The study concludes that the SACD combined-program evaluation provides no evidence that the seven universal, school-wide programs improved students' social and character development. Year-by-year analysis and the growth-curve analysis did not find that the seven SACD programs improved student outcomes when considered together, individually by program, or for specific subgroups. For the combined-program analyses, the year-by-year analysis found fewer significant impacts than expected by chance (2 out of 60 estimated impacts), and the growth-curve analysis found no significant impacts. For the individual program analyses, the year-by-year analysis found fewer significant impacts than expected by chance (16 out of 420 estimated impacts), with 9 having beneficial impacts and 7 having detrimental impacts. The growth-curve analyses of the individual programs found the same number of impacts as expected by chance (6 out of 126 estimated impacts), with 2 having beneficial impacts and 4 having detrimental impacts. For the subgroup analyses, the year-by-year analyses found more significant impacts than expected by chance for gender (8 out of 54 estimated impacts) and initial risk levels (41 out of 270 estimated impacts). Several explanations for the program's lack of impact are discussed. All of the seven SACD programs were coherent in that their activities were integrated and logically organized based on a theory of action that differed among the programs. They were all school-based in that they were implemented in the schools by school personnel, and they were universal in that they were to be implemented for all students in all elementary classrooms. Extensive tables