The aggressive promotion of universal interventions among educational audiences is essential. Their widespread use would make schools more positive and accepting environs for all students and reduce the likelihood that expensive and intrusive interventions would have to be applied in order to solve the problems of many at-risk students. Greenberg et al. They touched on this critical set of issues but have decided to address them in other venues. I think the readers of the report ought to be carefully apprised of the huge negative impact that substantial divergence from an effective intervention s implementation guidelines can have.
Many educators are far too casual in their implementation of proven programs.
A related issue that the authors did not address has to do with the persistent tendency of educators to underidentify at-risk children and youth who need access to mental health supports and services. There is a serious risk that many at-risk students, especially those with internalizing problems, will not access intervention services because of the above factors and the mistaken belief that they will outgrow their problems. Thus, the underidentification and denial of access to services are potentially huge barriers to adequate delivery of mental health services to the broad range of today s students who need them. This neglected problem may be brought into sharper focus as Greenberg et al.'s report becomes more widely disseminated. As the author, along with my colleagues, of one of the 34 prevention programs included in the Greenberg et al.