through the facilitation of professional learning events. Between Year 1 and Year 2, the number of classroom Each of the 14 participating schools who carried out this model visits, climate observations, and SEL leadership team meetings that created an SEL leadership team to drive the planning, implementation, were held decreased. However, in Year 2, there was an increase in the and monitoring of schoolwide SEL. These teams worked alongside number of group and individual meetings that were held compared to systems-level coaches who supported them in moving through a co- Year 1. Coach-led professional learning sessions stayed relatively the ordinated planning process for introducing SEL-focused programing, same across years. implementing an evidence-based SEL program (the PATHS curriculum) with fidelity, and integrating SEL into all aspects of the school’s func- 4.3. Schoolwide planning and implementation rubric tioning. While a standard strategy was used to carry out the im- plementation model, coaching support was customized to account for Rubric ratings were completed at strategic time points by SEL lea- each school’s unique strengths and needs. dership team members and independently by SEL coaches. Fig. 2 dis- plays rubric scores for all six School Guide key activities for both types of The results of this study demonstrate the feasibility of using the raters. The key activities rated highest by both coaches and SEL lea- School Guide implementation model in urban schools who primarily dership teams at the beginning of the study were evidence-based pro- serve students of color. Specifically, the feasibility of implementing this grams, professional learning, and vision. The lowest rated key activities model was shown through (1) the ability of participating schools to at the beginning of the study were assessing resources and needs and complete the standardized implementation strategy, (2) dosage data Fig. 2. Coach and SEL leadership team rubric ratings. 58

D.C. Meyers et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 73 (2019) 53–61 related to the coaching support provided, and (3) rubric ratings com- teams overcame these barriers. The School Guide implementation model pleted by SEL leadership teams and coaches. was completed in all schools, all SEL leadership teams were intact when coaches transitioned off of this study, and district-level SEL specialists 5.1. Executing the School Guide implementation model took on supportive roles in these schools to sustain progress. Although membership fluctuated during and between years of im- 5.2. Promoting high quality implementation through coaching support plementation, all schools maintained an SEL leadership team that was intact throughout the two years of implementation. The majority of SEL coaches were expected to provide approximately six hours of teams followed recommendations that core team members should in- monthly support to each school. This expectation was met, but there clude an administrator (i.e., principal or assistant principal), the PATHS was considerable variability between schools. One reason for the dif- lead, classroom teachers in grades that implemented PATHS, and ferences in coaching hours was due to variability between schools in the classroom teachers that were in grades not implementing PATHS. amount of coaching hours they needed. Some schools received ap- However, in Year 2 it was somewhat less likely that core team members proximately three hours of coaching support per month, whereas others included administrators, PATHS leads, or classroom teachers in grades received more than eight. The number of coaching hours received was a that implemented PATHS. Despite the decrease in recommended core function of each school’s capacity (e.g., some high functioning schools team members in Year 2, all participating SEL leadership teams were did not need as much support; some lower functioning schools needed able to move through each key activity of CASEL’s School Guide im- more intensive support), schools having to respond to multiple district plementation model (Fig. 1) using this study’s implementation strategy. priorities, and pressures imposed by standardized testing schedules. At the end of these two years, each team had developed a vision for SEL in their school, had assessed their current resources and needs for In regard to the type of coaching support provided, it was expected supporting high-quality SEL, established S.M.A.R.T. goals for SEL, and that each school would hold monthly SEL team meetings each year. completed an implementation plan that focused on integrating SEL Although schools met this expectation in Year 1, on average there were throughout their school community. fewer meetings in Year 2. This was due to the fact that teams had been building capacity to implement schoolwide SEL throughout this study, Although all SEL leadership teams were able to execute the School and in the second year they were better able to accomplish SEL in- Guide implementation model, there was variability in how they moved tegration with less-structured support from their coach. through the model. The process for creating a vision for SEL was rela- tively straightforward for teams, and these visions laid a foundation for The number of classroom visits also decreased between Year 1 and planning and implementation throughout the study. However, some Year 2. This was likely due to the launching of PATHS in Year 1 which SEL leadership teams struggled with the needs and resources assess- required coaches to occasionally visit classrooms to support high- ment. For example, when teams were taking stock in the SEL-focused quality implementation. In Year 2 there was less of a need to visit activities that were implemented in their school, there were instances classrooms to observe PATHS since most teachers had been im- where the SEL coaches had to provide additional guidance on what plementing during the previous year, and during Year 2 coaches fo- could be considered SEL. This is because some teams did not consider cused on integrating SEL throughout the school. This might also explain some of the practices they were implementing to be related to SEL, such the increase in group meetings between Year 1 and Year 2, as a newly as restorative practices (e.g., restorative circles; restorative conversa- implemented strategy in Year 2 was to have SEL coaches attend grade tions) or instructional practices that promote a positive learning en- level team meetings to discuss schoolwide SEL and PATHS im- vironment (e.g., cooperative learning; project-based learning). It was plementation at all grades. In addition, the number of climate ob- important for coaches to make these connections as these practices servations decreased between Year 1 and 2. This was likely due to could be explicitly integrated with the school’s approach to SEL. coaches needing to get an accurate sense of the school community during Year 1. An additional challenge experienced when completing the needs and resources assessment was that some SEL leadership teams struggled 5.3. School Guide rubric ratings to identify data sources they could use to monitor schoolwide SEL. For example, it was common for teams to identify discipline data (e.g., Rubric ratings completed by SEL leadership teams and SEL coaches office discipline referral rates) as a source for monitoring the impact of increased for all School Guide key activities (Fig. 2). The increase in SEL. Although reducing discipline problems was important, coaches these ratings demonstrate the strengthening of capacity of participating provided additional guidance on available districtwide measures that schools to carry out the School Guide implementation model, and in- could be linked to positive aspects of the learning environment, such as dicates that improvements in important areas of schoolwide SEL can be a district climate survey that all schools administered. Because of the accomplished. Throughout the study, SEL leadership teams reflected on additional support needed to identify and discuss data sources, the their own rubric ratings as a way to promote continuous improvement. timeline for completing the needs and resources assessment had to be When rubric ratings indicated an opportunity for growth, teams would extended in these schools to ensure data beyond discipline rates were develop strategies for building their capacity. As such, the School Guide monitored. Schoolwide Planning and Implementation Rubric demonstrated its utility in enabling teams to establish priorities, celebrate successes, and The timeline for establishing S.M.A.R.T. goals also needed to be inform continuous improvement. Coaches never shared their in- extended. The majority of teams needed additional coaching support to dependent rubric ratings with SEL leadership teams, yet coach and team ensure all components of the S.M.A.R.T. acronym (i.e., specific; mea- rubric ratings were more similar in Year 2. This finding is likely due to surable; attainable; realistic/relevant; timely) were addressed in each of the fact that coaches helped build the capacity of SEL leadership teams their goals. Another reason for extending the timeline was the un- to understand high quality SEL implementation, and by the end of this expected need for teams to create multiple iterations of goals to ensure study perceptions of the SEL leadership team and their SEL coach were they were clearly linked to the school’s vision for SEL, available re- better-aligned compared to the launch of this study’s implementation sources and needs, and available outcome measures that enabled them model. to be effectively monitored. While it took longer than expected to fi- nalize them, once well-crafted goals were completed in Year 1 they 5.4. Lessons learned served as the central mechanism for guiding SEL integration for the duration of the study. This research represents an important step in demonstrating the feasibility of leadership teams working through the School Guide Despite the challenges some teams faced when completing the needs and resources assessment and setting S.M.A.R.T. goals, SEL leadership 59

D.C. Meyers et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 73 (2019) 53–61 implementation model with the support of a coach, and overcoming Acknowledgement implementation challenges in this study highlighted important lessons learned. While planning for each year of implementation should take This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Education’s place well in advance of the start of that school year, we found that the Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund [Grant ID: U411C130091]. ideal months for planning were the last two months of the prior school year. That was the time that principals were finalizing their professional References learning calendar for the coming year, and if that window was missed it was difficult to work in schoolwide trainings after that point. Also, Barnes, T. N., Smith, S. W., & Miller, M. D. (2014). School-based cognitive-behavioral budgets for the coming year were released in the spring. Prior to re- interventions in the treatment of aggression in the United States: A meta-analysis. ceiving budgets principals were not sure how any changes in funding Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014. could impact plans, which made planning earlier than budgets were 04.013. released to be provisional. A caveat is that the last two months of school was also a time when end-of-year standardized testing was taking place. Bloom, G., Castagna, C. L., Moir, E. R., & Warren, B. (2005). Blended coaching: Skills and strategies to support principal development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. We also found that the user-friendliness of the School Guide manual and tools could be improved. Specifically, these implementation sup- Bridgeland, J., Bruce, M., & Hariharan, A. (2013). The missing piece: A national teacher ports would be improved by incorporating real-world examples from survey on how social and emotional learning can empower children and transform schools. teams that used them. Also, these supports should be simplified and Retrieved fromChicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. only contain the most important, basic aspects of the task at hand. We http://casel.org/themissingpiece/. found some of the fine-grained details of these tools were perceived as too prescriptive and less relevant to each school’s specific context. CASEL (2003). Safe and sound: An educational leader’s guide to evidence-based social and Finally, we found that sustaining progress should be approached by emotional learning (SEL) programs. Chicago, IL: Author. embedding the implementation model into district structures and sup- ports. Turnover is inevitable at all levels of schools and districts, and CASEL (2013). Effective social and emotional learning programs: Preschool and elementary priorities change. In this study, we worked to address this by working school edition. Chicago, IL. with schools to embed SEL into their district-mandated improvement plans and making deliberate connections between SEL leadership teams CASEL (2015). Effective social and emotional learning programs: Middle and high school and district-level personnel whose role was to oversee SEL efforts in the edition. Chicago, IL. district. When SEL is embedded in this way, it is less likely to fall to the wayside when invested staff leave. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2011). The effects of the Fast Track preventive intervention on the development of conduct disorder across childhood. In addition, participating schools implemented a diverse range of Child Development, 82(1), 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010. interventions beyond the evidence-based SEL program and im- 01558.x. plementation support model that were put into practice for this study. For example, most schools were implementing restorative practices to DePaoli, J. L., Atwell, M., & Bridgeland, J. (2017). Ready to lead: A national principal survey address disciplinary issues, character development initiatives, or other on how social and emotional learning can prepare children and transform schools. evidence-based programs to support students (e.g., drug prevention Washington, DC. interventions; interventions for at-risk students; positive school climate promotion efforts). In all instances attempts were made to align such Devos, G., Tuytens, M., & Hulpia, H. (2014). Teachers’ organizational commitment: interventions with PATHS and the School Guide implementation model. Examining the mediating effects of distributed leadership. American Journal of Any effort to promote schoolwide SEL should deliberately link existing Education, 120(2), 205–231. https://doi.org/10.1086/674370. interventions in a school community to evidence-based SEL programs to enhance their relevance, feasibility of implementation, and effective- Domitrovich, C. E., Durlak, J. A., Staley, K. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Social-emo- ness for promoting positive student outcomes. tional competence: An essential factor for promoting positive adjustment and redu- cing risk in school children. Child Development, 88(2), 408–416. https://doi.org/10. 5.5. Conclusion 1111/cdev.12739. This study demonstrated the feasibility of using CASEL’s School Domitrovich, C. E., Meyers, D. C., Cross, R., Weissberg, R. P., & Greenberg, M. T. (2018). Guide model of implementation support with school leadership teams. A model for supporting schools as they implement schoolwide social and emotional Further, both team members and the independent ratings of a coach learning. Manusrcript in preparation. indicated substantial growth in the six developmental steps leading to systems-wide SEL integration in the classroom and school. It appears Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the that a local SEL coach was quite helpful for standardizing im- influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting im- plementation across multiple schools. To reach many U.S. schools, a plementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 327–350. https:// future question is whether schools can accomplish these tasks with a doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0. reduced model of support, such as distance support from a remote coach, or solely using internet-driven assistance. 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 Conflict of interest statements school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x. Dr. Greenberg is an author on the PATHS Curriculum and has a royalty agreement with Channing-Bete, Inc. This has been reviewed and Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2015). Social and managed by Penn State’s Individual Conflict of Interest Committee. emotional learning: Past, present, future. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.). Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research Dr. Domitrovich is an author on the PATHS Curriculum and has a and practice. royalty agreement with Channing-Bete, Inc. This has been reviewed and managed by Georgetown’s Individual Conflict of Interest Committee. Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1. Elias, M. J., & Kamarinos Galiotos, P. (2004). Sustaining social-emotional learning programs: A study of the developmental course of model/flagship SEL sites. Unpublished ManuscriptPiscataway, NJ: Rutgers University. Elias, M. J., Weissberg, R. P., Dodge, K. C., Hawkins, J. D., Kendall, P. C., Jason, L. A., ... Zins, J. E. (1994). The school based promotion of social competence: Theory, practice and policy. In R. Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.). Stress, risk and resiliency in children and adolescents (pp. 268–316). New York: Cambridge University Press. Elias, M. J., Leverett, L., Duffell, J., Humphrey, N., Stepney, C., & Ferrito, J. (2015). Integrating social-emotional learning with related prevention and youth-develop- ment approaches. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.). Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice (pp. 268–316). New York: Guilford Press. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, 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). Florian, J. (2001). Sustaining education reform: Influential factors. Aurora, CO. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national survey. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242780203900101. 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 development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.58.6-7.466. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (4th ed.). Pearson. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to 60

D.C. Meyers et al. Evaluation and Program Planning 73 (2019) 53–61 school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research students’ development in the area of skill, behavior, and adjustment? Psychology in the Journal, 46(3), 659–689. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209340042. Schools, 49(9), 892–909. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21641. Johnson, K., Hays, C., Center, H., & Daley, C. (2004). Building capacity and sustainable Smylie, M. A., Wenzel, S. A., Allensworth, E., Fendt, C., Hallman, S., Luppescu, S., ... prevention innovations: A sustainability planning model. Evaluation and Program Nagaoka, J. (2003). The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Successes, failures, and lessons Planning, 27(2), 135–149. for the future. Chicago, IL . Retrieved from https://consortium.uchicago.edu/ Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). publications/chicago-annenberg-challenge-successes-failures-and-lessons-future. Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive Kam, C. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Walls, C. T. (2003). Examining the role of im- youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interven- plementation quality in school-based prevention using the PATHS curriculum. tions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156–1171. Prevention Science, 4(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021786811186. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12864. Kushé, C. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2012). The PATHS Curriculum: Promoting emotional Wandersman, A., Duffy, J. L., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., ... Saul, literacy, prosocial behavior, and caring classrooms. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B. J. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The Interactive Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.). Handbook of school violence and school Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation. American Journal of safety: International research and practice (pp. 435–446). (2nd ed.). New York, NY US: Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008- Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. 9174-z. Leithwood, K. H., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student Wandersman, A., Chien, V. H., & Katz, J. (2012). Toward an evidence-based system for achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561. https://doi.org/ innovation support for implementing innovations with quality: Tools, training, 10.1177/0013161X08321221. technical assistance, and quality assurance/quality improvement. American Journal of Mahoney, J. L., Weissberg, R. P., Shriver, T. P., Greenberg, M. T., Bouffard, S. M., & Community Psychology, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9509-7. Borowski, T. (2018). A systemic approach to social and emotional learning. Manusrcript Weare, K., & Nind, M. (2011). Mental health promotion and problem prevention in in Preparation. schools: What does the evidence say? Health Promotion International, 26(Suppl. 1), Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation i29–69. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dar075. framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Wigelsworth, M., Lendrum, A., Oldfield, J., Scott, A., ten Bokkel, I., Tate, K., ... Emery, C. Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3-4), 462–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/ (2016). The impact of trial stage, developer involvement and international trans- s10464-012-9522-x. ferability on universal social and emotional learning programme outcomes: A meta- Meyers, D. C., Gil, L., Cross, R., Keister, S., Domitrovich, C. E., & Weissberg, R. P. (2015). analysis. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 347–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/ CASEL guide for schoolwide social and emotional learning. Chicago, IL. 0305764X.2016.1195791. Nordstrum, L. E., LeMahieu, P. G., & Berrena, E. (2017). Implementation Science: Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School-based interventions for aggressive and Understanding and finding solutions to variation in program implementation. Quality disruptive behavior: Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Assurance in Education, 25(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-12-2016-0080. Medicine, 33(2), S130–S143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.011. Oberle, E., Domitrovich, C. E., Meyers, D. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2016). Establishing systemic social and emotional learning approaches in schools: A framework for Duncan C. Meyers is a Senior Manager for Continuous Improvement at the Collaborative schoolwide implementation. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(3), 277–297. https:// for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2015.1125450. O’Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of im- Celene E. Domitrovich is a member of the faculty in the Department of Psychiatry at plementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention re- Georgetown University located in the Center for Child and Human Development and a search. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84. https://doi.org/10.3102/ Senior Scientist at the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning 0034654307313793. (CASEL). Rohrbach, L. A., Grana, R., Sussman, S., & Valente, T. W. (2006). Type II translation: Transporting prevention interventions from research to real-world settings. Rawan Dissi is a Research Coordinator at the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Evaluation & the Health Professions, 29(3), 302–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Emotional Learning (CASEL). 0163278706290408. Rones, M., & Hoagwood, K. (2000). School-based mental health services: A research re- Jordan Trejo is a Research Associate at the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and view. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(4), 223–241. https://doi.org/10. Emotional Learning (CASEL). 1023/A:1026425104386. Scheirer, M. A. (2005). Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical Mark T. Greenberg is the Founding Director of The Prevention Research Center for the studies of program sustainability. The American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3), 320–347. Promotion of Human Development at Pennsylvania State University, and served as its https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005278752. Director from 1998 till 2013. Sklad, M., Diekstra, R., De Ritter, M., Ben, J., & Gravesteijn, C. (2012). Effectiveness of school-based universal social, emotional, and behavioral programs: Do they enhance 61