This document was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It was 
prepared by EnCompass LLC and its partner MSI, a Tetra Tech company, for the Data and Evidence for Education 
Programs (DEEP), Contract No. GS-10F-0245M. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of 
USAID. The document is for internal use only and is not to be shared outside of working session participants.
CONSIDER THE CONTEXT:
WHY AND HOW TO FACTOR ENVIRONMENT IN 
MEASURING SEL/SOFT SKILLS
November 2021
i | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................III
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... IV
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................1
Why Consider the Environment in SEL/Soft Skills Measurement?........................................................................ 2
Overview of This Evidence Paper.................................................................................................................................. 3
METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................................................4
Limitations........................................................................................................................................................................... 5
FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................................................5
Theoretical Frameworks Guiding SEL/Soft Skills Programming ............................................................................. 5
Evidence of the Role of the Environment in SEL/Soft Skills Development in LMICS........................................ 7
Creating and Measuring SEL/Soft Skills -Supportive Environments.....................................................................13
CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................................16
WORKS CITED..............................................................................................................................................17
ii | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
3EA Education in Emergencies, Evidence for Action
DEEP Data and Evidence for Education Programs
HIC High-income countries
LMIC Low- and middle-income countries
LRHC Learning to Read in a Healing Classroom
SEL Social-emotional learning
SoLD Science of learning and development
UBC Un Buen Comienzo
USAID United States Agency for International Development
iii | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The team that developed this report would like to thank Alana Christopher, Allyson Krupar, Ana 
Perdomo, Catherine Honeyman, David Osher, Eliflorida Mushi, Elizabeth Kim, Eyerusalem Tessema, 
Frank Omona, Garene Kaloustian, Gustavo Payan-Luna, Hellen Namisi, Kimberley Foulds, Lucia 
Hernandez, Linda Fogarty, Meghan Mahoney, Mehdi Bentoumi, Rachel Smith, Rajani Shreshtha, Rena 
Deitz, Rina Dhalla, Sarah Montgomery, and Stephanie Jones for participating in the consultations that led 
to the development of the report. The team would also like to thank Amy Mulcahy-Dunn of EnCompass 
LLC for her thoughtful review of the report draft. Lastly, the team would like to thank Anjuli 
Shivshanker, formerly of USAID, and Rebecca Pagel of USAID for their guidance and support. 
This report is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency 
for International Development (USAID.) The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of 
EnCompass LLC and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
iv | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For children and youth to grow into thriving adults, they must develop their social-emotional learning 
(SEL) and soft skills. USAID provides programming in both in-school and out-of-school contexts to help 
individuals foster these skills. However, a key aspect of developing SEL and soft skills, the learning 
environment, has been understudied in low-and middle-income country (LMIC) country contexts, 
potentially limiting the effectiveness of these and other programs. This brief presents evidence 
concerning the value of considering the learning environment in the development and measurement of
SEL and soft skills in LMICs. In this brief, the term “environment” reflects a set of process features in the 
SEL learning environment (e.g., day-to-day educator-student and peer-peer relationships and 
interactions, social-emotional climate, daily routines, and safety) that have been identified in the 
literature as essential for fostering healthy SEL/soft skills development. When program implementers 
and educators attend to the environment, they can create the conditions needed to support SEL/soft 
skills development. This evidence brief aims to draw attention to an important limitation in our existing 
measurement approaches—failure to adequately consider the environment in order to understand 
individual strengths and weaknesses—and to cast a vision for the SEL/soft skill measurement field. 
Research—primarily from the United States—demonstrates that culturally sensitive and responsive 
settings characterized by warmth and trust between educators and learners are associated with better 
academic and social-emotional outcomes. Although there is far less evidence demonstrating these 
associations in LMIC contexts, or conflict-affected contexts, existing research from these contexts 
indicates that safety, a sense of connectedness, and friendly and encouraging learning environments are 
important conditions for SEL and soft skills development. Several international organizations recognize 
that positive environments are essential for development (e.g., UNICEF 2019; USAID 2018; Yoshikawa 
et al. 2018), but the evidence base on these environments, what they look like, and how to foster them, 
is limited. Unless greater attention is paid to the environment in these contexts, improvements in 
SEL/soft skills from SEL/soft skills programming may be limited (Rao & Sun 2015). 
Despite the general consensus that the environment plays a critical role in the development and 
measurement of SEL and soft skills, tools that measure either SEL or soft skills in a given context or 
tools that assess the SEL/soft skills environment remain limited. Existing measures tend to capture 
process features of the environment that have been linked with positive SEL/soft skills development, 
but have not included measures of individual skills in the learning environment context. The existing 
measures generally use self-reports and direct observations. A companion brief provides a set of 
recommended measures for evaluating the SEL/soft skill environment.
The environment can affect the reliability and validity of individual-level SEL/soft skills measurement 
approaches. Research indicates that the development of SEL and soft skills competencies is not linear, 
i.e., individuals exhibit or use different competencies in different places and at different times. Apparent 
“differences” in SEL/soft skills across contexts could simply reflect variations in the social expectations 
of various contexts and not actual behavior, something current SEL/soft skills measures commonly fail to 
consider. In fact, most measures are designed to generalize across a wide range of competencies in all 
settings at all times and thus may over- or under-estimate an individual’s skills in a given setting or at a 
specific point in time (Osher et al. 2017). As such, assessment strategies that consider environmental 
experiences are critical for understanding and interpreting individual development. Ultimately, the goal is 
to be able to connect measurement of the environment with measurement of individual SEL/soft skills so 
that the individual measures better reflect the contexts in which these skills develop.
v | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
It is critical to consider not only how education and youth development programming can create safe, 
supportive, and enabling environments but also how to measure those environments. Yet, the side-by￾side measurement of the environment with SEL/soft skills themselves is rare, likely because tools 
designed to simultaneously measure both the environment and skills are not yet readily available. 
As such, this evidence brief provides two calls to action:
1. Begin measuring the SEL/soft skills environment across LMICs and conflict-affected contexts.
2. Develop a set of tools that effectively combines the measurement of a SEL/soft skill with the 
measurement of the environment in which that skill is observed. 
1 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
INTRODUCTION
For children and youth to grow into thriving adults, they must develop their social-emotional learning 
(SEL) and soft skills (definitions below). USAID provides programming in both in-school and out-of￾school contexts to help individuals foster these skills. However, a key aspect of developing SEL and soft 
skills, the connection between skill development and an individual’s learning environment, has been 
understudied in low-and middle-income country (LMIC) country contexts, potentially limiting the 
effectiveness of programming to develop these skills. What evidence exists suggests this is a critical area, 
just as it is in high-income country (HIC) contexts. While some of the evidence from HIC contexts may 
be applicable in LMICs, substantial research needs to be conducted in LMICs in order to learn how the 
relationship between learning environment and skill development is shaped in these contexts and what 
can ultimately improve the quality of SEL/soft skills programming. 
This paper 1) outlines the existing evidence on the relationship between learning environment and 
SEL/soft skills development in LMICs, 2) provides an overview of existing measurement approaches for 
looking at the environment in SEL/soft skills programming in LMICs, and 3) explores how the 
environment can affect the validity and reliability of existing approaches used in evaluating individual-level 
SEL/soft skills improvement. A companion brief provides recommendations for some learning 
environment measures that have been used in LMIC contexts; these measures focus on process 
features of the environment that have been linked with positive SEL/soft skills development.
USAID’s existing standard indicators on SEL and soft skills focus on individual measurement. This 
exploration does not represent an attempt to abandon individual-level measurement or the work of 
solving the challenges that exist in both developing and measuring individual skills. Rather, this brief aims 
to draw attention to an important limitation in our existing measurement approaches and to cast a 
vision for the SEL/soft skill measurement field that can include both individual and environmental 
measures. Attending to both can allow the individual measures to better reflect the contexts in which 
these skills develop, ultimately strengthening programming to allow children and youth to foster these 
skills.
Social Emotional Learning and Soft Skills
As defined in USAID’s Social and Emotional Learning and Soft Skills policy brief, the terms “social 
and emotional skills” and “soft skills” refer to a set of cognitive skills (e.g., attention focusing and 
shifting, impulse control, planning, and goal setting), social skills (e.g., perspective taking, prosocial 
behavior, and conflict resolution), and emotional skills (e.g., emotion knowledge, emotion 
regulation, and empathy) that shape how individuals interact with one another (USAID 2019). At 
USAID, programming sometimes uses both terms for overlapping cohorts of learners, but most 
commonly, the term “social and emotional skills” is used in the context of early childhood 
and early primary education programming and the term “soft skills” is used in the context of 
formal and informal education and cross-sectoral programming for older youth in the range of 
ages 10-29 (USAID n.d.). “Social and emotional learning,” or SEL, is the process by which 
individuals learn and apply cognitive, social, emotional, and soft skills needed to succeed in 
educational settings, work, and the community (Jones et al. 2019). 
2 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
WHY CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT IN SEL/SOFT 
SKILLS MEASUREMENT?
Ample evidence suggests that children and youth actively construct knowledge based on their 
experiences, relationships, and social contexts. Across one’s lifespan, the brain continues to grow and 
change in response to experiences and relationships (for a review, see Cantor et al. 2019). Different 
neural systems have “sensitive periods” of development during which the system may be particularly 
receptive to certain experiences or environments, although skill acquisition can occur at any stage of 
development (Bornstein 2014). These sensitive periods vary considerably as a result of individual 
experiences, which can lead to variability in rates and levels of skill development across individuals 
(Johnson et al. 2015). Furthermore, development of SEL and soft skill competencies is not linear, with 
different competencies being exhibited or used in different places at different times (Osher et al. 2017). 
For example, a student may control her impulses more in a formal learning environment than in a home 
or community setting. In this case, teacher reports of SEL/soft skills would likely indicate the student has 
high impulse control while parent reports might indicate the student has low impulse control. These 
apparent “differences” may simply reflect variations in the social expectations of the two contexts and 
not actual behavior, something current SEL/soft skills measures commonly fail to consider. Similarly, two 
environments can look entirely different but be equally supportive of SEL/soft skills. As such, assessment 
strategies that consider environmental experiences are critical for understanding and interpreting 
development. 
What is the “environment”?
For the purposes of this report, the term “environment” reflects a set of process features in the 
SEL learning environment, including day-to-day educator-student and peer-peer relationships and 
interactions, overall social-emotional climate (e.g., educators’ empathy, warmth, and support; 
positive affect), daily routines, and safety. These features have been identified in the literature as 
essential for fostering healthy SEL/soft skills development across childhood and adolescence.
Although process features are the most commonly examined features of the SEL environment, 
the learning environment can also be described in terms of other attributes, such as: 
• Type of setting (e.g., schools, homes, communities, workforce development programs)
• Type of program/practice (e.g., SEL curriculum or practice implemented) 
• Composition of that setting (e.g., proportion of high SEL peers and lower SEL peers)
• Structural features (e.g., infrastructure, health/safety, class/group size and ratio, educator 
characteristics)
• Systems (e.g., ministries of education, government regulations)
Terms such as the “enabling environment” (i.e., environments that encourage and recognize youth 
while providing a safe and supportive space for expression and growth) and “safe classrooms” 
(i.e., environments where children and youth feel free to be themselves and where the safety and 
well-being of learners, educators, and staff are promoted) have also commonly been used to 
describe SEL/soft skills-supportive environments (Britto, Yoshikawa, & Boller 2011; International 
Network for Education in Emergencies 2012; Soares et al. 2017).
3 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
Over the last several decades, researchers and practitioners in both HICs and LMICs (though more so 
in HICs) have begun to consider the broader environment in which skills develop, with particular 
attention to the emotional climate (e.g., educators’ empathy, warmth, and support of learners; 
educators’ responsivity to learners’ needs; high positive affect and low negative affect) and to the 
relationships and interactions within those contexts. Research shows that the social-emotional climate 
of the learning environment can create the conditions necessary for SEL/soft skills development (Berg, 
Osher, Moroney, & Yoder 2017). Evidence also suggests that individual relationships (e.g., educator￾student or peer-peer) are an essential element of healthy development across multiple domains, 
including social-emotional, academic, and health (Osher et al. 2020). A “whole child” approach to 
assessing development considers not just the individual but also the environment or contextual 
experiences of that individual (Darling-Hammond & Cook-Harvey 2018), a key element of Positive 
Youth Development (Alvarado et al. 2017). Although the whole child approach is important for all 
children and youth, it is likely particularly important for children and youth in LMICs and conflict￾affected contexts because of the range of broader environmental factors, including increased stress, that 
can negatively affect development (Aber et al. 2016). 
Without careful attention, the quality of environment, access to programs, and educational settings that 
target SEL skills does not ensure improvements in outcomes (Rao & Sun 2015). Such attention can 
contribute to more supportive programs and practices. Yet, most SEL/soft skills measures are designed 
to generalize across a wide range of competencies in all settings at all times and thus may over- or 
under-estimate an individual’s skills in a given setting or at a specific point in time. Moreover, 
measurement of the environment remains relatively scarce in LMICs and conflict-affected contexts 
(UNESCO, UNICEF, Brookings Institution, and World Bank 2017). For example, in a recent OECD 
survey, fewer than half of participating countries reported monitoring interactions among children; few 
countries even reported monitoring simple tasks like whether children picked up a book to read or 
used learning materials such as worksheets, counting chips, etc. in daily lessons (OECD 2021). This is 
unfortunate, as individual-level assessments that are sensitive enough to be used for program evaluation 
(i.e., that take into consideration aspects of the environment) provide essential information to programs 
about their areas of strength and areas for improvement, thereby offering valuable insight into program 
impacts (Wolf et al. 2017). These facts, combined with the lack of consensus around the most salient 
SEL/soft skills domains and competencies and the limited number of psychometrically sound or culturally 
appropriate measures, has led to a need to consider not just the purposes of measurement but other 
factors that might contribute to the development of SEL/soft skills, including the broader environment 
(Berg et al. 2017; Halle & Darling-Churchill 2016). 
OVERVIEW OF THIS EVIDENCE PAPER
This report consists of four sections. The first section describes the methodology used to produce this 
report. The second section offers some theoretical frameworks for understanding work on the 
environment. The third section summarizes existing research on the environment in both LMICs and 
HICs. The final section provides some recommendations for creating a SEL/soft skills-supportive 
environment and general strategies for measuring these environments.
A companion brief provides recommendations for a set of measures that have been used in diverse 
contexts to assess learning environments that are SEL/soft skills-supportive.
4 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
METHODOLOGY
To explore whether and to what extent the environment is considered in both the development and 
measurement of SEL and soft skills, the Data and Evidence for Education Programs (DEEP) team 
conducted an extensive literature review of recent/ongoing research from around the world on 
programs that aim to improve the SEL/soft skills environment, with a particular focus on those regions 
in which USAID programming occurs. 
The DEEP team reviewed publicly available documents that described programs and practices that:
• Aimed to improve environmental quality, climate, and/or safety as a means to improve SEL/soft 
skills outcomes
• Measured at least one SEL/soft skills outcome, either alone or in combination with other learning 
outcomes
The team classified sources along two sets of criteria (Exhibit 1): one related to the environmental 
factors that were targeted or measured (i.e., whether they were SEL/soft skills-supportive) and one 
related to the quality of research on the program and/or practice as it relates to SEL/soft skills 
measurement. 
Exhibit 1. Criteria for classification of sources ranging from weakest to strongest
EVIDENCE OF PROGRAM/PRACTICE AIMED AT 
IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF 
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURE
• None: No clear evidence of SEL/soft skills 
features of the environment were targeted or 
assessed
• Limited: Evidence that the program/practice 
targeted an aspect of the environment that could 
be linked with the SEL/soft skills context (e.g., 
class size, educator-student ratio, setting location) 
but no (or weak) assessments of that feature of 
the environment were made
• Some: Evidence that at least one component of 
the program/practice aimed to directly improve 
the SEL/soft skills context (focused primarily on 
quality, climate, and safety) and an assessment was 
made of the environmental feature
• Extensive: Evidence that the program/practice 
aimed to improve multiple aspects of the SEL/soft 
skills context (e.g., climate and relationships or 
safety and support) and each of those aspects of 
the environment was assessed
• None: No clear evidence of SEL/soft skills 
measurement in research/program evaluation 
• Weak: Reliability and validity of the SEL/soft skills 
measures were reported but are weak (e.g., poor 
reliability and/or little evidence of validity) and 
were not directly tied to the targeted 
environmental features (i.e., would not expect 
changes in skills due to program)
• Modest/Mixed: Reliability and validity of the 
SEL/soft skills measures were reported but are 
modest (e.g., modest reliability and some evidence 
for validity), findings are mixed (e.g., some 
evidence of high reliability and some evidence of 
low reliability; mixed evidence for validity), and 
there is some link between the targeted 
environmental features and the measured SEL/soft 
skills outcomes
• Strong: Reliability and validity of the measures 
were reported and are strong (e.g., high reliability 
across studies and at least some evidence of 
validity) and there is a clear link between the 
targeted environmental features and the measured 
SEL/soft skills outcomes
5 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
LIMITATIONS
The review, findings, and recommendations described below should be interpreted with the following 
limitations in mind. Although the DEEP team aimed to include research from LMICs on 
programs/practices that seek to improve the environment and measures that assess those environments, 
such work is currently quite limited. As a result, many of the recommendations derive from research 
conducted in HIC contexts. This makes it difficult to ascertain whether these programs or practices can 
be effectively implemented in LMICs and conflict-affected contexts. Nevertheless, recommendations 
were based on general practices that should be readily implemented in any context following adaptation 
to a given context. Furthermore, this report does not represent an exhaustive or systematic review of 
the literature; instead, the goal was to provide a summary of key findings related to the environment and 
SEL/soft skills, with particular attention to issues of measurement. Finally, although educators play an 
essential role in creating SEL/soft skills-supportive environments, measurement of educator skills and 
characteristics was beyond the scope of this report.
FINDINGS
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS GUIDING SEL/SOFT 
SKILLS PROGRAMMING
Several theoretical frameworks have consistently been used to guide and evaluate SEL/soft skills 
programming both in the United States and in LMICs and conflict-affected contexts. At the core of these 
frameworks is the developing child or youth. Surrounding that core, however, are essential 
environmental factors and interpersonal interactions that shape individual development. Every 
environmental factor, interpersonal interaction, or combination of the two is unique to each individual, 
illustrating the complexity and variability of human development (Fischer and Bidell 2006). These 
frameworks provide clear evidence that SEL/soft skills programming is firmly embedded in the notion 
that environment matters; they offer a useful schema for thinking about the value of examining (and 
measuring) SEL/soft skills in context.
The Bioecological Contexts and Developmental Systems frameworks suggest that individuals develop in 
a set of nested ecologies or environments (e.g., family, school, neighborhood, community, social media) 
and that development is a result of increasingly complex interactions within and across these 
environments (Bateson 2015; Lerner and Callina 2013; Morris and Bronfenbrenner 2006; Overton 
2015). These frameworks also emphasize the fact that interactions are unique to each individual and vary 
across time and location (Bornstein 2017). Exhibit 2 provides a visual illustration of the Bioecological 
Contexts framework. At the center is the individual child or youth and their SEL or soft skills; 
immediately surrounding the individual are the environments closest to the child or youth (e.g., family, 
peers, learning environments), followed by those environments that do not directly affect the 
child/youth but may affect educational policies or SEL/soft skills programming (e.g., government agencies, 
health care), which then shape development. Also represented in this visual is the “mesosystem,” which 
simply reflects the interactions that occur between elements of the environment that are close to the 
child or youth (i.e., the microsystem) and elements that are further away from the child or youth (i.e., 
the exosystem).
6 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
Exhibit 2. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Contexts Model (1977)
Source: Guy-Evans, O. (2020). “Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory.” Simply Psychology. 
https://www.simplypsychology.org/Bronfenbrenner.html
The Science of Learning and Development (SoLD) framework further emphasizes that development is 
malleable and is shaped by interactions with and among environmental factors and the relationships that 
children and youth experience (Cantor et al. 2019). The SoLD framework employs a whole child 
framework to understand development, and as such, considers not just the environment but also 
instructional strategies and systems of support. The SoLD framework includes three primary features of 
environments that are SEL/soft skills-supportive: a caring, culturally responsive learning environment, 
structures that allow for continuity in relationships, consistency in practice, and regular, predictable 
routines, and relational trust and respect (Darling-Hammond et al. 2020). Exhibit 3 provides an 
illustration of the SoLD framework. 
7 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
Exhibit 3. The Science of Learning and Development Framework (Darling-Hammond et al. 2020)
Source: Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. “Implications for educational practice of the science of 
learning and development.” Applied Developmental Science 24, no. 2 (2020): 97-140. 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
EVIDENCE OF THE ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN 
SEL/SOFT SKILLS DEVELOPMENT IN LMICS
Growing evidence suggests that a positive environment can support physical, psychological, cognitive, 
social, and emotional development in children and youth and help set them on a positive trajectory (for 
a review, see Berg et al. 2017). In contrast, negative or unsupportive environments can hinder 
development (Bouguen et al. 2013). For example, research—primarily from the United States—
demonstrates that settings characterized by warmth and trust between educators and learners are 
associated with better academic and social-emotional outcomes (Cantor et al. 2019; Merritt et al. 2012; 
8 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
Osher et al. 2018). Furthermore, positive adult-child (or adult-youth) relationships that are culturally 
sensitive and responsive can support a range of developmental outcomes, including healthy identity and 
social-emotional development and academic achievement (Hammond 2014; Steele and Cohn-Vargas 
2013). Emotionally supportive learning environments are also associated with better mental health and 
academic outcomes (Merrit et al. 2012; Suldo et al. 2009). Predictable routines and behavioral 
expectations as well as cooperative peer relations are associated with greater motivation and 
engagement in learning (Cameron, Connor, Morrison, and Jewkes 2008; Sciaraffa, Zeanah, and Zeanah 
2018). 
Additional Factors Related to Positive Environments
Although not the focus of this report, there is also ample evidence demonstrating that SEL/soft 
skills programs and curricula support positive development in the United States (for a review, see 
Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, and Schellinger 2011) and that teacher professional 
development programs focusing on social-emotional well-being can improve the SEL/soft skills 
environment (Allen et al. 2013). For example, using a program developed in the United States, 
researchers found that educator training around classroom behavior management adapted for the 
Jamaican context resulted in small to modest reductions in children’s conduct problems (Baker￾Henningham, Scott, Jones, and Walker 2012). 
Despite the robust body of evidence supporting the role of the environment in the development of 
positive SEL/soft skills competencies in the United States, there is only limited evidence demonstrating 
these associations in LMICs or conflict-affected contexts (e.g., Aber et al. 2017; Brunzell et al. 2015; 
Jordans, Pigott, and Tol 2016). Those studies that do exist are typically observational (rather than 
experimental) in nature and most commonly focus on improving teacher practices that promote 
SEL/soft skills (e.g., Davidson and Hobbs 2013), increasing interactions between different ethnic/racial or 
cultural groups (e.g., Bar-Tal and Rosen 2009), or treating children and youth at risk for psychosocial 
and mental health problems (Jordans et al. 2009). A majority of the studies also target only one domain 
of child/youth functioning rather than multiple interacting domains of development, and many do not 
measure SEL/soft skills. Broadly, findings across studies provide some evidence that safety, a sense of 
connectedness, and friendly and encouraging learning environments are important conditions for SEL 
and soft skills development. Nevertheless, considerably more research is needed in LMICs and conflict￾affected contexts that measures not only the environment—and specifically SEL/soft skill supportive 
environments—but SEL/soft skills within that context. 
Presented below are four programs illustrating how various environments can support positive 
development across multiple domains for children and youth, particularly those who experience 
extensive environmental risk. These programs were selected for inclusion in this report either because 
their efficacy has been supported by experimental evidence or because they show considerable promise 
for improving developmental contexts. All programs highlighted below either measured SEL/soft skills 
outcomes following program implementation or measured SEL/soft skills-supportive environmental 
indicators as part of their programming. It is worth noting, however, that there is a much broader range 
of programming that targets the quality of the environment without attention to SEL/soft skills, but 
these were not included in this review because it is the combination of targeting the environment and 
9 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
measuring SEL/soft skills that is likely to lead to a deeper understanding of the role that environment 
plays in current SEL/soft skills measurement challenges. 
EXAMPLE 1 
Program: Healing Classrooms
Learning to Read in a Healing Classroom (LRHC) 
and Learning Mathematics in a Healing Classroom 
(LMHC)
Implementers: International Rescue 
Committee
Location/s: Primarily, Democratic Republic of 
the Congo, Niger, Lebanon
Environmental Target: Educators
Description: Healing Classrooms is based on the premise that changes in the quality of the learning 
environment can lead to subsequent changes in academic and social-emotional competencies (Aber et 
al. 2017; Torrente et al. 2015). Through the use of integrated teacher resource materials, which 
promote the development of safe, emotionally supportive, and predictable student-centered 
classrooms, as well as collaborative teacher-learning circles, which include weekly grade-level 
meetings, monthly school-level meetings, and quarterly school cluster meetings designed to create an 
environment where educators can share information and where they feel valued and supported, the 
program aimed to improve the climate and culture of schools, increase educators’ motivation and 
performance, and promote student well-being and academic success (Aber et al. 2017). Practices for 
accomplishing this included addressing each student by name, using positive discipline, using small 
group activities to foster peer interactions, and creating a regular classroom routine, among others 
(Aber et al. 2017).
Evaluation or Research Approach: A multi-year, cluster-randomized trial with a waitlist control 
group was employed to evaluate the impact of Healing Classrooms on educator and student 
outcomes. Student participants were third, fourth, and fifth graders.
Evidence and Impact: Findings from the DRC, Lebanon, and Niger suggest that the Healing 
Classrooms program promotes students’ sense of control and belonging, feelings of self-worth, peer 
relationships, and personal attachments (IRC 2018). Further, the LRHC program led to improvements 
in students’ perceptions of their educators and schools as being caring and supportive (Torrente et al. 
2015). Although the program did not have a significant impact on students’ overall well-being, an 
analysis by different subgroups suggested that older and language majority students in the program 
experienced decreases in victimization and mental health problems relative to younger, language 
minority students (Torrente et al. 2015). There is also evidence that Healing Classrooms can improve 
student literacy and numeracy (Tucciarone 2021). Finally, evidence from the DRC indicates that 
educators experienced significant increases in job satisfaction and increases in motivation for the 
experienced lead educators (Wolf et al. 2015).
Challenges to Consider: Reliance on student self-report measures to assess many of the outcomes 
and perceptions of the environment may have limited estimates of the impacts of the program; a 
variety of assessment approaches, including observation, should be considered. Qualitative data could 
provide important explanations for unexpected findings but these data were not collected for this 
study.
References: 
• https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge￾core/content/view/60172D9E82B56CD90063C3176FF18AEB/S0954579416001139a.pdf/promoti
10 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
ng_childrens_learning_and_development_in_conflictaffected_countries_testing_change_process
_in_the_democratic_republic_of_the_congo.pdf
• https://www.edu-links.org/resources/creating-healing-classrooms
• https://inee.org/system/files/resources/IRC_Creating_Healing_Classrooms_-_Tools_0.pdf
EXAMPLE 2
Program/Practice: Un Buen Comienzo (A 
Good Start)
Implementers: Mesa Técnica Interinstitucional (a 
board comprised of Chilean policymakers, early 
education leaders and teachers)
Location/s: Chile Environmental Target: Educators (Pre￾kindergarten and kindergarten)
Description: The Un Buen Comienzo (UBC) program provided professional development to pre￾kindergarten and kindergarten educators in Chile, with the goal of improving classroom quality and 
subsequently enhancing children’s social-emotional, health, language, and literacy outcomes 
(Yoshikawa et al. 2015). Specifically, educators underwent intensive training (in the form of 
workshops and in-classroom coaching) in approaches to establishing a positive classroom climate and 
behavior management strategies as well as individual case management for children with specific needs 
(language and literacy and health service training was also provided but is not the focus of this 
review). Classroom quality was assessed using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS; 
Pianta, La Paro, and Hamre 2008), which assesses classroom emotional climate, instructional support, 
and classroom organization.
Evaluation or Research Approach: A multi-year, cluster-randomized control trial in 64 schools 
(1,876 students) in Santiago, Chile. Schools were randomly assigned to a full UBC intervention or to a 
reduced services control. Findings are based on pre-test, end of pre-kindergarten, and end of 
kindergarten assessments.
Evidence and Impact: Findings indicate modest to large effects of the program on emotional and 
instructional support and classroom organization after the first year. Following Year 2, both emotional 
support and classroom organization improved significantly (albeit modestly) (Yoshikawa et al. 2015). 
The study did not note any effects on child outcomes. The authors concluded that although 
professional development can improve the quality of the classroom environment, additional intensive 
approaches are needed to improve child outcomes in Chile. Additional work by Levya and colleagues 
(2015) demonstrated both construct and predictive validity of the CLASS. This represented the first 
time the CLASS was used in a Latin American context and the finding further establishes the cross￾cultural value of this tool for assessing classroom quality.
Challenges to Consider: Existing resistance to curricula that prescribe a set dosage of instruction 
may explain the lack of impact the program had on child outcomes; this further demonstrates the 
importance of understanding contextual challenges before implementing a program or practice.
References: 
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lorenzo-Moreno￾2/publication/266900542_Un_Buen_Comienzo_Cluster_Randomized_Controlled_Trial_of_Early
_Education_and_Health_Intervention_in_Preschools_in_Santiago_Chile/links/556c4c3208aefcb8
61d643fa/Un-Buen-Comienzo-Cluster-Randomized-Controlled-Trial-of-Early-Education-and￾Health-Intervention-in-Preschools-in-Santiago-Chile.pdf
11 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
• Leyva, D., Weiland, C., Barata, M., Yoshikawa, H., Snow, C., Treviño, E., & Rolla, A. (2015). 
Teacher–child interactions in Chile and their associations with prekindergarten outcomes. Child 
development, 86(3), 781-799.
EXAMPLE 3
Program/Practice: SEL and School Climate Implementers: USAID/Tanzania’s Tusome Pamoja 
Project, implemented by RTI International
Location/s: Tanzania Environmental Target: Teachers/Educators (and 
Ward Education Officers)
Description: The SEL and School Climate project used a national co-curricular program (Journeys –
Randolph, Burkholder, and Sempa 2019) designed to create safe schools and classrooms and to 
enhance SEL in an effort to reduce violence in schools and promote learning in primary schools 
(Randolph, Edwards, and Norman 2019). The program is based on four pillars thought to foster safe 
schools: school climate (e.g., positive discipline, educator-student relationships, peer-peer 
relationships), school culture (e.g., egalitarian attitudes, trust), social classrooms (e.g., group and pair 
work, dialogue and interaction), and SEL (Norman 2020). Three of the four pillars target the 
environment as a means to improve SEL, while only one focuses on directly teaching SEL skills. 
Broadly, the program aimed to create safe, supportive, and inclusive learning environments through 
pair/group work that helped students feel supported and educators feel in control, thereby creating a 
greater sense of unity in the learning environment and improving overall school climate by enhancing 
student-educator relationships and developing positive discipline plans. 
Evaluation or Research Approach: This is currently a descriptive study with no evaluation or 
rigorous research findings to date.
Evidence and Impact: Findings suggest that 92 percent of educators were very confident in their 
ability to conduct group activities and 89 percent were very confident in developing positive 
relationships with their students following the program (89 percent were very confident). Over 60 
percent of teachers reported applying what they had learned in the program to their classrooms 
(Norman 2020). Following this initial work, the team concluded that educators were eager to change 
their classroom environments by shifting their pedagogical practices and improving the classroom 
culture to better support their students’ social-emotional and academic development (Norman 2020).
References: 
• https://shared.rti.org/content/co-creation-teaching-activities-during-covid-19
• https://shared.rti.org/content/journeys-activity-handbook-teachers-and-school-staff
12 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
EXAMPLE 4
Program/Practice: Learn Safe in Bo Implementers: Education in Emergencies, Evidence 
for Action (3EA) partnership between International 
Rescue Committee and New York University Global 
TIES for Children
Location/s: Sierra Leone Environmental Target: Educators and refugee 
children
Description: Using a low-intensity intervention designed to enhance teacher practices around social￾emotional learning and offer remedial tutoring around literacy, researchers explored what factors 
supported and hindered the implementation of the program in a resource-limited context. The 
broader study involved 24 primary schools (with 241 teachers and 5,700 students) in Sierra Leone, 
with head teachers, teachers, and learning coaches being the focus of this particular project (3EA May 
2021). The primary purpose of this particular study was to understand how an observational tool 
designed to measure the environment functions in this context and what factors facilitate (or hinder) 
the implementation of a professional development program. Similar work has also been conducted in 
Lebanon and Niger.
Evaluation or Research Approach: For the work in Sierra Leone, the focus was on 
implementation of the Learn Safe program and thus was primarily qualitative, although correlational 
quantitative data were also collected. Researchers employed observational tools (Teacher Classroom 
Observation), interviews (with teachers and learning coaches), and both observer and teacher logs 
about implementation activities (e.g., number and type of SEL activities used and student attendance).
Evidence and Impact: Findings from this work suggest that observational measurement tools of 
teachers, rather than self-report or simple checklists, are essential for assessing what, how often, and 
at what level program components are being implemented. Researchers also noted that there is a 
strong need for early and ongoing professional development to strengthen and/or maintain quality 
practices that support SEL and literacy development. Both teachers and learning coaches indicated 
they would like more time for professional development sessions so they can take in all of the 
information provided and practice it.
Challenges to Consider: High rates of teacher turnover reduced the impact of the professional 
development training. Attention to contextual challenges (e.g., whether or not educators are paid for 
the extra time they spend in training), however, is necessary when developing these programs. Both 
teacher and student absenteeism likely minimized the implementation quality and program impact and 
should be taken into consideration when designing the program.
References: 
• https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/ihdsc/global-ties/research/primary-and-middle-education/education￾emergencies-evidence-action-3ea
• https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/2021-07/3EA_Sierra-Leone_2021.06.24.pdf
• https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/2021-
07/%5Baccessible%5D%203EA_Global%20Policy%20Brief_2021.07.15.pdf
13 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
CREATING AND MEASURING SEL/SOFT SKILLS -
SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTS
It is more important than ever to consider not only how we can create safe, supportive, and enabling 
environments but also how we can measure those environments. Indeed, attention to the environment 
promotes a focus on the conditions needed to support SEL/soft skills development rather than on 
individual strengths and weaknesses (Gayl 2017). As described above, there is a considerable amount of 
evidence from HIC contexts illustrating the role the environment plays in the development of SEL/soft 
skills, but evidence from LMICs and conflict-affected contexts is much more limited. This is particularly 
the case when considering rigorous research studies that measure both the SEL/soft skills environment 
and the skills themselves. Although the focus of this report was primarily on LMICs and conflict￾affected contexts, the limited existing research precludes recommendations based solely on these 
contexts. As such, the section below describes essential features of SEL/soft skills-supportive 
environments, strategies for creating those environments, and general approaches to assessing these 
environments, including recommendations for adapting measures to different contexts that derive from 
research in both HICs and LMICs.
ESSENTIAL FEATURES IN SEL/SOFT SKILLS-SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTS
A recent science of learning and development synthesis (Darling-Hammond et al. 2020) identified a set 
of features that are needed to create SEL/soft skills-supportive environments. In particular, 
environments should:
• Be designed to foster and support positive attachment relationships 
• Be physically and psychologically safe learning communities (especially for children and youth 
exposed to numerous environmental risks)
• Promote relational trust and cultural competence among educators, staff, and families
• Offer predictable routines and consistency in practice 
Similarly, members of the YouthPower Action team identified a set of guiding principles for fostering
soft skills in both formal and non-formal education programs, including promoting strong relationships, 
creating a safe, caring, supportive, and enriching program environment, and promoting the integration of 
learning contexts (e.g., home, schools, communities, workplaces) (Soares et al. 2017). 
Additional evidence suggests that in order to create a SEL/soft skills-supportive environment, educators 
should:
• Emphasize competencies in children and youth that build cultural competence and an awareness of 
privilege and bias (Berg et al. 2017)
• Intentionally plan opportunities during all lessons and activities (e.g., transitions, independent work, 
introductions/welcome) to increase the emotional climate of their learning environment, not just 
the emotional skills of individual children or youth (Brunzell et al. 2015)
• Give children and youth regular opportunities to practice and apply SEL and soft skills in a variety 
of situations (UNICEF 2012) 
• Explicitly teach and model positive SEL/soft skills and a resilient mindset (Brunzell et al. 2015; 
Soares et al. 2017) 
14 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
MEASURING SEL/SOFT SKILLS-SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENTS
Despite the general consensus that the environment plays a critical role in the development and 
measurement of SEL and soft skills, tools that measure either SEL or soft skills in a given context or 
tools that assess the SEL/soft skills environment remain limited. In general, the most common 
approaches to measuring the environment include self-report, direct observations, and document 
review. Data are commonly scored via checklists, Likert scales, or time sampling approaches (Early 
Learning Partnership 2016). As researchers, evaluators, program staff, and practitioners identify their 
purpose for measuring the environment, they will also want to consider the level of the environment 
they want to assess. For example, for those interested in understanding how children and youth 
experience their environment, it may be appropriate to use a self-report measure of perceptions of the 
environment as safe and supportive. For those seeking to improve the environment, observational tools 
that carefully assess what is actually happening in the context may be more appropriate for assessing the 
environment. Such tools can identify areas of strength and areas for improvement. Still others may want 
to place students’ behaviors or skills in the broader program context and thus a simple average of the 
behavior or skill across all participants in the program may be most appropriate. A companion brief
provides a set of recommended measures for evaluating the SEL/soft skills environment that can be 
used to address some of these purposes for measuring the environment.
Exhibit 4 provides an overview of some of the most common advantages and disadvantages (and uses) 
of different approaches to measurement of the SEL/soft skills environment. This list—and the 
advantages and disadvantages—is by no means exhaustive but does offer some insight into the variety 
of ways the field has begun to assess the SEL/soft skills environment.
Exhibit 4. Common approaches to measuring the SEL/soft skills environment
ASSESSMENT TYPE
(COMMON USES)
KEY ADVANTAGES KEY DISADVANTAGES
Direct Observations
(Fidelity, environment/contexts, 
behavior, interactions)
• Conducted in natural settings so 
allows for data collection when 
and where an activity is occurring
• Flexible
• Records actual behaviors (not 
reported behaviors)
• Good for small samples 
• Requires skilled observers
• Time intensive
• Observed behavior may change 
when observer is present
• Observed behavior can only be 
generalized to similar 
environments
• Expensive
Self-Report
(Attributes, behaviors, attitudes, 
opinions)
• All assessments or measures are 
administered consistently 
• Low-cost
• Easy to collect data from large 
samples
• Tend to ask broad questions 
about a behavior rather than 
specific questions
• Prone to error/recall bias
• Commonly fail to consider 
culture/contexts
• Respondents may respond in the 
way they believe the researcher 
wants them to respond (i.e., social 
desirability)
• Prone to missing data – items or 
questionnaires
15 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
ASSESSMENT TYPE
(COMMON USES)
KEY ADVANTAGES KEY DISADVANTAGES
Document Review • Relies on documentary evidence 
typically from multiple sources
• Can offer a powerful means to 
understand a given context and 
factors that drive implementation
• Relatively cost-effective
• Documents may be incomplete
• Documents can be biased 
• Documents can include so much 
information that it becomes 
difficult to ascertain what is 
relevant and what is not
Interviews
(Individual experiences, opinions, 
feelings, attitudes, knowledge)
• Rich, in-depth information
• High response rate
• Individualized data about a 
program, practice, or educator
• Allows for clarification of vague or 
unclear questions and/or 
responses
• Time intensive
• Consistency of questions and 
format can be low across 
participants 
• Interpersonal skills are needed for 
successful interviews
• Data analysis is more complex 
• Expensive
Focus Groups
(Group experiences, opinions, 
attitudes, ideas)
• Efficient
• Participants can build off one 
another in their responses
• In-depth information
• Relatively low-cost
• Unbalanced input due to dominant 
speakers
• Interpersonal skills are needed for 
successful focus group 
conversations
• Time consuming
• Expensive
To assist in the process of selecting the type of assessment approach and identifying a specific measure 
to assess the quality of the environment, the Measuring Early Learning Quality and Outcomes (MELQO) 
initiative was designed to promote feasible and accurate assessments of children’s learning and 
development across a wide range of contexts. MELQO is led by UNESCO, the World Bank, the Center 
for Universal Education at the Brookings Institute, and UNICEF and has recommended several 
considerations (see https://www.ecdmeasure.org/ for more details): 
1) What is your purpose for measuring environment? 
2) Was the tool designed for this context or will it require adaptation? 
3) What is the cost of the assessment tool? 
4) Is training required to administer the assessment tool? If so, what level? And what is the cost?
5) Can you use the same tool repeatedly across your program or study period? 
Other questions to consider when selecting an environmental measure include: What is the minimum 
acceptable level of quality versus what is ideal? Does the tool reflect country priorities with respect to 
environment? How much training is needed for enumerators? (Early Learning Partnership 2016).
16 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
CONCLUSION
Research deriving from HICs provides compelling evidence for the value of measuring the SEL/soft skills 
environment. Findings from these studies clearly demonstrate that SEL/soft skills development varies 
across contexts and time. Yet, far less attention has been paid to measuring the environment in LMICs 
and conflict-affected contexts, despite recognition by international organizations that positive 
environments are essential for development (e.g., UNICEF 2019; USAID 2018; Yoshikawa et al. 2018). 
This lack of research is particularly surprising given that many programs and practices actually aim to 
improve the SEL/soft skills environment (e.g., through teacher professional development). Although 
there are a handful of examples of efforts to measure the environment in LMICs and conflict-affected 
contexts (highlighted in this report), additional rigorous research on the impact of these practices is 
needed. For example, qualitative assessments of the environment, including observations and educator 
interviews, may provide valuable insight into what is actually happening in the environment and how 
educators are implementing relevant programs and practices.
Even when the SEL/soft skills environment is measured, it is far less common to assess features of the 
SEL/soft skills environment that are tied to the SEL/soft skills being assessed in programming.1 In fact, 
side-by-side measurement of the environment with SEL/soft skills themselves is rare. This is likely due, in 
part, to the fact that tools designed to simultaneously measure both the environment and skills are not 
yet readily available. 
Thus, this evidence paper has two calls to action:
1) Begin measuring the SEL/soft skills environment across LMICs and conflict-affected contexts.
2) Develop a set of tools that effectively combines the measurement of a SEL/soft skill with the 
measurement of the environment in which that skill is observed. 
1 The companion brief includes some recommended measures for evaluating the SEL/soft skills environment that 
include process features of the environment that have been linked with positive SEL/soft skills development.
17 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
WORKS CITED
Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. “Observations of effective teacher–
student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student achievement with the classroom 
assessment scoring system—secondary.” School psychology review 42, no. 1 (2013): 76-98.
Alvarado, G., M. Skinner, D. Plaut, C. Moss, C. Kapungu, and N. Reavely. (2017). A Systematic Review of 
Positive Youth Development Programs in Low-and Middle-Income Countries. Washington, DC: YouthPower 
Learning, Making Cents International.
Aber, J. L., Tubbs, C., Torrente, C., Halpin, P. F., Johnston, B., Starkey, L., & Wolf, S. (2017). “Promoting 
children's learning and development in conflict-affected countries: Testing change process in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo.” Development and psychopathology 29, no. 1 (2017): 53-67.
Baker-Henningham, H., Scott, S., Jones, K., & Walker, S. “Reducing child conduct problems and 
promoting social skills in a middle-income country: cluster randomised controlled trial.” The British 
Journal of Psychiatry, 201 no. 2 (2012): 101-108.
Bar-Tal, D., & Rosen, Y. “Peace education in societies involved in intractable conflicts: Direct and 
indirect models.” Review of Educational Research 79, no. 2 (2009): 557-575.
Batel, S. “Measuring success: An overview of new school classification indicators under ESSA.” 
Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2017. 
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2017/08/04/436965/measuring-success￾overview-new-school-classification-indicators-essa/
Bateson, P. “Ethology and human development.” In W. F. Overton & P. C. M. Molenaar (Eds.), Handbook 
of child psychology and developmental science: Theory and method. Vol. 1, 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley 
(2015): 208–243.
Berg, J., Osher, D., Moroney, D., & Yoder, N. “The intersection of school climate and social and 
emotional development.” February 2017. www. air. org/resource/intersection-schoolclimate-and-social￾and-emotional-development.
Berg, J., Osher, D., Same, M. R., Nolan, E., Benson, D., & Jacobs, N. “Identifying, defining, and measuring 
social and emotional competencies.” Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, 2017.
Bornstein, M. H. “The specificity principle in acculturation science.” Perspectives in Psychological Science
12, no. 1 (2017): 3–45. 
Bornstein, M. H. (Ed.). Sensitive periods in development: Interdisciplinary perspectives. United Kingdom: 
Psychology Press (2014).
Bouguen, A., Filmer, D., Macours, K., & Naudeau, S. “Impact evaluation of three types of early childhood 
development interventions in Cambodia.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 6540. 2013.
Britto, P. R., Yoshikawa, H., & Boller, K. “Quality of early childhood development programs in global 
contexts: rationale for investment, conceptual framework and implications for equity and 
commentaries.” Social Policy Report 25, no. 2 (2011): 1-31.
18 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
Brunzell, T., Waters, L., & Stokes, H. “Teaching with strengths in trauma-affected students: A new 
approach to healing and growth in the classroom.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 85, no. 1 (2015): 3.
Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Jewkes, A. M. “Effects of classroom organization on 
letter–word reading in first grade.” Journal of School Psychology 46 no. 2 (2008): 173-192.
Cantor, P., Osher, D., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. “Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How 
children learn and develop in context.” Applied Developmental Science 23, no. 4 (2019): 307-337.
Cappella, E., Aber, J. L., Kim, H. Y., Gitomer, D. H., & Bell, C. A. “Teaching beyond achievement tests: 
Perspectives from developmental and education science.” Handbook of research on teaching. (2016): 249-
347.
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. “Implications for educational 
practice of the science of learning and development.” Applied Developmental Science 24, no. 2 (2020): 97-
140.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Cook-Harvey, C. M. “Educating the Whole Child: Improving School Climate to 
Support Student Success.” Learning Policy Institute, 2018.
Davidson, M., & Hobbs, J. “Delivering reading intervention to the poorest children: The case of Liberia 
and EGRA-Plus, a primary grade reading assessment and intervention.” International Journal of Educational 
Development 33, no. 3 (2013): 283-293.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. “The impact of 
enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta‐analysis of school‐based universal 
interventions.” Child development 82, no. 1 (2011): 405-432.
Early Learning Partnership. “Measuring the quality of early learning programs.” Washington, DC: World 
Bank, 2016.
Fernald, L. C., Prado, E., Kariger, P., & Raikes, A. “A toolkit for measuring early childhood development 
in low and middle-income countries.” 2017.
Fisher, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. Dynamic development of action, thought and emotion. Theoretical models of 
human development: handbook of child psychology. Ed. by w. Damon, RM Lerner. 6th ed. NY, 1 (2006): 
313-399.
Gayl, C. L. “How state planning for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) can promote student 
academic, social, and emotional learning: An examination of five key strategies.” Chicago, IL: 
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2017).
Halle, T. G., & Darling-Churchill, K. E. “Review of measures of social and emotional 
development.” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 45 (2016): 8-18.
Hammond, Z. Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among 
culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press (2014).
INEE. “Minimum standards for education.” INEE Minimum Standards Handbook. 2012.
19 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
Johnson, V. A., Kemp, A. H., Heard, R., Lennings, C. J., & Hickie, I. B. “Childhood-versus adolescent￾onset antisocial youth with conduct disorder: Psychiatric illness, neuropsychological and psychosocial 
function.” PloS one 10 no. 4 (2015): e0121627.
Jones, S., Brush, K., Bailey, R., Brion-Meisels, G., McIntyre, J., Kahn, J., & Stickle, L. “Navigating SEL from 
the inside out.” Looking inside and across 25 (2017).
Jordans, M. J., Pigott, H., & Tol, W. A. “Interventions for children affected by armed conflict: a systematic 
review of mental health and psychosocial support in low-and middle-income countries.” Current 
psychiatry reports 18, no. 1 (2016): 9.
Jordans, M. J., Tol, W. A., Komproe, I. H., & De Jong, J. V. “Systematic review of evidence and treatment 
approaches: Psychosocial and mental health care for children in war.” Child and Adolescent Mental 
Health 14, no. 1 (2009): 2-14.
Jukes, M.C.H., Mgonda, N.L., Tibenda, J.J., Gabrieli, P., Jeremiah, G., Betts, K., & Bub, K.L. (in press). 
“Identifying, validating, and measuring community-defined social-emotional competencies in 
Tanzania.” Child Development.
Lerner, R. M., & Callina, K. S. “Relational developmental systems theories and the ecological validity of 
experimental designs.” Human Development 56, no. 6 (2013): 372-380.
Leyva, D., Weiland, C., Barata, M., Yoshikawa, H., Snow, C., Treviño, E., & Rolla, A. “Teacher–child 
interactions in Chile and their associations with prekindergarten outcomes.” Child development 86, no. 3 
(2015): 781-799.
Masten, A. S., Roisman, G. I., Long, J. D., Burt, K. B., Obradović, J., Riley, J. R., & Tellegen, A. 
“Developmental cascades: linking academic achievement and externalizing and internalizing symptoms 
over 20 years.” Developmental psychology 41, no. 5 (2005): 733.
Merritt, E. G., Wanless, S. B., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Cameron, C., & Peugh, J. L. “The contribution of 
teachers' emotional support to children's social behaviors and self-regulatory skills in first grade.” School 
Psychology Review 41, no. 2 (2012): 141-159.
Morris, B. U., & Bronfenbrenner, U. “The bioecological model of human development.” Handbook of 
child psychology 6, (2006): 793-828.
Norman, J. “USAID/Tanzania Tusome Pamoja SEL and School Climate Activity: A Learning Journey.” 
Presentation. Basic Education Coalition Gender Working Group Meeting, 2020.
OECD. “Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education and Care.” 
Starting Strong. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-en.
Osher, D., Cantor, P., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. “Drivers of human development: How relationships 
and context shape learning and development.” Applied Developmental Science 24, no. 1 (2020): 6-36.
Osher, D., Moroney, D., & Williamson, S. Creating Safe, Equitable, Engaging Schools: A Comprehensive, 
Evidence-Based Approach to Supporting Students. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press (2018).
20 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
Osher, D., Cantor, P., Berg, J., Steyer, L., Rose, T., & Nolan, E. “Science of learning and development: A 
synthesis.” Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. (2017).
Overton, W. F. Processes, relations, and relational-developmental-systems. In W. F. Overton, P. C. M. 
Molenaar, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Theory and 
method (pp. 9–62). John Wiley & Sons, Inc, (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy102
Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. Classroom Assessment Scoring System™: Manual K-3.
Baltimore: Paul H Brookes Publishing (2008).
Ponguta, L. A., Maldonado-Carreño, C., Kagan, S. L., Yoshikawa, H., Nieto, A. M., Aragón, C. A., & 
Escallon, E. “Adaptation and application of the measuring early learning quality and outcomes (MELQO) 
framework to early childhood education settings in Colombia.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 2019.
Randolph, E., Edwards, L., & Norman, N. “The central role of school culture and climate in fostering 
social and emotional learning: Evidence from Malawi and Uganda.” In: Smart et al. “NISSEM Global Briefs: 
Educating for the social, the emotional and the sustainable.” 2019: 198-213.
Randolph, E., Burkholder, G., & Sempa, H. “The Journeys approach to building a safe, inclusive and 
positive schools and fostering social and emotional learning.” In: Smart et al. “NISSEM Global Briefs: 
Educating for the social, the emotional and the sustainable.” 2019: 250-264.
Rao, N., & Sun, J. “Quality early childhood care and education in low-resource level countries in 
Asia.” Investing against Evidence (2015): 211.
Sciaraffa, M. A., Zeanah, P. D., & Zeanah, C. H. “Understanding and promoting resilience in the context 
of adverse childhood experiences.” Early Childhood Education Journal 46, no. 3 (2018): 343-353.
Soares, F., Babb, S., Diener, O., Gates, S., and Ignatowski, C. “Guiding Principles for Building Soft Skills 
among Adolescents and Young Adults.” Washington, D.C.: USAID’s YouthPower: Implementation, 
YouthPower Action. 2017.
Steele, D. M., & Cohn-Vargas, B. Identity Safe Classrooms, Grades K-5: Places to Belong and Learn. Thousand 
Oaks, California: Corwin Press (2013).
Suldo, S. M., Friedrich, A. A., White, T., Farmer, J., Minch, D., & Michalowski, J. “Teacher support and 
adolescents' subjective well-being: A mixed-methods investigation.” School psychology review 38, no. 1 
(2009): 67-85.
Torrente, C., Johnson, B., Starkey, L., Seidman, E., Annan, J., & Aber, J. L. “Improving school 
environments and student wellbeing: Impacts after one year of a school-based intervention in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo.” Journal of Education in Emergencies, In-press (2015).
Tucciarone, A. “Improving outcomes for crisis affected children: Lessons from social-emotional learning 
tutoring programs in Niger.” New York, NY: International Rescue Committee, NYU Global TIES for 
Children, and Dubai Cares. 2021.
21 | CONSIDER THE CONTEXT USAID.GOV
UNICEF. “A World Ready to Learn: Prioritizing quality in early childhood education.” New York, NY: 
UNICEF. 2019. https://www.unicef.org/reports/a-world-ready-to-learn-2019. 
United States Agency for International Development. “Social and Emotional Learning and Soft Skills.” 
USAID Policy Brief. Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2019. https://www.edu￾links.org/sites/default/files/media/file/USAID%20Education%20Policy%20Brief%20Social%20and%20Emoti
onal%20Learning%20and%20Soft%20Skills_Final_0.pdf
United States Agency for International Development. USAID Education Policy. Washington, D.C.: USAID, 
2018. 
https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1865/2018_Education_Policy_FINAL_WEB.pdff.
UNESCO, Brookings Institution, and the World Bank. “Overview MELQO: Measuring early learning 
quality outcomes.” 2017.
United States Agency for International Development. “Social and Emotional Learning and Soft Skills.” 
Policy Brief. Washington, D.C.: USAID, n.d.
Wolf, S., Halpin, P., Yoshikawa, H., Dowd, A. J., Pisani, L., & Borisova, I. “Measuring school readiness 
globally: Assessing the construct validity and measurement invariance of the International Development 
and Early Learning Assessment (IDELA) in Ethiopia.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 41 (2017): 21-36.
Wolf, S., Torrente, C., Frisoli, P., Weisenhorn, N., Shivshanker, A., Annan, J., & Aber, J. L. “Preliminary 
impacts of the ‘Learning to Read in a Healing Classroom’ intervention on teacher well-being in the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo.” Teaching and Teacher Education 52 (2015): 24-36.
Yoshikawa, H., Leyva, D., Snow, C. E., Treviño, E., Barata, M., Weiland, C., & Arbour, M. C. 
“Experimental impacts of a teacher professional development program in Chile on preschool classroom 
quality and child outcomes.” Developmental psychology 51, no. 3 (2015): 309.
Yoshikawa, H., Wuermli, A. J., Raikes, A., Kim, S., & Kabay, S. B. “Toward high‐quality early childhood 
development programs and policies at national scale: Directions for research in global contexts.” Social 
Policy Report 31, no. 1 (2018): 1-36.