research about school social workers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
• PMC10187493

Characteristics and Outcomes of School Social Work Services: A Scoping Review of Published Evidence 2000–June 2022

1 Steve Hicks School of Social Work, The University of Texas at Austin, 1925 San Jacinto Blvd 3.112, Austin, TX 78712 USA

Estilla Lightfoot

2 School of Social Work, Western New Mexico University, Silver City, NM USA

Ruth Berkowitz

3 School of Social Work, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Samantha Guz

4 Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL USA

Cynthia Franklin

Diana m. dinitto.

School social workers are integral to the school mental health workforce and the leading social service providers in educational settings. In recent decades, school social work practice has been largely influenced by the multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) approach, ecological systems views, and the promotion of evidence-based practice. However, none of the existing school social work reviews have examined the latest characteristics and outcomes of school social work services. This scoping review analyzed and synthesized the focuses and functions of school social workers and the state-of-the-art social and mental/behavioral health services they provide. Findings showed that in the past two decades, school social workers in different parts of the world shared a common understanding of practice models and interests. Most school social work interventions and services targeted high-needs students to improve their social, mental/behavioral health, and academic outcomes, followed by primary and secondary prevention activities to promote school climate, school culture, teacher, student, and parent interactions, and parents’ wellbeing. The synthesis also supports the multiple roles of school social workers and their collaborative, cross-systems approach to serving students, families, and staff in education settings. Implications and directions for future school social work research are discussed.

Introduction

This scoping review examines the literature on school social work services provided to address children, youth, and families’ mental/behavioral health and social service-related needs to help students thrive in educational contexts. School social work is a specialty of the social work profession that is growing rapidly worldwide (Huxtable, 2022 ). They are prominent mental/behavioral health professionals that play a crucial role in supporting students’ well-being and meeting their learning needs. Although the operational modes of school social work services vary, for instance, operating within an interdisciplinary team as part of the school service system, or through non-governmental agencies or collaboration between welfare agencies and the school system (Andersson et al., 2002 ; Chiu & Wong, 2002 ; Beck, 2017 ), the roles and activities of school social work are alike across different parts of the world (Allen-Meares et al., 2013 ; International Network for School Social Work, 2016, as cited in Huxtable, 2022 ). School social workers are known for their functions to evaluate students’ needs and provide interventions across the ecological systems to remove students’ learning barriers and promote healthy sociopsychological outcomes in the USA and internationally (Huxtable, 2022 ). In the past two decades, school social work literature placed great emphasis on evidence-based practice (Huxtable, 2013; 2016, as cited in Huxtable, 2022 ); however, more research is still needed in the continuous development of the school social work practice model and areas such as interventions, training, licensure, and interprofessional collaboration (Huxtable, 2022 ).

The school social work practice in the USA has great influence both domestically and overseas. Several core journals in the field (e.g., the International Journal of School Social Work, Children & Schools ) and numerous textbooks have been translated into different languages originated in the USA (Huxtable, 2022 ). In the USA, school social workers have been providing mental health-oriented services under the nationwide endorsement of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) (Avant & Lindsey, 2015 ; Barrett et al., 2020 ). In the past two decades, efforts at developing a school social work practice model recommended that school social workers have a master’s degree, embrace MTSS and use evidence-based practices (EBP) (Frey et al., 2012 ). Similar licensure requirements have been reported in other parts of the world (International Network for School Social Work, 2016, as cited in Huxtable, 2022 ), but the current state of research on MTSS and EBP applications in other countries is limited (Huxtable, 2022 ). Furthermore, although previous literature indicated more school social workers applied EBP to primary prevention, including trauma-informed care, social–emotional learning, and restorative justice programs in school mental health services (Crutchfield et al., 2020 ; Elswick et al., 2019 ; Gherardi, 2017 ), little research has been done to review and analyzed the legitimacy of the existing school social work practice model and its influence in the changing context of school social work services. The changing conditions and demands of social work services in schools require an update on the functions of school social workers and the efficacy of their state-of-the-art practices.

Previous Reviews on School Social Work Practice and Outcomes

Over the past twenty years, a few reviews of school social work services have been conducted. They include outcome reviews, systematic reviews, and one meta-analysis on interventions, but none have examined studies from a perspective that looks inclusively and comprehensively at evaluations of school social work services. Early and Vonk ( 2001 ), for example, reviewed and critiqued 21 controlled (e.g., randomized controlled trial [RCT] and quasi-experimental) outcome studies of school social work practice from a risk and resilience perspective and found that the interventions are overall effective in helping children and youth gain problem-solving skills and improve peer relations and intrapersonal functioning. However, the quality of the included studies was mixed, demographic information on students who received the intervention, such as race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and special education enrollment were missing, and the practices were less relevant to the guidelines in the school social work practice model (National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2012 ). Later, Franklin et al. ( 2009 ) updated previous reviews by using meta-analytic techniques to synthesize the results of interventions delivered by social workers within schools. They found that these interventions had small to medium treatment effects for internalizing and externalizing problems but showed mixed results in academic or school-related outcomes. Franklin et al. ( 2009 ) approached the empirical evidence from an intervention lens and did not focus on the traits and characteristics of school social workers and their broad roles in implementing interventions; additionally, demographic information, symptoms, and conditions of those who received school social work services were lacking. Allen-Meares et al. ( 2013 ) built on Franklin and colleagues’ ( 2009 ) meta-analysis on school social work practice outcomes across nations by conducting a systematic review with a particular interest in identifying tier 1 and tier 2 (i.e., universal prevention and targeted early intervention) practices. School social workers reported services in a variety of areas (e.g., sexual health, aggression, school attendance, self-esteem, depression), and half of the included interventions were tier 1 (Allen-Meares et al., 2013 ). Although effect sizes were calculated (ranging from 0.01–2.75), the outcomes of the interventions were not articulated nor comparable across the 18 included studies due to the heterogeneity of metrics.

Therefore, previous reviews of school social work practice and its effectiveness addressed some aspects of these interventions and their outcomes but did not examine school social workers’ characteristics (e.g., school social workers’ credentials) or related functions (e.g., interdisciplinary collaboration with teachers and other support personnel, such as school counselors and psychologists). Further, various details of the psychosocial interventions (e.g., service type, program fidelity, target population, practice modality), and demographics, conditions, or symptoms of those who received the interventions provided by school social workers were under-researched from previous reviews. An updated review of the literature that includes these missing features and examines the influence of current school social work practice is needed.

Guiding Framework for the Scoping Review

The multi-tiered systems of support model allows school social workers to maximize their time and resources to support students’ needs accordingly by following a consecutive order of prevention. MTSS generally consists of three tiers of increasing levels of preventive and responsive behavioral and academic support that operate under the overarching principles of capacity-building, evidence-based practices, and data-driven decision-making (Kelly et al., 2010a ). Tier 1 interventions consist of whole-school/classroom initiatives (NASW, 2012 ), including universal positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) (Clonan et al., 2007 ) and restorative justice practices (Lustick et al., 2020 ). Tier 2 consists of targeted small-group interventions meant to support students at risk of academic or behavioral difficulties who do not respond to Tier 1 interventions (National Association of Social Workers, 2012 ). Finally, tier 3 interventions are intensive individual interventions, including special education services, meant to support students who do not benefit sufficiently from Tier 1 or Tier 2 interventions.

The current school social work practice model in the USA (NASW, 2012 ) consists of three main aspects: (1) delivering evidence-based practices to address behavioral and mental health concerns; (2) fostering a positive school culture and climate that promotes excellence in learning and teaching; (3) enhancing the availability of resources to students within both the school and the local community. Similar expectations from job descriptions have been reported in other countries around the world (Huxtable, 2022 ).

Moreover, school social workers are specifically trained to practice using the ecological systems framework, which aims to connect different tiers of services from a person-in-environment perspective and to activate supports and bridge gaps between systems (Huxtable, 2022 ; Keller & Grumbach, 2022 ; SSWAA, n.d.). This means that school social workers approach problem-solving through systemic interactions, which allows them to provide timely interventions and activate resources at the individual, classroom, schoolwide, home, and community levels as needs demand.

Hence, the present scoping review explores and analyzes essential characteristics of school social workers and their practices that have been missed in previous reviews under a guiding framework that consists of the school social work practice model, MTSS, and an ecological systems perspective.

This scoping review built upon previous reviews and analyzed the current school social work practices while taking into account the characteristics of school social workers, different types of services they deliver, as well as the target populations they serve in schools. Seven overarching questions guided this review: (1) What are the study characteristics of the school social work outcome studies (e.g., countries of origin, journal information, quality, research design, fidelity control) in the past two decades? (2) What are the characteristics (e.g., demographics, conditions, symptoms) of those who received school social work interventions or services? (3) What are the overall measurements (e.g., reduction in depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], improvement in parent–child relationships, or school climate) reported in these studies? (4) What types of interventions and services were provided? (5) Who are the social work practitioners (i.e., collaborators/credential/licensure) delivering social work services in schools? (6) Does the use of school social work services support the promotion of preventive care within the MTSS? (7) What are the main outcomes of the diverse school social work interventions and services?

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first scoping review to examine these aspects of school social work practices under the guidance of the existing school social work practice model, MTSS, and an ecological systems perspective.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension guidelines for completing a scoping review (Tricco et al., 2018 ) were followed for planning, conducting, and reporting the results of this review. The PRISMA scoping review checklist includes 20 essential items and two optional items. Together with the 20 essential items, the optional two items related to critical appraisal of included sources of evidence were also followed to assure transparency, replication, and comprehensive reporting for scoping reviews.

Search Strategy

The studies included in this review were published between 2000 and June 2022. These studies describe the content, design, target population, target concerns, delivery methods, and outcomes of services, practices, and interventions conducted or co-led by school social workers. This time frame was selected since it coincides with the completion of the early review of characteristics of school social work outcomes studies (Early & Vonk, 2001 ); furthermore, scientific approaches and evidence-based practice were written in the education law for school-based services since the early 2000s in the USA, which greatly impacted school social work practice (Wilde, 2004 ), and was reflected in the trend of peer-reviewed research in school practice journals (Huxtable, 2022 ).

Following consultation with an academic librarian, the authors systematically searched relevant articles in seven academic databases (APA PsycINFO, Education Source, ERIC, Academic Search Complete, SocINDEX, CINAHL Plus, and MEDLINE) between January 2000 and June 2022. These databases were selected due to the relevance of the outcomes and the broad range of relevant disciplines they cover. When built-in search filters were available, the search included only peer-reviewed journal articles or dissertations written in English and published between 2000 and 2022. The search terms were adapted from previous review studies with a similar purpose (Franklin et al., 2009 ). The rationale for adapting the search terms from a previous meta-analysis (Franklin et al., 2009 ) was to collect outcomes studies and if feasible (pending on the quality of the outcome data and enough effect sizes available) to do a meta-analysis of outcomes. Each database was searched using the search terms: (“school social work*”) AND (“effective*” OR “outcome*” OR “evaluat*” OR “measure*”). The first author did the initial search and also manually searched reference lists of relevant articles to identify additional publications. All references of included studies were combined and deduplicated for screening after completion of the manual search.

Eligibility Criteria

The same inclusion and exclusion criteria were used at all stages of the review process. Studies were included if they: (1) were original research studies, (2) were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or were dissertations, (3) were published between 2000 and 2022, (4) described school social work services or identified school social workers as the practitioners, and (5) reported at least one outcome measure of the efficacy or effectiveness of social work services. Studies could be conducted in any country and were included for full-text review if they were published in English. The authors excluded: (1) qualitative studies, (2) method or conceptual papers, (3) interventions/services not led by school social workers, and (4) research papers that focused only on sample demographics (not on outcomes). Qualitative studies were excluded because though they often capture themes or ideas, experiences, and opinions, they rely on non-numeric data and do not quantify the outcomes of interventions, which is the focus of the present review. If some conditions of qualification were uncertain based on the review of the full text, verification emails were sent to the first author of the paper to confirm. Studies of school social workers as the sample population and those with non-accessible content were also excluded. If two or more articles (e.g., dissertation and journal articles) were identified with the same population and research aim, only the most recent journal publication was selected to avoid duplication. The protocol of the present scoping review can be retrieved from the Open Science Framework at  https://osf.io/4y6xp/?view_only=9a6b6b4ff0b84af09da1125e7de875fb .

A total of 1,619 records were initially identified. After removing duplicates, 834 remained. The first and the fourth author conducted title and abstract screening independently on Rayyan, an online platform for systematic reviews (Ouzzani et al., 2016 ). Another 760 records were removed from the title and abstract screening because they did not focus on school social work practice, were theory papers, or did not include any measures or outcomes, leaving 68 full-text articles to be screened for eligibility. Of these, 16 articles were selected for data analysis. An updated search conducted in June 2022 identified two additional studies. The combined searches resulted in a total of 18 articles that met the inclusion criteria. The first and the fourth author convened bi-weekly meetings to resolve disagreements on decisions. Reasons and number for exclusion at full-text review were reported in the reasons for exclusion in the PRISMA chart. The PRISMA literature search results are presented in Fig.  1 .

PRISMA Literature Search Record

Data Extraction

A data extraction template was created to aid in the review process. The information collected from each reference consists of three parts: publication information, program features, and practice characteristics and outcomes. Five references were randomly selected to pilot-test the template, and revisions were made accordingly. To assess the quality of the publication and determine the audiences these studies reached, information on the publications was gathered. The publication information included author names, publication year, country/region, publication type, journal name, impact factor, and the number of articles included. The journal information and impact factors came from the Journal Citation Reports generated by Clarivate Analytics Web of Science (n.d.). An impact factor rating is a proxy for the relative influence of a journal in academia and is computed by dividing the number of citations for all articles by the total number of articles published in the two previous years (Garfield, 2006 ). Publication information is presented in Table ​ Table1. 1 . Program name, targeted population, sample size, demographics, targeted issues, treatment characteristics, MTSS level, and main findings (i.e., outcomes) are included in Table ​ Table2. 2 . Finally, intervention features consisting of study aim and design, manualization, practitioners’ credential, fidelity control, type of intervention, quality assessment, and outcome measurement are presented in Table ​ Table3. 3 . Tables ​ Tables2 2 and ​ and3 3 are published as open access for review and downloaded in the Texas Data Repository (Ding, 2023 ).

Journals Reviewed, Impact Factor, and Number of Articles Selected for Review

* The definition of impact factor (IF) is from Journal Citation Reports produced by Clarivate Analytics. IF is calculated based on a two-year period by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total number of articles published in the two previous years

General Information on the Included School Social Work Practices

Note. Bx behavior, ed education, yo years old, yr = year. tx treatment, w  with, T treatment group, C control group, INT intervention, CON control, FRPL Free/Reduced prices lunch, IEP Individualized education program, CBT cognitive behavior therapy, BST Behavior skill training, HADS-A Hospital anxiety and depression scale

Characteristics of the Included Research Studies

Note. NR Not reported, NA Not applicable, h hours, tx treatment, wk week, SSW School social work, IOA Interobserver agreement, SS single subject, AB baseline and intervention, SBC Student behavior checklist, GPA Grade point average, SRAS-C-R School refusal assessment scale-children-revised, SRAS-P-R School refusal assessment scale-parent-revised, CD-RISC Connor-davidson resilience scale, FAD-GFS McMaster family assessment device general functioning scale, PSS Perceived stress scale, PTSD Post-traumatic stress disorder, PC-PTSD Primary care post-traumatic stress disorder screen, RYDM Resilience youth development module, CHKS The California healthy kids survey, CPSS Child PTSD symptom scale, CDI Children depression inventory, TRF Teacher report form, BRIC Behavior rating index for children, HPC  Problem checklist, BERS The behavioral and emotional rating scale, SSRS The social skills rating system. SSP The school success profile, BDI Beck depression inventory. DAS Dysfunctional attitudes scale, PGIS-II Personal growth initiative scale II, GHQ-12 Chinese general health questionnaire-12, Q-LES-Q-18 Abbreviated quality of life enjoyment and satisfaction questionnaire, PSI Parenting stress index- parent domain, PSOC Parenting sense of competence scale- efficacy subscale

The 18 extracted records were coded based on the data extraction sheet. The first and the fourth authors acted as the first and the second coder for the review. An inter-rater reliability of 98.29% was reached after the two coders independently completed the coding process.

Quality Assessment

The quality of the eligible studies (e.g., methodological rigor, intervention consistency) was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies (Evans et al., 2015 ). Specifically, each included study was assessed for selection bias, study design, confounders, blinding, data collection method, dropouts or withdrawals, intervention integrity, and analyses. The first and fourth authors rated each category independently, aggregated ratings, and came to a consensus to assign an overall quality rating of strong, moderate, or weak for each of the 18 studies.

Data Analysis

Due to the heterogeneity of the interventions, study purposes, methods, and measurements of the selected studies, and the lack of outcome data to calculate effect sizes, a meta-analysis was not feasible. Hence, the authors emphasized the scoping nature of this review, data were narratively synthesized, and descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentage, mode, minimum, maximum, and range) were reported. Characteristics of included studies include topics, settings, participants, practice information (e.g., type of services, practitioner credential, MTSS modality, and other characteristics), and program efficacy. Within each reported category of interest, consistency and differences regarding the selected studies were synthesized. Unique features and reasons for some particular results were explained using analysis evidence according to the characteristics of the study.

Overall Description of Included Studies

Of the 18 included studies, 16 were reported in articles that appeared in 11 different peer-reviewed journals, and two were dissertations (Magnano, 2009 ; Phillips, 2004 ). Information on each of the 11 journals was hand-searched to insure thoroughness. Of the 11 journals, seven were in the field of social work, with one journal covering social work as it relates to public health; one was a school psychology journal; one a medical journal covering pediatric psychiatry; and one journal focused on child, adolescent, and family psychology. The most frequently appearing journal was Children & Schools , a quarterly journal covering direct social work services for children (Oxford University Press, 2022 ). An impact factor (IF) was identified for six of the 11 journals. Of the six journals with an IF rating, four were social work journals. The IF of journals in which the included studies were published ranged from 1.128 to 12.113 (Clarivate Analytics, n.d.). Of the 18 studies, 5 studies (28%) were rated as methodologically strong, 8 studies were rated as moderate (44%), and 5 studies were rated as weak (28%).

The studies were conducted in five different geographical areas of the world. One study was conducted in the Middle East (5.56%), one in north Africa (5.56%), one in Eastern Europe (5.56%), two in East Asia (11.11%), and the rest (13 studies) in the USA (72.22%).

Research Design and Fidelity Control

Concerning research design, most included studies used a pre-posttest design without a comparison group ( n  = 10, 61.11%), one used a single case baseline intervention design (5.56%), six (33.33%) used a quasi-experimental design, and one (5.56%) used an experimental design. For the control or comparison group, the experimental design study and four of the six quasi-experimental design studies used a waitlist or no treatment control/comparison group; one quasi-experimental design study offered delayed treatment, and one quasi-experimental design study offered treatment as usual. Nine studies (50%) reported that training was provided to the practitioners prior to the study to preserve fidelity of the intervention, four studies (22.22%) reported offering both training and ongoing supervision to the practitioners, and one study (5.56%) reported providing supervision only.

Study Sample Characteristics

Across the 18 included studies, the total number of participants was 1,194. In three studies, the participant group (sample) was no more than ten, while in nine studies, the intervention group was more than 40. Overall, there was a balance in terms of students’ sex, with boys comprising an average of 55.51% of the total participants in all studies. There were slightly more studies of middle school or high school students ( n  = 8) than pre-K or elementary school students ( n  = 5). Across the eight studies that reported students’ race or ethnicity, 13.33% of the students were Black, 18.41% were White, 54.60% were Latinx, 12.38% were Asian, and 1.27% were categorized as “other.” Although the studies reviewed were not restricted to the USA, the large number of Latinx participants from two studies (Acuna et al., 2018 ; Kataoka et al., 2003 ) might have skewed the overall proportions of the race/ethnicity composition of the study samples. As an indicator of socioeconomic status, eight studies reported information on free/reduced-price lunches (FRPL). The percentage of students who received interventions that qualified for FRPL varied from 53.3 to 87.9%. Five studies reported the percentage of students enrolled in an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or special education, ranging from 15.4% to 100%.

Variation in School Social Work Services

The services carried out or co-led by school social workers varied greatly. They included services focused on students’ mental health/behavioral health; academic performance; school environment; student development and functioning in school, classroom, and home settings; and parenting. More specifically, these interventions targeted students’ depression and anxiety (Kataoka et al., 2003 ; Phillips, 2004 ; Wong et al., 2018a ), social, emotional, and behavioral skills development (Acuna et al., 2018 ;Chupp & Boes, 2012 ; Ervin et al., 2018 ; Magnano, 2009 ; Newsome, 2005 ; Thompson & Webber, 2010 ), school refusal and truancy (Elsherbiny et al., 2017 ; Newsome et al., 2008 ; Young et al., 2020 ), trauma/PTSD prevention, community violence, and students’ resilience (Al-Rasheed et al., 2021 ;Ijadi-Maghsoodi et al., 2017 ; Kataoka et al., 2003 ; Wong et al., 2018a ), homework completion and grade-point average improvement (Chupp & Boes, 2012 ; Magnano, 2009 ; Newsomoe, 2005 ), parental stress (Fein et al., 2021 ; Wong et al., 2018b ), family functioning (Fein et al., 2021 ), and parenting competence and resilience (Wong et al., 2018b ). All of the studies were school-based (100%), and the most common setting for providing school social work services was public schools.

Diverse Interventions to Promote Psychosocial Outcomes

Services can be grouped into six categories: evidence-based programs or curriculums (EBP), general school social work services, case management, short-term psychosocial interventions, long-term psychosocial intervention, and pilot program. Seven studies (38.89%) were EBPs, and four (57.14%) of the seven EPBs were fully manualized (Acuna et al., 2018 ; Al-Rasheed et al., 2021 ; Fein et al., 2021 ; Thompson & Webber, 2010 ). Two EBPs (28.57%) were partially manualized (Ijadi-Maghsoodi et al., 2017 ; Kelly & Bluestone-Miller, 2009 ), one did not report on manualization (Chupp & Boes, 2012 ), and one is a pilot study trying to build the program’s evidence base (Young et al., 2020 ). The second-largest category was short-term psychosocial interventions reported in six (33.33%) of the studies; they included cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT), and social/emotional skills training. One study reported on a long-term psychosocial intervention (Elsherbiny et al., 2017 ), and one was a case management program (Magnano, 2009 ). Two studies included general school social work services (e.g., one-on-one interventions with children and youth, group counseling, phone calls, official and informal conversations with teachers and parents, check-ins with students at school, and collaboration with outside agencies) (Newsome et al., 2008 ; Sadzaglishvili et al., 2020 ).

Program Population

Of the 18 interventions, seven (38.89%) involved students only (Al-Rasheed et al., 2021 ;Chupp & Boes, 2012 ; Ervin et al., 2018 ; Newsome, 2005 ; Phillips, 2004 ; Wong et al., 2018a ; Young et al., 2020 ). One program (5.56%) worked with parent–child dyads (Acuna et al., 2018 ), and two (11.11%) worked directly with students’ parents (Fein et al., 2021 ; Wong et al., 2018b ). Four interventions (22.22%) involved students, parents, and teachers (Elsherbiny et al., 2017 ; Kataoka et al., 2003 ; Magnano, 2009 ), two (11.11%) were with students and their teachers (Kelly & Bluestone-Miller, 2009 ; Thompson & Webber, 2010 ), and two (11.11%) were more wholistically targeted at students, parents, and their families as service units (Newsome et al., 2008 ; Sadzaglishvili et al., 2020 ).

Practitioners and Credentials

School social workers often collaborate with school counselors, psychologists, and schoolteachers in their daily practice. As for the titles and credentials of those providing the interventions, twelve interventions were conducted solely by school social workers (Acuna et al., 2018 ; Fein et al., 2021 ; Ijadi-Maghsoodi et al., 2017 ; Kataoka et al., 2003 ; Kelly & Bluestone-Miller, 2009 ; Magnano, 2009 ; Newsome, 2005 ; Newsome et al., 2008 ; Phillips et al., 2004 ; Sadzaglishvili et al., 2020 ; Wong et al., 2018a , 2018b ). Four social service programs were co-led by school social workers, school counselors and school psychologists (Al-Rasheed et al., 2021 ; Chupp & Boes, 2012 ; Elsherbiny et al., 2017 ; Young et al., 2020 ). School social workers and schoolteachers collaborated in two interventions (Ervin et al., 2018 ; Thompson & Webber, 2010 ).

The most common credential of school social workers in the included studies was master’s-level licensed school social worker/trainee, which accounted for 62.50% of the studies (Acuna et al., 2018 ; Fein et al., 2021 ; Kataoka et al., 2003 ; Newsome, 2005 ; Phillips, 2004 ). Two studies did not specify level of education but noted that the practitioners’ credential was licensed school social worker (Ijadi-Maghsoodi et al., 2017 ; Wong et al., 2018a ). One intervention was conducted by both master’s and bachelor’s level social work trainees; however, the first author confirmed that they were all registered school social workers with the Hong Kong Social Work Registration Board (Wong et al., 2018b ).

Services by Tier

The predominant level of school social work services was tier 2 interventions (55.56%), with 10 interventions or services offered by school social workers falling into this category (Acuna et al., 2018 ; Elsherbiny et al., 2017 ; Ervin et al., 2018 ; Fein et al., 2021 ; Kataoka et al., 2003 ; Newsome, 2005 ; Phillips, 2004 ; Thompson & Webber, 2010 ; Wong et al., 2018a , 2018b ). The second largest category was tier 1 interventions, with five studies (27.78%) falling into this category (Al-Rasheed et al., 2021 ;Chupp & Boes, 2012 ; Ijadi-Maghsoodi et al., 2017 ; Kelly & Bluestone-Miller, 2009 ; Sadzaglishvili et al., 2020 ). Only three (16.67%) were tier 3 services (Magnano, 2009 ; Newsome et al., 2008 ; Young et al., 2020 ).

Intervention Modality and Duration under MTSS

Most services ( n  = 15, 83.33%) were small-group based or classroom-wide interventions (Al-Rasheed et al., 2021 ; Chupp & Boes, 2012 ; Elsherbiny et al., 2017 ; Ervin et al., 2018 ; Fein et al., 2021 ; Ijadi-Maghsoodi et al., 2017 ; Kataoka et al., 2003 ; Kelly & Bluestone-Miller, 2009 ; Newsome, 2005 ; Phillips, 2004 ; Sadzaglishvili et al., 2020 ; Thompson & Webber, 2010 ; Wong et al., 2018a , 2018b ). One tier 2 intervention was carried out in both individual and group format (Acuna et al., 2018 ). Of the three tier 3 intervention studies, one reported using case management to serve individual students (Magnano, 2009 ), and two included both individual intervention, group counseling, and case management (Newsom et al., 2008 ; Young et al., 2020 ).

Intervention length and frequency varied substantially across studies. Services were designed to last from 6 weeks to more than 13 months. There were as short as a 5- to 10-min student–school social worker conferences (Thompson & Webber, 2010 ), or as long as a three-hour cognitive behavioral group therapy session (Wong et al., 2018b ).

Social Behavioral and Academic Outcomes

Most of the interventions focused on improving students’ social, behavioral, and academic outcomes, including child behavior correction/reinforcement, social–emotional learning (SEL), school attendance, grades, and learning attitudes. Ervin and colleagues ( 2018 ) implemented a short-term psychosocial intervention to reduce students’ disruptive behaviors, and Magnano ( 2009 ) used intensive case management to manage students’ antisocial and aggressive behaviors. Both interventions were found to be effective, i.e., there were statistically significant improvements at the end of treatment, with Ervin et al. ( 2018 ) reporting a large effect size using Cohen’s d. The SEL programs were designed to foster students’ resilience, promote self-esteem, respect, empathy, and social support, and teach negotiation, conflict resolution, anger management, and goal setting at a whole-school or whole-class level (Al-Rasheed et al., 2021 ; Chupp & Boes, 2012 ; Ijadi-Maghsooodi et al., 2017 ; Newsome, 2005 ). Students in all SEL interventions showed significant improvement at the end of treatment, and one study reported medium to small effect sizes (Cohen’s d) for problem-solving and overall internal assets, such as empathy, self-efficacy, problem-solving, and self-awareness (Ijadi-Maghsooodi et al., 2017 ).

Four studies measured the intervention’s impact on students’ academic performance. Magnano and colleagues ( 2009 ) reported that at the completion of the school social work case management intervention, academic skills were improved among both the intervention group students and the cross-over (control) group students who received the intervention at a later time. One study specifically addressed students’ school refusal behaviors and attitudes and found improvement in the treatment group at posttest and six-month follow-up (Elsherbiny et al., 2017 ). Two studies that addressed students’ absenteeism and truancy exhibited efficacy. School social work services significantly reduced risk factors related to truant behaviors (Newsome et al., 2008 ), and attendance increased post-program participation and was maintained after one, two, and three months (Young et al., 2020 ).

Students’ Psychological Distress

The studies that addressed students’ mental health focused on psychological distress, especially adolescents’ depression and anxiety. In three studies, school social workers conducted short-term psychosocial interventions, all using group-based CBT (Kataoka et al., 2003 ; Phillips, 2004 ; Wong et al., 2018a ). Kataoka and colleagues ( 2003 ) reported that bilingual, bicultural school social workers delivered group CBT in Spanish to help immigrant students cope with depressive symptoms due to violence exposure. Similarly, Wong and colleagues ( 2018a ) delivered group CBT in Chinese schools using their native language to address teenagers’ anxiety disorders. In the Kataoka et al. ( 2003 ) study, all student participants were reported to have made improvements at the end of the intervention, although there was no statistically significant difference between the intervention group and waitlisted comparison group. Phillips ( 2004 ) reported an eta-squared of 0.148 for cognitive-behavioral social skills training, indicating a small treatment effect. One study used a resilience classroom curriculum to relieve trauma exposure and observed lower odds of positive PTSD scores at posttest, but the change was not statistically significant (Ijadi-Maghsoodi et al., 2017 ).

School Climate and School Culture

Regarding school social workers’ interest in school climate and school culture, Kelly and Bluestone-Miller ( 2009 ) and Sadzaglishvili and colleagues ( 2020 ) specifically focused on creating a positive learning environment and promoting healthy school culture and class climate. Kelly and Bluestone-Miller ( 2009 ) used Working on What Works (WOWW), a program grounded in the SFBT approach to intervene in a natural classroom setting to build respectful learning. Students were allowed to choose how to respond to expectations regarding their classroom performance (e.g., students list the concrete small goals to work upon in order to create a better learning environment), and teachers were coached to facilitate, ask the right questions, and provide encouragement and appropriate timely feedback. Sadzaglishvili and colleagues ( 2020 ) used intensive school social work services (e.g., case management, task-centered practice, advocacy, etc.) to support students’ learning, whole-person development, and improve school culture. At the end of the services, both studies reported a more positive school and class climate that benefited students’ behaviors and performance at school.

Teacher, Parent, and Student Interaction

Four studies addressed interactions among teachers, parents, and students to achieve desired outcomes. For instance, two studies provided a mesosystem intervention (e.g., a parent’s meeting with the teacher at the public school the child attended, which encompasses both the home and school settings). Acuna and colleagues ( 2018 ) provided a school-based parent–child interaction intervention to improve children’s behaviors at school and home, boost attendance, and improve academic outcomes. Similarly, Thompson and Webber ( 2010 ) intervened in the teacher–student relationship to realign students’ and teachers’ perceptions of school and classroom norms and improve students’ behaviors. Additionally, two interventions targeted the exosystem (e.g., positive environmental change to improve students’ stability, in order to promote school behaviors and academic performance). Kelly and Bluestone-Miller ( 2009 ) modeled solution-focused approaches as a philosophy undergirding classroom interactions between teachers and students. The positive learning environment further improved students’ class performance. Magnano and colleagues ( 2009 ) used a case management model by linking parents, teachers, and outside school resources to increase students’ support and achieve improvements in academic skills and children’s externalizing behaviors.

Parents’ Wellbeing

Most school counselors or school psychologists focus solely on serving students, while school social workers may also serve students’ parents. Two studies reported working directly and only with parents to improve parents’ psychological outcomes (Fein et al., 2021 ; Wong et al., 2018b ). Fein and colleagues ( 2021 ) reported a school-based trauma-informed resilience curriculum specifically adapted for school social workers to deliver to racial/ethnic minority urban parents of children attending public schools. At curriculum completion, parents’ overall resilience improved, but significance was attained in only one resilience item (“I am able to adapt when changes occur”) with a small effect size using Cohen’s d. Wong et al. ( 2018b ) studied school-based culturally attuned group-based CBT for parents of children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); significantly greater improvements in the CBT parent group were found in distress symptoms, quality of life, parenting stress, competence, and dysfunctional beliefs post-intervention and at three-month follow-up .

This scoping review examined school social work practice by systematically analyzing the services school social workers delivered based on 18 outcome studies published between 2000 and 2022. The programs, interventions, or services studied were conducted by school social workers in five different countries/regions. These studies captured the essence of school social workers’ roles in mental health/behavioral health and social services in education settings provided to children, youth, families, and schoolteachers, and the evidence on practice outcomes/efficacy was presented.

Although using EBP, promoting a healthy school climate and culture, and maximizing community resources are important aspects of the existing school social work practice model in the USA (NASW, 2012 ), this review revealed and validated that school social workers in other countries used similar practices and shared a common understanding of what benefits the students, families, and the schools they serve (Huxtable, 2022 ). The findings also support the broad roles of school social workers and the collaborative ways they provide social and mental health services in schools. The review discussed school social workers’ functions in (1) helping children, youth, families, and teachers address mental health and behavioral health problems, (2) improving social–emotional learning, (3) promoting a positive learning environment, and (4) maximizing students’ and families’ access to school and community resources. Furthermore, although previous researchers argued that the lack of clarity about school social worker’s roles contributed to confusion and underutilization of school social work services (Altshuler & Webb, 2009 ; Kelly et al., 2010a ), this study revealed that in the past two decades, school social workers are fulfilling their roles as mental/behavioral health providers and case managers, guided by a multi-tiered, ecological systems approach. For example, in more than 80% of the studies, the services provided were preventive group work at tier 1 or 2 levels and operated from a systems perspective. Additionally, the findings suggest that while school social workers often provide services at the individual level, they frequently work across systems and intervene at meso- and exo-systems levels to attain positive improvements for individual students and families.

Evidence-based School Social Work Practice and MTSS

The present review supported school social workers’ use of evidence-based programs and valid psychosocial interventions such as CBT, SFBT, and social–emotional learning to foster a positive learning environment and meet students’ needs. Most of the included EBPs (85.71%) were either fully or partially manualized, and findings from the current review added evidence to sustain the common elements of general school social work practice, such as doing case management, one-on-one individual and group counseling, collaborations with teachers, parents, and community agencies. One pilot study examined the effectiveness of a school social worker-developed program (Young et al., 2020 ), which provided a helpful example for future research practice collaboration to build evidence base for school social work practice. However, although school social workers often work with Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) student populations facing multiple risk factors, demographic information on race/ethnicity, special education enrollment, and socioeconomic status were missing in many included studies, which obstructed examination of the degree of match between the target population’s needs and evidence-based services or interventions provided.

Previous school social work national surveys conducted in the USA (Kelly et al., 2010a , 2015 ) found a discrepancy between the actual and ideal time expense on tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 school social work activities. Even though school social workers would like to spend most of their time on primary prevention, they actually spent twice their time on secondary and tertiary prevention than on primary prevention (Kelly et al., 2010a ). However, the present review found that most interventions or evidence-based programs conducted by school social workers were tier 1 and tier 2, especially tier 2 targeted interventions delivered in a group modality. This discrepancy could be due to the focus of this review’s limited services to those provided by professionals with a school social worker title/credential both in the USA and internationally, and tier 2 and 3 activities were grouped together as one category called secondary and tertiary prevention in the school social work survey (Kelly et al., 2010a ). Our review highlights that tier 2 preventive interventions are a significant offering in school social worker-led, school-based mental health practice. Unlike tier 1 interventions that are designed to promote protective factors and prevent potential threats for all students, or intensive tier 3 interventions that demand tremendous amounts of time and energy from practitioners and often involve community agencies (Eber et al., 2002 ), tier 2 interventions are targeted to groups of students exhibiting certain risk factors and are more feasible and flexible in addressing their academic and behavioral needs. Moreover, considering the discrepancy between the high demand for services on campuses and the limited number of school social workers, using group-based tier 2 interventions that have been rigorously examined can potentially relieve practitioners’ caseload burdens while targeting students’ needs more effectively and efficiently.

School Social Work Credential

Recent research on school social workers’ practice choices showed that school social workers who endorsed primary prevention in MTSS and ecologically informed practice are more likely to have a graduate degree, be regulated by certification standards, and have less than ten years of work experience (Thompson et al., 2019 ). Globally, although data are limited, having a bachelor's or master’s degree to practice school social work has been reported in countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East (Huxtable, 2022 ). Even though all practitioners in the present review held the title of “school social worker,” and the majority had a master’s degree, we suggest future research to evaluate school social work practitioners’ credentials by reporting their education, certificate/licensure status, and years of work experience in the education system, as these factors may be essential in understanding school social workers’ functioning.

Interdisciplinary Collaboration

School social workers are an integral part of the school mental health workforce in education settings and often work in interdisciplinary teams that include schoolteachers, administrators, school counselors, and school psychologists (Huxtable, 2022 ). This scoping review found that one-third of interventions school social workers conducted were either co-led or delivered in collaboration with school counselors, school psychologists, or schoolteachers. Future research examining characteristics and outcomes of school social work practice should consider school social workers’ efforts in grounding themselves in ecological systems by working on interdisciplinary teams to address parent–child interactions, realign teacher–student classroom perceptions, or student–teacher–classroom culture to improve students’ mental health and promote better school performance.

Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research

A scoping review is a valuable method for exploring a field that has not yet been extensively reviewed or is heterogeneous. Thus, a scoping review was chosen as the research method to examine school social work practice outcomes for this study. Although scoping reviews are generally considered rigorous, transparent, and replicable, the present study has several limitations. First, only published dissertations and journal articles published between 2000 and 2022 that were included in the seven aforementioned databases were reviewed. Government reports and other gray literature excluded from the present review might generate more results requiring critical evaluation and discussion. Second, although school social work practice is ecological system-centered, all studies analyzed in the present scoping review were school-based programs. The search terms did not include possible alternative settings. More extensive searches might identify additional results by specifying home or community settings. Third, this paper focused on the outcomes and efficacy of the most current school social work practices so that qualitative studies or studies that focus on practitioners’ demographics were excluded even though they might provide additional information on the characteristics of social workers. Last, evidence to support school social work interventions was based primarily on pre-posttest designs without the use of a control group, and some of the identified evidence-based programs or brief psychosocial interventions lacked sufficient information on participants’ characteristics (e.g., demographics, changes in means in outcomes), which are important in calculating practice effect sizes and potential moderators for meta-analysis to examine school social workers’ roles and effectiveness in carrying out these interventions.

The present scoping review found significant variation in school social work services in the US and other countries where school social work services have been studied. Social workers are a significant part of the mental health and social services workforce. Using schools as a natural hub, school social workers offer primary preventive groups or early interventions to students, parents, and staff. Their interests include but are not restricted to social behavioral and academic outcomes; psychological distress; school climate and culture; teacher, parent, and student interactions; and parental wellbeing. Future school mental health researchers who are interested in the role of school social work services in helping children, youth, and families should consider the changing education landscape and the response to intervention after the COVID-19 pandemic/endemic (Capp et al., 2021 ; Kelly et al., 2021 ; Watson et al., 2022 ). Researchers are also encouraged to collaborate with school social work practitioners to identify early mental health risk factors, recognize appropriate tier 2 EBPs, or pilot-test well-designed programs to increase students’ success.

Declarations

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the scoping review.

• Acuña MA, Martinez JI. Pilot evaluation of the back to basics parenting training in urban schools. School Social Work Journal. 2018; 42 (2):39–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen-Meares P, Montgomery KL, Kim JS. School-based social work interventions: A cross-national systematic review. Social Work. 2013; 58 (3):253–262. doi: 10.1093/sw/swt022. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Al-Rasheed, M. (2021). Resilience-based intervention for youth: An initial investigation of school social work program in Kuwait.  International Social Work , 00208728211018729.
• Altshuler SJ, Webb JR. School social work: Increasing the legitimacy of the profession. Children and Schools. 2009; 31 :207–218. doi: 10.1093/cs/31.4.207. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson G, Pösö P, Väisänen E, Wallin A. School social work in Finland and other Nordic countries: Cooperative professionalism in schools. In: Huxtable M, Blyth E, editors. School social work worldwide. NASW Press; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Avant DW, Lindsey BC. School social workers as response to intervention change champions. Advances in Social Work. 2015; 16 (2):276–291. doi: 10.18060/16428. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrett S., Eber L., Weist M. (2020). Advancing education effectiveness: Interconnecting school mental health and school-wide positive behavior support. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports.
• Beck K. The diversity of school social work in Germany: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of School Social Work. 2017; 2 (1):1. doi: 10.4148/2161-4148.1021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Capp G, Watson K, Astor RA, Kelly MS, Benbenishty R. School social worker voice during COVID-19 school disruptions: A national qualitative analysis. Children and Schools. 2021; 43 (2):79–88. doi: 10.1093/cs/cdab007. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chiu S, Wong V. School social work in Hong Kong: Constraints and challenges for the special administrative region. In: Huxtable M, Blyth E, editors. School social work worldwide. NASW Press; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chupp AI, Boes SR. Effectiveness of small group social skills lessons with elementary students. Georgia School Counselors Association Journal. 2012; 19 (1):92–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clonan SM, McDougal JL, Clark K, Davison S. Use of office discipline referrals in school-wide decision making: A practical example. Psychology in the Schools. 2007; 44 :19–27. doi: 10.1002/pits.20202. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clarivate Analytics. (n.d.). Journal Citation Reports. https://mjl.clarivate.com/search-results
• Crutchfield J, Phillippo KL, Frey A. Structural racism in schools: A view through the lens of the national school social work practice model. Children & Schools. 2020; 42 (3):187–193. doi: 10.1093/cs/cdaa015. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ding, X. (2023). "Characteristics and Outcomes of school social work services: a scoping review of published evidence 2000–2022", 10.18738/T8/7WQNJX, Texas Data Repository, V1
• Early TJ, Vonk ME. Effectiveness of school social work from a risk and resilience perspective. Children & Schools. 2001; 23 (1):9–31. doi: 10.1093/cs/23.1.9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eber L, Sugai G, Smith CR, Scott TM. Wraparound and positive behavioral interventions and supports in the schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2002; 10 (3):171–180. doi: 10.1177/10634266020100030501. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elsherbiny MM. Using a preventive social work program for reducing school refusal. Children & Schools. 2017; 39 (2):81–88. doi: 10.1093/cs/cdx005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elswick SE, Cuellar MJ, Mason SE. Leadership and school social work in the USA: A qualitative assessment. School Mental Health. 2019; 11 (3):535–548. doi: 10.1007/s12310-018-9298-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ervin T, Wilson AN, Maynard BR, Bramblett T. Determining the effectiveness of behavior skills training and observational learning on classroom behaviors: A case study. Social Work Research. 2018; 42 (2):106–117. doi: 10.1093/swr/svy005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans, N., Lasen, M., & Tsey, K. (2015). Appendix A: effective public health practice project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool for quantitative studies. A systematic review of rural development research: characteristics, design quality and engagement with sustainability. USA: Springer , 45–63.
• Fein EH, Kataoka S, Aralis H, Lester P, Marlotte L, Morgan R, Ijadi-Maghsoodi R. Implementing a school-based, trauma-informed resilience curriculum for parents. Social Work in Public Health. 2021; 36 (7–8):795–805. doi: 10.1080/19371918.2021.1958116. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Franklin C, Kim JS, Tripodi SJ. A meta-analysis of published school social work practice studies: 1980–2007. Research on Social Work Practice. 2009; 19 (6):667–677. doi: 10.1177/1049731508330224. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frey AJ, Alvarez ME, Sabatino CA, Lindsey BC, Dupper DR, Raines JC, Norris MP. The development of a national school social work practice model. Children and Schools. 2012; 34 (3):131–134. doi: 10.1093/cs/cds025. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garfield E. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006; 295 (1):90–93. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.1.90. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gherardi SA. Policy windows in school social work: History, practice implications, and new directions. School Social Work Journal. 2017; 42 (1):37–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huxtable, M. (2022). A global picture of school social work in 2021.  Online Submission 7 (1).
• Ijadi-Maghsoodi R, Marlotte L, Garcia E, Aralis H, Lester P, Escudero P, Kataoka S. Adapting and implementing a school-based resilience-building curriculum among low-income racial and ethnic minority students. Contemporary School Psychology. 2017; 21 (3):223–239. doi: 10.1007/s40688-017-0134-1. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kataoka SH, Stein BD, Jaycox LH, Wong M, Escudero P, Tu W, Fink A. A school-based mental health program for traumatized Latino immigrant children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2003; 42 (3):311–318. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200303000-00011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keller J, Grumbach G. School social work: A skills-based competency approach. London: Springer Publishing Company; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly MS, Benbenishty R, Capp G, Watson K, Astor R. Practice in a pandemic: School social workers’ adaptations and experiences during the 2020 COVID-19 school disruptions. Families in Society. 2021; 102 (3):400–413. doi: 10.1177/10443894211009863. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly MS, Berzin SC, Frey A, Alvarez M, Shaffer G, O’brien K. The state of school social work: Findings from the national school social work survey. School Mental Health. 2010; 2 (3):132–141. doi: 10.1007/s12310-010-9034-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly MS, Bluestone-Miller R. Working on what works (WOWW): Coaching teachers to do more of what’s working. Children & Schools. 2009; 31 (1):35–38. doi: 10.1093/cs/31.1.35. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly MS, Frey AJ, Alvarez M, Berzin SC, Shaffer G, O'Brien K. School social work practice and response to intervention. Children and Schools. 2010; 32 (4):201–209. doi: 10.1093/cs/32.4.201. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelly MS, Frey A, Thompson A, Klemp H, Alvarez M, Berzin SC. Assessing the national school social work practice model: Findings from the second national school social work survey. Social Work. 2015; 61 (1):17–28. doi: 10.1093/sw/swv044. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lustick H, Norton C, Lopez SR, Greene-Rooks JH. Restorative practices for empowerment: A social work lens. Children & Schools. 2020; 42 (2):89–98. doi: 10.1093/cs/cdaa006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Magnano J. A social work intervention for children with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Albany: State University of New York; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Association of Social Workers. (2012). NASW standards for school social work services. https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1Ze4-9-Os7E%3D&portalid=0
• Newsome WS. The impact of solution-focused brief therapy with at-risk junior high school students. Children and Schools. 2005; 27 (2):83–90. doi: 10.1093/cs/27.2.83. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newsome WS, Anderson-Butcher D, Fink J, Hall L, Huffer J. The impact of school social work services on student absenteeism and risk factors related to school truancy. School Social Work Journal. 2008; 32 (2):21–38. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan: A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2016; 5 :1–10. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oxford University Press. (2022). Children & Schools. https://academic.oup.com/cs
• Phillippo KL, Blosser A. Specialty practice or interstitial practice? A reconsideration of school social work's past and present. Children & Schools. 2013; 35 (1):19–31. doi: 10.1093/cs/cds039. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phillips JH. An evaluation of school-based cognitive-behavioral social skills training groups with adolescents at risk for depression. Arlington: The University of Texas; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sadzaglishvili S, Akobia N, Shatberashvili N, Gigineishvili K. A social work intervention’s effects on the improvement of school culture1. ERIS Journal-Winter. 2020; 2020 :45. [ Google Scholar ]
• School Social Work Association of America [SSWAA]. (n.d.). School social work practice model overview: Improving academic and behavioral outcomes. https://www.sswaa.org/_files/ugd/486e55_47e9e7e084a84e5cbd7287e681f91961.pdf
• Thompson AM, Frey AJ, Kelly MS. Factors influencing school social work practice: A latent profile analysis. School Mental Health. 2019; 11 (1):129–140. doi: 10.1007/s12310-018-9279-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson AM, Webber KC. Realigning student and teacher perceptions of school rules: A behavior management strategy for students with challenging behaviors. Children and Schools. 2010; 32 (2):71–79. doi: 10.1093/cs/32.2.71. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Straus SE. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018; 169 (7):467–473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson KR, Capp G, Astor RA, Kelly MS, Benbenishty R. We need to address the trauma: School social workers′ views about student and staff mental health during COVID-19. School Mental Health. 2022; 14 :1–16. doi: 10.1007/s12310-022-09512-7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilde, J. (2004). Definitions for the no child left behind act of 2001: Scientifically-based research. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction NCELA .
• Wong DF, Kwok SY, Low YT, Man KW, Ip PS. Evaluating effectiveness of cognitive–behavior therapy for Hong Kong adolescents with anxiety problems. Research on Social Work Practice. 2018; 28 (5):585–594. doi: 10.1177/1049731516658351. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong DF, Ng TK, Ip PS, Chung ML, Choi J. Evaluating the effectiveness of a group CBT for parents of ADHD children. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2018; 27 (1):227–239. doi: 10.1007/s10826-017-0868-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Young S, Connolly Sollose L, Carey JP. Addressing chronic absenteeism in middle school: A cost-effective approach. Children and Schools. 2020; 42 (2):131–138. doi: 10.1093/cs/cdaa009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Home » About Us » Blogs » Latest Research in School Social Work

Latest Research in School Social Work

Check out these short research summaries + learn their implications for practice!

Is Solution-Focused Brief Therapy Evidence-Based? An Update 10 Years Later (2019) Kim, S. Smock Jordan, C. Franklin, & A. Froerer

In 2010, researchers published an article in Families in Society about the observed effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT). Several of the researchers from the original study reconnected 10 years later to provide an update on the evidence-based status of SFBT as this treatment has become more widely used.

Solution-focused brief therapy evolved from family therapy models led by social workers, and continues to be widely taught and used in social work practice.The SFBT’s core therapeutic process works to highlight the strengths of the client, establishes a cooperative helping relationship, and strives to set collaborative goals with clients to help them build their own solutions. 

Furthermore, it’s a method of therapy used in school settings by school social workers. Dr. Cynthia Franklin, one of the publication’s researchers and a founding member of The Texas Social Social Work Network, implemented the first U.S. school-wide solution-focused approach to helping at-risk students at Garza High School in Austin, Texas. Seventeen years later, this school has become a model alternative program that demonstrates the feasibility and effectiveness of SFBT. 

Researchers from this study conducted eight meta-analyses to test the effectiveness and analyze the growing evidence behind SFBT for treating anxiety, stress, depression, behavior problems, and social and interpersonal difficulties. Among these randomized-control studies, the researchers found SFBT to be a valuable intervention across many study sample populations including families, children, adolescents, and adults, in addition to diverse nationalities such as Chinese, Korean, North American, Europeans, Latino and African Americans. This suggests that SFBT is a tool that can be used in various countries with more clientele as it becomes widely accessible on a global scale. Researchers suggest that future studies scale up to include larger clinical trials, which has already begun to happen in studies conducted within child welfare and criminal justice, but needs to extend to other areas where SFBT has shown effectiveness.

Restorative Practices for Empowerment: A Social Work Lens (2020) Lustick, C. Norton, S. Rey Lopez, & J. H. Greene-Rooks

The 21st century marked a change from “zero tolerance” policies– known for exclusionary and punitive measures– towards a focused effort to improve school climates with preventative measures. These changes involve a shift towards restorative practices and a greater emphasis on Social and Emotional Learning (SEL). 

This study observed roughly 900 hours of interviews with faculty, staff, and students at three small public middle schools in the same urban district with equivalent suspension rates to examine the successes and challenges of implementing community-building circles. Community-building circles are a component of restorative practice, which is a school-based version of restorative justice. It emphasizes healing and harm instead of punishing misbehavior. All school staff had undergone some level of restorative practice training for at least a year prior to the study, which included community-building circle facilitation. 

The overarching finding from this study was that the success of the restorative practice implementation depended on teachers’ and students’ relationships with each other, the teachers’ familiarity with implementation, and the level of support they received for doing so. Researchers also found that there was a noticeable gap in teachers’ ability to fully implement community-building circles because of a lack of training and constraints associated with their role as teachers. 

Teachers often described the circles as unique shared learning experiences to build trust and a capacity for growth. Other teachers reported feeling uncomfortable or disjointed in the circles given their lack of formal training on SEL. 

The data from this study illustrated that while community-building circles can be transformative spaces for students and teachers, they can also be spaces for marginalization and distrust. Researchers from this study suggest integrating school social workers into teachers’ restorative practices so that social and emotional learning can be more widely supported, along with circle practices that are explicitly antiracist, culturally responsive, and trauma-informed.

Characteristics of Effective School-Based, Teacher-Delivered Mental Health Services for Children (2020) Park, S. Guz, A. Zhang, S. N. Beretvas, C. Franklin, & J. S. Kim

Access to mental health services is potentially greater for youth in public school settings when social workers and other healthcare services are more easily integrated into students’ lives. However, teachers typically spend much more time with their students than school mental health service professionals, which makes it imperative to build a collaborative relationship between teachers and school social workers.

This study evaluated different program characteristics of teacher-delivered school-based mental health services and how effective these clinical services were for youth. A meta-analysis was conducted using data from a systematic review of nine electronic databases and 19 intervention websites for studies published from 2000 to 2016 about randomized school interventions with teachers. Researchers were looking to answer the question: what role do teachers have in school-based mental health services? 

Based on their findings, researchers concluded that the most effective mental and emotional support services teachers provide to their students at the classroom level is in medium length rather than brief interventions (e.g., 8 weeks of classroom instructions on a certain psycho-educational topic, such as substance use). Group and general mental health interventions, however, were seen as less effective when delivered by teachers. This could be for a variety of reasons, including a lack of formalized mental health training. Researchers suggest that this tier of intervention work may be more effective for school social workers or other mental health professionals. By combining teachers’ abilities to offer medium length interventions with school social workers’ expertise in group and brief interventions, school professionals have the opportunity to collaborate in ways that more fully support the behavioral and emotional needs of their students.

• Research Fellows
• Collaborations
• Join Our Team

Join our Listserv!

Upcoming events, consent conversations: engaging and involving youth, hgtx caregiver training – adoption: what to expect, supporting unaccompanied indigenous youth, engaging with youth in foster care, strengths based approach to telling a child’s story.

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• About Children & Schools
• About the National Association of Social Workers
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

• < Previous

A Qualitative Study of School Social Workers’ Roles and Challenges in Dropout Prevention

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Kristina C Webber, A Qualitative Study of School Social Workers’ Roles and Challenges in Dropout Prevention, Children & Schools , Volume 40, Issue 2, April 2018, Pages 82–90, https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdy003

• Permissions Icon Permissions

High school dropout remains a persistent educational and social problem in the United States, despite promising declines in dropout rates. Social workers are uniquely positioned to identify and address numerous factors influencing students’ likelihood of graduating. The purpose of this small qualitative study was to describe social workers’ engagement in dropout prevention efforts and the context in which this work occurs. Through interviews with school social workers, school counselors, and district-level administrators, three focal practice areas were identified: (1) supporting student attendance, (2) providing intensive support for selected at-risk students, and (3) encouraging dropouts to return to a diploma-granting program. Respondents also identified common barriers and ethical dilemmas that hindered their practice, including challenges in defining the scope and boundaries of the social work profession, and tensions between the needs of the school and the needs of students. Suggestions for future research are provided, and implications for policy, practice, and the education of future school social work practitioners are discussed.

National Association of Social Workers members

Personal account.

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Short-term Access

To purchase short-term access, please sign in to your personal account above.

Don't already have a personal account? Register

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• About Children & Schools
• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1545-682X
• Print ISSN 1532-8759
• Copyright © 2024 National Association of Social Workers
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Advertisement

The State of School Social Work: Findings from the National School Social Work Survey

• Original Paper
• Published: 24 March 2010
• Volume 2 , pages 132–141, ( 2010 )

Cite this article

• Michael Stokely Kelly 1 ,
• Stephanie Cosner Berzin 2 ,
• Andy Frey 3 ,
• Michelle Alvarez 4 ,
• Gary Shaffer 5 &
• Kimberly O’Brien 6  

3166 Accesses

55 Citations

Explore all metrics

School social work is a large and growing subspecialty in social work practice; however, little is known about present school social work practice from a national perspective. The National School Social Work Survey ( n  = 1,639) represents the first data in over ten years to describe the diverse practice contexts and interventions employed by school social workers. The survey also seeks to better understand school social work practice in light of the significant educational reforms of the past decade that are increasingly shaping student experiences. Findings from this survey indicate that the characteristics of school social workers, the context in which they practice, and their practice choices remain largely unchanged over the past 10 years. Implications for future research, policy, and practice are discussed based on these findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The state of school social work: revisited.

Characteristics and Outcomes of School Social Work Services: A Scoping Review of Published Evidence 2000–June 2022

Factors Influencing School Social Work Practice: A Latent Profile Analysis

Allen Meares, P. (1977). Analysis of tasks in school social work. Social Work, 22 (3), 196–201.

Google Scholar  

Allen-Meares, P. (1994). Social work services in schools: A national study of entry-level tasks. Social Work, 39 (5), 560–565.

Allen-Meares, P. (2006, Summer). One hundred years: A historical analysis of social work services in schools [Special issue]. School Social Work Journal, 30, 25–43.

Anderson-Butcher, D., & Ashton, D. (2004). Innovative models of collaboration to serve children, youths, families, and communities. Children & Schools, 26 (1), 39–53.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Clancy, J. (1995). Ecological school social work: The reality and the vision. Social Work in Education, 17 (1), 40–47.

Corbin, J. N. (2005). Increasing opportunities for school social work practice resulting from comprehensive school reform. Children & Schools, 27 (4), 239–246.

Costin, L. (1969). School social work: An analysis of function. Psychology in the Schools, 6 (4), 347–352.

Article   Google Scholar  

Dunlap, G., Sailor, W., Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2008). Overview and history of positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support: Issues in clinical child psychology (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Springer.

Dupper, D. R. (2003). School social work: Skills and interventions for effective practice . Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Frey, A. J., & Dupper, D. (2005). Towards a 21st century model of school social work practice. Children & Schools, 27 , 33–44.

Frey, A. J., Lingo, A., & Nelson, C. M. (2008). Positive behavior support: A call for leadership. Children & Schools, 30 (1), 5–14.

Kelly, M. S. (2008). The domains and demands of school social work practice: A guide to working effectively with students families, and schools . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, M. S., Raines, J. C., Stone, S., & Frey, A. (2010). School social work: An evidence-informed framework for practice . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Nelson, J. L., Palonsky, S. B., & McCarthy, M. R. (2004). Critical issues in education: Dialogues and dialectics (5th ed. ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

No Child Left Behind (2002). Overview: Four pillars of NCLB. Retrieved February 20, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html .

Opinio. (2009). Opinio Documentation [software]. Retrieved May 2, 2009 from www.objectplanet.com/opinio/documentation.html .

Raines, J. C. (2006, Summer). SWOT! A strategic plan for school social work in the twenty-first century [Special issue]. School Social Work Journal, 30, 132–150.

School Social Work Association of America (SSWAA). (2005). State-by-state information on school social workers. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from http://www.sswaa.org/ .

Scott, T. M., Anderson, C., Mancil, R., & Alter, P. (2008). Function-based supports for individual students in school settings. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support: Issues in clinical child psychology (pp. 421–441). New York, NY: Springer.

Siporin, M. (1980). Ecological systems theory in social work. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 7 (4), 507–532.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2008). What we know and need to know about preventing problem behavior in schools. Exceptionality, 16 (2), 67–77.

Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., et al. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 4 (4), 194–209.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Chicago School of Social Work, Loyola University, Chicago, IL, USA

Michael Stokely Kelly

Graduate School of Social Work, Boston College, Boston, MA, USA

Stephanie Cosner Berzin

Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA

Department of Social Work, Minnesota State University-Mankato, Mankato, MN, USA

Michelle Alvarez

School of Social Work, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Gary Shaffer

Kimberly O’Brien

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Stokely Kelly .

Additional information

Gary Shaffer (1946–2009): During the preparation of this article, our colleague and team member Dr. Gary Shaffer passed away after a long illness. We dedicate this article to him and to his memory as a leader in school social work.

See Fig.  4 .

Survey instrument development process, January 2007–January 2008

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kelly, M.S., Berzin, S.C., Frey, A. et al. The State of School Social Work: Findings from the National School Social Work Survey. School Mental Health 2 , 132–141 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-010-9034-5

Download citation

Published : 24 March 2010

Issue Date : September 2010

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-010-9034-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• School social work
• Practice in schools
• School mental health
• Survey research
• 3-Tier model of intervention
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ROLE OF SCHOOL SOCIAL WORKER

School social work is a specialized area of practice within the broad field of the social work profession. School social workers bring unique knowledge and skills to the school system and the student services team. School Social Workers are trained mental health professionals who can assist with mental health concerns, behavioral concerns, positive behavioral support, academic, and classroom support, consultation with teachers, parents, and administrators as well as provide individual and group counseling/therapy.  School social workers are instrumental in furthering the mission of the schools which is to provide a setting for teaching, learning, and for the attainment of competence and confidence. School social workers are hired by school districts to enhance the district's ability to meet its academic mission, especially where home, school and community collaboration is the key to achieving student success. ​

WHO are School Social Workers?

School Social Workers are trained  mental health professionals with a degree in

social work who provide services related to a person's social, emotional and life

adjustment to school and/or society.  School Social Workers  are the link between

the home, school and community in providing direct as well as indirect services to

students, families and school personnel to promote and support students' academic

and social success. 

School Social Work Services

RELATED SERVICES:

Participating in special education assessment meetings as well as individual Educational Planning Meetings

Working with those problems in a child's living situation that affect the child’s adjustment in school. (home, school, and community)

Preparing a social or developmental history on a child with a disability.

Counseling (group, individual and/or family)

Mobilizing family, school, and community resources to enable the child to learn as effectively as possible in his or her educational program

Assisting in developing positive behavioral intervention strategies.

SERVICES TO STUDENTS:

Providing crisis intervention.

Developing intervention strategies to increase academic success.

Assisting with conflict resolution and anger management.

Helping the child develop appropriate social interaction skills.

Assisting the child in understanding and accepting self and others.

SERVICES TO PARENT/FAMILIES:

Working with parents to facilitate their support in their children's school adjustment.

Alleviating family stress to enable the child to function more effectively in school &community.

Assisting parents to access programs available to students with special needs.

Assisting parents in accessing and utilizing school and community resources.

SERVICES TO SCHOOL PERSONNEL:

Providing staff with essential information to  better understand factors (cultural, societal, economic, familial, health, etc.) affecting a student’s performance and behavior.

Assessing students with mental health concerns.

Developing staff in-service training programs.

Assisting teachers with behavior management.

Providing direct support to staff.

SCHOOL-COMMUNITY LIAISON:

Obtaining and coordinating community resources to meet students' needs.

Helping school districts receive adequate support from social and mental health agencies.

Advocating for new and improved community/school service to meet the needs of students and families.

Helping the system respond effectively to each child's needs.

SERVICES TO DISTRICTS: 

Assist in developing and implementing educational programs for children for exceptional children.

Developing alternative programs for students with attendance concerns or involvement with the law.

Identifying and reporting child abuse and neglect.

Providing consultation regarding school law and school policy including IDEA and Section 504.

Providing case management for students and families requiring multiple resources.

Additional resources regarding the role of school social workers

Please feel free to download and use the following documents to assist with understanding the many services that school social workers are uniquely trained to provide. , school social workers' role in addressing students' mental health needs and increasing academic achievement.

Schools often are one of the first places where mental health issues are recognized and addressed.

Overlapping and Unique Roles of OH Specialized Pupil Services Personnel

Venn Diagram of SSW, School Psych and School Counseling Roles 

National Standards for School Social Work Services

(2012) Developed by the National Association of Social Workers.

A Framework for Safe and Successful Schools

In April, 2013 SSWAA joined the National Association of Secondary School Principals, National Association of Elementary School Principals, National Association of School Psychologists, American School Counselor's Association, National Association of School Resource Officers to develop  A Framework for Safe and Successful Schools  This document outlines the various roles that we each play in schools.

SSWAA Resolution Statements

Over the years, SSWAA has developed numerous Resolution Statements to address issues of importance to School Social Workers at the local, state and national levels.  

A New PhD’s Mission: To Provide Support Systems That Help At-Risk Students Stay in School

Share options.

• Share to Twitter/X
• Share to Facebook
• Share to LinkedIn
• Inclusive Community & Connectivity
• Academic Distinction in Our Core Four
• Student Success

Driven by a desire to keep young people out of the criminal justice system, Alicia Wilson, PhD ’24, left her job in mental health to become a leader in the social work profession.

Twenty years ago as a mental health clinician in New York City’s juvenile justice system, Alicia Wilson, PhD ’24, saw how acts by disadvantaged children and adolescents forever closed the door on their education.

Determined to help young people avoid the criminal justice system, she left her job to become a school social worker. “I wanted to reach my clients before they reached me,” she said.

In that role, however, she saw how students fall through the cracks as a result of academic struggles and unaddressed mental health issues. She felt that schools were not providing the holistic support their students needed.

Young People “Needed a Voice” to Avoid Criminal Justice

Then one day she got a flier in the mail about Adelphi’s PhD in Social Work program. It came at the right time because she had been thinking she needed to get involved at a policymaking level to help her students via early intervention. She says she was tired of seeing children pushed out of public schools because they had a minor run-in with the law at age 10. “I saw that urban children didn’t get the services they needed if they didn’t have someone fighting for them,” Dr. Wilson says. “I realized those kids needed a voice and I decided to become that voice.”

Now, having earned her PhD at Adelphi in May 2024, she’s serving as that voice. And she said she couldn’t have gotten to where she is today without Adelphi.

“Everything that I learned at Adelphi has supported me in becoming a better advocate and policymaker,” she said. “I help children with what I learned at Adelphi. I am able to support the most vulnerable students and advocate for a more comprehensive approach to education using my newfound research abilities.”

Discovering a Love for Research

When Dr. Wilson received the flier from Adelphi, she found the idea of getting a PhD intimidating. She had already earned a Master of Social Work, but she had a full-time job and a part-time job to obtain her clinical license. How could she squeeze in time for doctoral work?

“I thought, ‘It won’t kill me to go to orientation and learn about this,’” she said.  She went to orientation and left feeling like she could handle it. “After meeting Dr. (Philip) Rozario and Dr. (Roni) Berger, I was like, ‘You know what, why not just give this a try?’”

She enrolled in the program, and working diligently while juggling her many responsibilities, earned her degree after 10 years. Along the way, she served as an adjunct professor at Adelphi and she learned to love research.

“You could never have told me that I would enjoy research and policy writing,” she said, “but my classes and my conversations with my professors at Adelphi helped me find my trajectory and my talents.” She said she learned to use research to solve problems that had stumped her before.

She’s now the New York regional director of social work for Uncommon Schools, a company that runs charter schools in the New York City area. Dr. Wilson oversees the social work department across 23 New York City charter schools supervising 41 school social workers. Her focus is on providing Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTTS), a preventive framework designed to reduce suspensions, improve academics and promote wellness. The program involves the entire school community, getting social workers, superintendents, teachers, parents and students to work together. “I create an umbrella of support,” she said.

After Surviving 9/11, She Found Inspiration

Dr. Wilson got a BA in Psychology and was working on Wall Street near the World Trade Center on 9/11. “I watched through the back windows of my office at the American Express Tower blow out when the towers fell,” she recalled. “I ran down 27 flights of stairs to escape. Some of my colleagues didn’t get out.”

Dr. Wilson says she didn’t even know what a social worker was before 9/11, but a social worker helped her pull herself together after the tragedy. “I had never dealt with losing colleagues and going to funerals with no bodies. The social worker helped me figure out all the pain, and I decided I wanted to help people who have experienced trauma like this.”

The experience encouraged her to return to school to get an MSW. When she earned her degree she began working in the juvenile justice system. Because of her desire to help students avoid the criminal justice system, she became the director of student support services for ROADS Charter High Schools—one of New York City’s first charter school systems to enroll at-risk students who wanted to get back into high school and get their diploma. In that position, she developed a socio-emotional support program for these students that trained school staff members to meet the needs of their students.

“I reminded the staff that these kids they see as gang members or aggressors are still someone’s son or daughter, and they need our support to help them find their voice and their way,” she said.

Dr. Wilson returned to school and began working in New York City schools with at-risk children while getting her MSW. After she got her degree, she began working as a mental health clinician at a New York City juvenile detention center, where she provided counseling to incarcerated youth and their families. The experience left her feeling like she needed to get involved earlier in their lives to keep them out of the criminal justice system. “Too many kids were being thrown out of the education system,” she said. “It was heartbreaking.”

A Nurturing Academic Environment

Through it all, Dr. Wilson has never lost sight of the support system that has served as her own foundation.

“I am deeply grateful for the unwavering support of my loved ones, colleagues and friends, who have been my rock throughout this journey,” she said. “I am thankful for the inspiration and motivation I’ve received from my students, some of whom have gone on to become dedicated social workers themselves. I am also indebted to my professors at the Adelphi University School of Social Work for providing me with a nurturing academic environment.”

Media Relations and Social Media

• Current Students
• Parents & Families
• Alumni & Friends
• Local Community
• Student Profile
• Apply for Aid 
• Billing 
• Loans 
• One-Stop Student Services 
• Pay Your Bill 
• Refunds 
• Scholarships & Grants 
• Tuition & Costs 
• Tuition Insurance 
• Add/Drop a Course 
• Change Major/Minor 
• Course Search 
• Degree Audit 
• Enrollment/Degree Verification 
• Forms & Guidance 
• Register for Classes 
• University Bulletin (Course Catalog) 
• Academic Calendar 
• Academic Petitions 
• Academic Resources 
• Advisement 
• Final Exams 
• General Education 
• Grading Policies 
• International Services 
• Learning & Writing Centers (Tutoring) 
• Mentoring 
• Study Abroad 
• Assistive Technology 
• Bridges to Adelphi (Neurodiversity) 
• Housing Accommodations (Section 504) 
• Learning Disability & ADHD Support 
• Student Access Office 
• Athletics (Adelphi Panthers) 
• Bookstore 
• Clubs & Activities (MyAULife) 
• Commuter Student Services 
• The Delphian (Student Newspaper) 
• Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging 
• Dining Services & Meal Plans 
• Interfaith Worship 
• Locker Rentals 
• Lost & Found 
• Multicultural Center 
• Residential Life & Housing 
• Student & Community Engagement 
• Career & Professional Development 
• Internships 
• Job Search (Handshake) 
• Leadership & Development 
• On-Campus Jobs 
• Prep for Success (Kaplan Career Core) 
• Care Team 
• Community Concerns & Resolution 
• Conduct & Community Standards 
• Report Harassment 
• Title IX 
• Apply to Graduate 
• Commencement 
• Health Insurance & Waiver 
• Health Portal 
• Health Services Center 
• Immunization Requirements 
• Infectious Disease Prevention (COVID-19) 
• Mental Health Counseling & Support 
• Mindfulness Center 
• Nutritionist/Dietitian 
• Panther Pantry & Food Insecurity 
• Recreation & Fitness 
• University Libraries 
• My Library Account 
• Library Services 
• Clery Act 
• Emergency Notifications (RAVE) 
• Parking 
• Report Suspicious Behavior (BIT Team) 
• Shuttle Schedule 
• Help Desk (Tech Support) 
• Linkedin Learning 
• Technology Services 
• Disclosures & Info 
• Student Consumer Info 
• Student Disclosure 
• Academic Catalog 
• Financial Scholarly Support 
• Curriculog 
• Library 
• Navigate 
• OARAA 
• Provost 
• Research & Sponsored Programs 
• Administrative Calendar 
• Alice Brown Early Learning Center (Childcare) 
• Brand & Style Guide 
• Community Discounts 
• Emergency Notification (RAVE) 
• Faculty Payroll & Course Load 
• Faculty Senate 
• FCPE 
• Human Resources 
• LinkedIn Learning 
• Paid Time-Off 
• Public Safety & Transportation 
• Technology 
• Share Your News or Story 
• University News 
• University Events 
• Administrative Calendar
• Accounts Payable 
• Benefits 
• Concerns and Resolutions 
• Contracts 
• Handshake / Post Jobs 
• Staff Council 
• Parents & Families Info
• Career Services
• High School Programs
• Tuition & Financial Aid
• Watch the Ceremony 
• FERPA 
• General Education Requirements 
• Registrar 
• Paying a Bill 
• Accessibility Office 
• Availability of Employees 
• Campus Map 
• Handbooks & Brochures 
• Health Services 
• Parents & Families Association 
• Athletics 
• Performing Arts Center 
• Adelphi Gold 
• Discounts & Benefits 
• Jobs at Adelphi 
• Networking 
• Order a Transcript 
• Performing Arts Center
• Camps 
• High School Programs 
• Pre-College Programs 
• Art Exhibitions 
• Adult Fitness Program 
• Gym Membership 
• Continuing Education & Professional Development 
• Community Auditing Program 
• Credit for Prior Learning 
• Breast Cancer Hotline & Support Program 
• Hy Weinberg Center for Communication Disorders 
• Institute for Parenting 
• Literacy Center 
• Mental Health Services 
• Social Training Center 
• Become a Mentor 
• Center for Nonprofit Leadership 
• Reserve Event Space 

You are now leaving the Adelphi University website...

Adelphi is not responsible for the content of third-party sites. External sites may have different Privacy and Security policies than Adelphi University. You should review the policies of any third-party website before you provide personal or confidential information.

Go back Continue

New study reveals high risk of overdose deaths in Cuyahoga County among those using drugs when they’re alone

In Cuyahoga County, the stark reality of the opioid crisis is that most drug overdose victims die alone, with no one nearby to help.

A recent study , done in partnership with Case Western Reserve University and Cuyahoga County, highlights the critical need for “targeted harm-reduction strategies” in Northeast Ohio, where the opioid epidemic continues to claim lives at nearly twice the national average.

Those strategies include the distribution of Naloxone (an opioid antagonist that can reverse the effects of an overdose), and increasing the availability of medication-assisted treatment options and fentanyl test strips.

The research, using data from the  Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner’s Office , examined overdose deaths between 2016 and 2020, focusing on people using drugs when they were alone.

The study revealed that a staggering 75% of overdose victims were using drugs alone, a behavior strongly associated with increased mortality. Key findings indicate that individuals using drugs alone were more likely to be at home and less likely to receive life-saving interventions like naloxone, said  Daniel Flannery , the Dr. Semi J. and Ruth Begun Professor and director of the  Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research and Education .

“Being informed is crucial—knowledge equips you to take action,”  Flannery  said. “It’s about reviving someone in need, and if that’s not possible, contacting emergency services immediately. The chances of a fatal outcome significantly increase when there’s no one around to help.”

New policies and community efforts must prioritize reaching individuals at risk of using alone to curb the devastating impact of the opioid crisis, said  Vaishali Deo , research associate at the Begun Center and co-principal investigator in the research.

“Our findings underscore the urgent need for innovative harm-reduction strategies aimed at those most vulnerable—those using drugs alone,” Deo said. “Interventions must focus on reducing isolation and improving access to emergency medical care to prevent further loss of life.”

The research findings were published by the National Institutes of Health’s  National Library of Medicine .

Additional insights

• In Cuyahoga County, from 2016 through 2020, there were 2,944 unintentional overdose deaths for those over 18 years old. That’s 54 deaths per 100,000 residents. The national average is 28 overdose deaths per 100,000 residents.
• The study further details the demographics and circumstances surrounding overdose deaths in Cuyahoga County from 2016 to 2020. Most were non-Hispanic (94.9%), white (72.2%) and male (71.3%), with a significant portion 35 to 64 years old. Most lived in the City of Cleveland. Over half attained at least a high school diploma.
• Toxicology reports revealed that synthetic opioids, specifically illicitly manufactured fentanyl, was present in 72.7% of the deaths. Cocaine and heroin were also significant contributors, found in 41.6% and 29.6% of cases, respectively. Nearly 80% of overdose deaths involved the use of multiple substances.
• Despite the presence of bystanders in more than half the cases, most victims (74.9%) were using drugs alone at the time of their fatal overdose, mainly at home. Emergency medical services responded to most of the incidents, yet over 60% of victims were pronounced dead at the scene—highlighting the critical timing needed for interventions like naloxone, which was administered in just 28.6% of the cases.

Deo and Flannery were joined in the research by Sarah Fulton, a research associate at the Begun Center, and Manreet K. Bhullar, a senior forensic epidemiologist at the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner’s Office, and Thomas P. Gilson, chief medical examiner of Cuyahoga County.

“These findings paint a stark picture of the opioid crisis in our community,” Gilson said. “The tragic reality is that too many people are dying alone, and we must act swiftly to implement lifesaving measures that can prevent these unnecessary deaths.”

For more information, contact Colin McEwen .

• School of Social Work >
• Academics >
• Micro-Credentials

School of Social Work Micro-Credentials

The next level of learning is here.

Smaller that a minor, certificate or degree program, micro-credentials allow you to meet your personalized learning needs by gaining knowledge and skills in areas that are relevant to your academic or professional goals. 

Continuing Education/Professional Development

Undergraduate

What is a Digital Badge?

Micro-credentials equip you with digital badges that showcase your achievements and all it took to get there.

When you complete a micro-credential program you will earn a digital badge or a series of digital badges. A digital badge is a clickable icon that houses important information, including the issuing institution, the date earned, the criteria required to earn the badge and evidence showing you have met that criteria.

Digital badges are dynamic credentials that you own, so you can decide how you wish to use them. You can add them to your social media profiles, digital résumé, e-portfolio and more.

UB digital badges are issued through  Acclaim , allowing you to display your skills and accomplishments for employers, colleagues and peers. For questions about using Acclaim, contact the Office of Micro-Credentials at  [email protected]  or 716-645-1357.