Investing in Schools: The Economic and Social Benefits of Social-Emotional Learning

The potential benefits of social-emotional learning in schools, along with improved behavior and well-being of school-age children, assessed in the past, have been established to be direct and long-term (Weissberg, 2003). These benefits can be summarized as follows:

• A healthier classroom atmosphere and reduced interruptions support effective instruction that influences academic achievement.

• Broader and longer-term benefits accrue from improved social relations with others and reduced delinquency, antisocial behavior, school dropout, academic failure, and mental health problems.

• Reduced adverse mental health symptoms, substance use, and associated risk factors.

Studies Supporting These Findings

A meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of school-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs (Durlak, 2011). The study found that these programs significantly improve various outcomes, such as reducing aggression and disruptive behavior, enhancing social and emotional skills, increasing attachment to school, promoting prosocial behavior, reducing disciplinary issues, decreasing emotional distress, and boosting academic performance.

Building protective factors for mental health can reduce future health issues and poor outcomes in adulthood (Greenberg M. D., 2001); (Weissberg, 2003)

The last two decades have brought significant progress and improved understanding of school-based prevention and Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). (Greenberg M. W., 2003)

Studies and reviews have shown effective prevention of substance abuse (Gottfredson, 2003), (Lochman, 2002), violence and antisocial behavior (Fagan, 2013) (Wilson, 2003), and poor mental health (Greenberg M. D., 2001) (Hoagwood, 2007) and have promoted positive development in youth (Catalano, 2004).

These results indicate that universal and targeted prevention programs can substantially reduce the rate of problem behaviors and build protective factors that mitigate further risk in child and adolescent populations.

Economic Benefits

A critical gap in social and emotional education analysis is the need for rigorous evaluations demonstrating social-emotional skills' potential economic benefits. Policymakers and educators greatly value such economic assessments when making educational decisions (Greenstone, 2012). Alongside insights into the potential cost savings offered by SEL programs, budget administrators also need detailed data on the immediate and long-term financial implications of effectively deploying these programs.

Assessing the Economic Benefits of Social-Emotional Skills

While research on SEL programs generally focuses on behavioral, social-emotional, cognitive, and academic outcomes, a few studies demonstrate promising economic benefits beyond the classroom.

The Seattle Social Development Project - aimed at enhancing children's social and emotional skills from elementary through early middle school, showed positive impacts into adulthood (lower rates of crime and substance abuse and better mental and emotional health). Economically, the program provided a significant return on investment, with benefits such as higher graduation rates, fewer grade retentions, delayed sexual activity, and reduced criminal behavior among participants. The economic evaluation estimated a return on investment that exceeded $2,500 per participant (Lee, 2012).

The Life Skills Project, a low-cost school-based program costing about $34 per student, is taught by teachers in middle schools. It targets adolescent substance abuse by teaching self-management, social skills, and the dangers of substance use. The latest evaluation shows that every dollar spent returns about $37 in benefits, including reduced substance misuse and criminal activity, equating to nearly $1,300 per participant. These results were based on program effects on substance misuse (including tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drugs) and associated criminal activity (Lee, 2012).

A comprehensive analysis of six effective SEL programs showed that each offered a sound investment return, averaging $11 for every dollar spent (Belfield, 2015). This economic benefit makes sense considering the vital link between early SEL skills and long-term costly outcomes in crime, education, employment, and general well-being (Jones, 2015).

A 2008 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (SAMHSA) report highlighted that investing in school-based substance use prevention programs could yield an $18 return for every dollar spent and save about $1.3 billion for state and local governments (Miller, 2009). These benefits come from reduced criminal activity, lower health service needs, and increased productivity. There is a need to emphasize the economic value of nurturing social-emotional skills from an early age, as doing so can profoundly influence future educational, personal, and professional success, justifying the long-term benefits of these investments.

Bibliography

• Belfield, C. B. (2015). The economic value of social and emotional learning. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6(03), 508-544.

• Durlak, J. W. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82.

• Catalano, R. B. (2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 98-124.

• Greenberg, M. D. (2001). The prevention of mental disorders in school-aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention and Treatment, 4, Article 1.

• Greenberg, M. W. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist, 58 (6-7), 466-474.

• Greenstone, M. H. (2012). A dozen economic facts about K-12 education (PDF). Washington, DC: Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution.

• Lee, S. A. (2012). Return on investment: Evidence-based options to improve statewide outcomes (Vol. 4).

  • Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

• Lochman, J. &. (2002). Family-based approaches to substance abuse prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 23(1), 49-114.

• Miller, T. &. (2009). Substance abuse prevention dollars and cents: A cost-benefit analysis. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: (DHHS Pub. No. [SMA] 07-4298).

• Weissberg, R. K. (2003). Prevention that works for children and youth: An introduction. American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 425-432.

• Wilson, S. L. (2003). The effects of school-based intervention programs on aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(1), 136-149.

• Fagan, A. &. (2013). What works in youth violence prevention: A review of the literature. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(2), 141-156.

• Gottfredson, D. &. (2003). Characteristics of effective school-based substance abuse prevention. Prevention Science, 4(1), 27-38.

• Jones, D. G. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health, 105(11), 2283-2290.

• Hoagwood, K. O. (2007). Empirically-based school interventions targeted at academic and mental health functioning”. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(2), 66-92