Impact of a School-Based Social-Emotional Program on Social Environments: Results from a Trial in Low-Income Schools

Introduction: A student’s social environment includes his/her neighborhood, school (including teachers), peers, and family. Characteristics of these social environments can be health-promoting or health-compromising (e.g., Viner et al., 2012).  School-based, social-emotional and character development (SECD) programs implemented among at-risk populations have the potential to promote health equity by enhancing these social environments. To date, however, the impact of school-based prevention programs on these multiple and distinct social environments has not been fully investigated.  We hypothesized Positive Action (PA), one example of a school-based SECD program, would positively impact the multiple social environments of students attending schools where the program was delivered. We used data from the Chicago RCT of PA to test this hypothesis.

Methods: The six-year Chicago RCT of PA was longitudinal at the school level, followed students from grades 3 to 8, and used a place-focused intent-to-treat design with a dynamic cohort (Vuchinich et al., 2012). Fourteen high-risk public schools were randomly assigned from matched pairs to PA or wait-listed control. The 1,170 participating students reported on the following indicators of their social environments: Neighborhood-Neighborhood Context; School-Positive School Orientation, Feelings of School Safety,  Victimization, School Attachment, Teacher Attachment, Rewards for Prosocial Behavior from Teachers; Peers-Friend Attachment; and Family-Parent Attachment,  Rewards for Prosocial Behavior from Parents. Growth curve models were estimated to test program effects on these outcomes, and effect sizes were calculated to examine the magnitude of effects. Moderation by student mobility and gender were also tested.

Results: Significant and favorable program effects (i.e., condition × time interactions) were observed for all outcomes except feelings of school safety, attachment to friends, and attachment to parents.  The absolute value of effect sizes for outcomes with significant program effects ranged from 0.26 (Victimization) to 0.82 (Rewards for Prosocial Behavior from Parents). Moderation by mobility group was not observed; moderation by gender was observed for one outcome only (attachment to friends).

Conclusions: Program effects were observed for indicators of the neighborhood-, school-, and family environments. Findings suggest SECD programs are capable of influencing multiple environmental domains. Future research should examine whether changes in indicators of the social environment mediate PAs impact on health-outcomes.