SECOND STEP®: A VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAM

E V I D E N C E - B A S E D P R A C T I C E

By Amanda VanDixon & Kellsey Wagman

ASSESSMENT OF INTERVENTION, TARGETS, AND GOALS ( “KNOWING WHAT

IS NEEDED”)

Social-emotional competence, violence prevention, and anti-bullying programs needed within school

setting.

Program Overview• Developed by the Committee for Children (2014): Nonprofit organization, reaching approximately 70

countries and over 25,000 schools, developing research-based social-emotional learning materials for students around the world; Addresses ASCA Standards

“Second Step is a classroom-based social skills program for students in preschool through junior high

(ages 4–14 years), with a distinct curriculum for each grade. It is designed to reduce impulsive, high-

risk, and aggressive behaviors and increase children’s social competence and other protective factors.

The program builds on cognitive behavioral intervention models integrated with social learning theory,

empathy research, and social information-processing research. It is intended to teach children to

identify and understand their own and others’ emotions, choose positive goals, and successfully manage

reactions when emotionally aroused” (Mathematica Policy Research, 2013); Endorsed by U.S.

Department of Education (Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools Expert Panel, 2005).

Target Population• Elementary and Middle School Population; Male and

Female Students; Urban and Suburban Areas; Varying racial/ethnic backgrounds (Caucasian, African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, etc.) (CrimeSolutions.gov, 2014)

Program Variation• Elementary Curriculum (CrimeSolutions.gov, 2014)

• Main goal: Social problem-solving

• Middle School Curriculum (CrimeSolutions.gov, 2014)• Main goal: Risk reduction and increase protective factors

ASSESSMENT OF INTERVENTION, TARGETS, AND GOALS ( “KNOWING WHAT

IS NEEDED”)

OUTCOME RESEARCH COMPETENCE ( “KNOWING WHAT GENERALLY WORKS”)

“The Second Step research has found consistent evidence across studies that

the curriculum increases social skills and pro-social behavior, and decreases anti-

social and/or aggressive behavior” (Carey, Dimmitt, Hatch, Lapan, Lee &

Whiston, 2005, p. 18).

Social and Emotional Learning (Carey et al., 2005, p. 14)• Identifying Feelings• Solving Problems• Developing Social Skills• Building Empathy• Reducing Anger• Managing Stress• Resisting Peer Pressure• Dealing with Bullying• Defusing Potentially Violent Situations

Elementary Program: Three subject areas, addressing problem-solving• Empathy Training; Impulse Control and Problem Solving; Anger Management

Middle School Program: Five subject areas, addressing risk reduction and

protective factors• Empathy and Communication; Bullying Prevention; Emotion Management and

Coping; Problem Solving, Decision Making, and Goal Setting; Substance Abuse Prevention (CrimeSolutions.gov, 2014)

Program is heavily supported by outcome research• http://www.secondstep.org/ (Committee for Children, 2014)• http://www.cfchildren.org/second-step/research.aspx (Committee for Children, 2014)• http://www.casel.org/guide/programs/second-step/ (CASEL, 2014)• https://coehs.nku.edu/content/dam/coehs/docs/ebsc/ebsc_-conference-program3.pdf

(Northern Kentucky University, 2013); First Annual Evidence-Based School Counseling National Conference!

OUTCOME RESEARCH COMPETENCE ( “KNOWING WHAT GENERALLY WORKS”)

Testimonials• http://www.cfchildre

n.org/chicago.aspx• http://www.cfchildre

n.org/austin.aspx

• http://www.cfchildren.org/second-step/success-stories.aspx

INTERVENTION AND PROGRAM EVALUATION COMPETENCE

( “KNOWING HOW STUDENTS CHANGED”)

INTERVENTION AND PROGRAM EVALUATION COMPETENCE ( “KNOWING

HOW STUDENTS CHANGED”)

Evidence-Based Research Support

Study One: Fewer negative interactions and more neutral interactions among students

on the playground and in the cafeteria which was persistent over time (Grossman et al.,

1997).

Study Two: “Significant benefits in student behavior, goals, and social reasoning for the

sample as whole” (Frey et al., 2005, p. 192).• “Children in the intervention group displayed less aggression than those in the control

group” (p. 192).• “The Second Step program appears to have reduced coercive strategies that fall into the

aggressive, antisocial end of the continuum” (p. 193).• “Decreases in antisocial behavior were largest among intervention children initially rated

as highly antisocial, but also significant for those rated low in antisocial behavior” (p. 193).

Study Three: “Students in the intervention school were rated higher in social

competence after a year of the Second Step program” (Taub, 2002, p. 194-195).

INTERVENTION AND PROGRAM EVALUATION COMPETENCE ( “KNOWING

HOW STUDENTS CHANGED”)

Study Four: Less likely to endorse the use of aggression compared to control students (Van Schoiack-Edstrom

et al., 2002).• Students were “less tolerant of physical aggression, verbal aggression, and social exclusion” (p.

211).• “A lesson on blocking the spread of rumors in the Second Step program elicited the most

appreciative comments on student’s evaluation forms” (p.212).• “Students who were taught lessons more frequently through the week showed significant declines

in endorsement of physical aggression, relative to those receiving less frequent lessons” (p. 212).

Study Five: “Overall problem behavior decreased significantly from pretest to posttest in terms of verbal

aggression, physical aggression, and disruptive behavior” (McMahon & Washburn, 2000, p. 277).• “found on the basis of behavioral observation” (p. 278).

Study Six: “The highest reductions were in the schools where more than one class was receiving the

curriculum” (Orpinas et al., 1995, p. 369).• “Students increased their aggressive behavior over time emphasizing the need for comprehensive

and continuous efforts to reduce students’ aggression in schools” (p. 369).• “Overall significant effect on increasing knowledge about violence and about skills to reduce

violence at posttest” (p. 369).

Study Seven: “Intervention students made large gains in learning skills needed to avoid aggressive behavior”

(Neace & Munzo & , 2012, p. 63).• “Students in Second Step exhibited decreases in unexcused absences and unexcused tardiness.

These effects occurred both in short-term and long-term assessments” (p. 63).

NATIONAL PANEL FOR EVIDENCE -BASED SCHOOL COUNSELING PRACTICE: CRITERIA FOR STRONG EVIDENCE

“The Panel is an independent body that strives to provide

comprehensive and unbiased reviews and analyses• seeks to determine levels of existing evidence • support the development of research-based school counseling • identifying school counseling interventions or approaches that

have a demonstrated beneficial causal relationship to important student outcomes” (Carey et al., 2005, p. 4).

“Protocol’s primary purpose• evaluate the research with the scientific method and rigorous

guidelines to• establish the existence of a causal relationship between the

intervention and student outcomes” (Carey et al., 2005).

NATIONAL PANEL FOR EVIDENCE -BASED SCHOOL COUNSELING PRACTICE: CRITERIA FOR STRONG EVIDENCE

Measurement• “Principle: Important academic, career and/or personal/social outcomes are measured using valid and reliable

instruments” (p. 25).

Comparison Groups• “Principle: Comparison groups with adequate controls are included so that resulting group differences can be attributed

to the intervention” (p. 26).

Statistical Analysis of Outcome Variables• “Principle: Statistical analysis documents low probability of Type 1 error and potency of intervention” (p. 26).

Implementation Fidelity• “Principle: Intervention can be delivered with fidelity across contexts and is not contaminated by implementor” (p. 27).

Replication• “Principle: The same intervention independently implemented with an equivalent population results in equivalent

outcomes” (p. 28).

Ecological Validity• “Principle: The intervention can be implemented effectively in public school with consistent effects across all student

subgroups or with known differences between student subgroups. Limitations of the generalizability of results are clearly explicated” (p. 28).

Persistence of Effect• “Principle: The intervention results in a lasting effect on an important outcome measure” (p. 28).

Note. Adapted from “Report of the National Panel for evidence-based school counseling: Outcome research coding protocol and evaluation of Student Success Skills and Second Step,” by J.C. Carey, C. Dimmitt, T.A. Hatch, R.T. Lapan, C.C. Lee, and S.C. Whiston, 2005, ASCA Conference : Orlando, FL. Retrieved from: http://www.umass.edu/schoolcounseling/uploads/ASCA_report.pdf

NATIONAL PANEL FOR EVIDENCE -BASED SCHOOL COUNSELING PRACTICE: CRITERIA FOR STRONG EVIDENCE

“The Panel gave the Second Step research Strong Evidence

ratings in every domain, although there are certainly still

suggestions about future research” (Carey et al., 2005, p. 14).

Future Research• More studies examining the impacts academic outcomes

(Carey et al., 2005)• More studies exploring Second Step implemented in private

schools (Carey et al., 2005)• More studies exploring persistence of outcomes beyond one

year (Carey et al., 2005)

R E F E R E N C E S

Carey, J. C., Dimmitt, C., Hatch, T.A., Lapan, R. T., Lee, C.C., & Whiston, S.C. (2005). Report of the National Panel for evidence-based school counseling: Outcome research coding protocol and evaluation of

Student Success Skills and Second Step. ASCA Conference: Orlando, FL. Retrieved from http://www.umass.edu/schoolcounseling/uploads/ASCA_report.pdf

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (2014). Second Step. Retreived from http://www.casel.org/guide/programs/second-step/

 

Committee for Children (2014). Research findings. Retrieved from www.cfchildren.org/second-step/research.aspx

 

Committee for Children (2014). Second Step. Retrieved from http://www.cfchildren.org/

Committee for Children (2013). Second Step: Online resources. Retrieved from http://www.secondstep.org/

 

CrimeSolutions.gov (2014). Second Step®: A Violence Prevention Curriculum. National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=221

Frey, K.S., Nolen, S.B., Van Schoiack Edstrom, L., & Hirschstein, M.K. (2005). Effects of a school-based social-emotional competence program: Linking children’s goals, attributions, and behavior. Applied

Developmental Psychology, 26, 171-200.

Grossman, D. C, Neckerman, H.J., Koepsell, T.D., Liu, P.Y., Asher, K.N., Beland, K., Frey, K., & Rivara, F.P. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school: A

randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(20), 1605-1611.

Mathematica Policy Research (2013). Second Step. What Works Clearinghouse: Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ interventionreport.aspx?sid=623

McMahon, S. D., Washburn, J., Felix, E.D., Yakin, J., & Childrey, G. (2000). Violence prevention: Program effects on urban preschool and kindergarten children. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 9, 271-281.

Neace, W. P., & Munoz, M. A. (2012). Pushing the boundaries of education: Evaluating the "Impact of Second Step ® - A Violence Prevention Curriculum" with psychosocial and non-cognitive measures. Child &

Youth Services, 33(1), 46-69.

 

Northern Kentucky University (2013). First annual evidence-based school counseling national conference. Retrieved from https://coehs.nku.edu/content/dam/coehs/docs/ebsc/ebsc_-conference-program3.pdf

 

Orpinas, P., Parcel, G.S., McAlister, A., & Frankowski, R. (1995). Violence prevention in middle schools: A pilot evaluation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 17, 360-371.

Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools Expert Panel (2005). Exemplary and promising safe, disciplined and drug-free schools programs 2001. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from

http://www.ed.gov/admins/ lead/safety/exemplary01/report_pg6.html

 

Taub, J. (2002). Evaluation of the second step violence prevention program at a rural elementary school. School Psychology Review, 31. 186-200.

Van Schoiack-Edstrom, L., Frey, K. S., & Beland K. (2002). Changing adolescents’ attitudes about relational and physical aggression: An early evaluation of a school-based intervention. School Psychology Review,

31, 201-216.

A D D I T I O N A L R E S O U R C E S

Beland, K., & Committee for Children, S. A. (1992). Segundo Paso. Jardin de Ninos (Second Step. A Violence-Prevention Curriculum) .

Committee for Children (2014). About us. Retrieved from www.cfchildren.org/advocacy/about-us.aspx

Committee for Children (2014). ASCA National Standards and the Second Step program: Early learning–grade 5. Retrieved from www.cfchildren.org/Portals/0/SS_Multi/SS_DOC/SS%20EL-5%20ASCA.pdf

 

Committee for Children (2014). ASCA National Standards and the Second Step program: Grades 6–8. Retrieved from www.cfchildren.org/Portals/0/SS_MS/MS_DOC/SS%206-8%20ASCA.pdf

Committee for Children (2014). Second Step: Student success through prevention for middle school. Retrieved from w ww.cfchildren.org/second-step/middle-school.aspx

 

Committee for Children, S. A. (1992). Second Step: A Violence-Prevention Curriculum. Grades 4-5.

 

Committee for Children, S. A. (1990). Second Step: A Violence-Prevention Curriculum. Grades 6-8 .

Dodington, J., Mollen, C., Woodlock, J., Hausman, A., Richmond, T. S., & Fein, J. A. (2012). Youth and adult perspectives on violence prevention strategies: A community-based participatory study. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(8), 1022-1031.

Enescu, R. (2012). School violence: Prevention, causes and consequences. Social Work Review/Revista De Asistenta Sociala , (4), 79-96.

Flaspohler, P., Meehan, C., Maras, M., & Keller, K. (2012). Ready, willing, and able: Developing a support system to promote implementation of school-based prevention programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3/4), 428-444.

Flay, B., Berkowitz, M. W., & Bier, M. C. (2009). Elementary school-based programs theorized to support social development, prevent violence, and promote positive school climate: Description and hypothesized mechanisms of change. Journal of Research In Character Education, 7(2), 21-49.

Frey, K., & Sylvester, L. (1997). Research on the Second Step program: Do student behaviors and attitudes improve? What do teachers think about the program? Committee for Children.

 

Hussey, D. L., & Flannery, D. J. (2007). Implementing and evaluating school-based primary prevention programs and the importance of differential effects on outcomes. Journal of School Violence, 6(2), 117-134.

McMahon, S. D., & Washburn, J. J. (2003). Violence prevention: An evaluation of program effects with urban African American students. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24(1), 43-62.

McMahon, S.D., & Washburn, J. J. (2003). Violence prevention: An evaluation of program effects with urban African American students. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 43-62.

Mehas, K., Boling, K., Sobieniak, S., Sprague, J., Burke, M. D., & Hagan, S. (1998). Finding a safe haven in middle school. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 30(4), 20-23.

 

Miao, T., Umemoto, K., Gonda, D., & Hishinuma, E. (2011). Essential elements for community engagement in evidence-based youth violence prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(1/2), 120-132.

 

Sprague, J., Walker, H., Golly, A., White, K., Myers, D. R., & Shannon, T. (2001). Translating research into effective practice: The effects of a universal staff and student intervention on indicators of discipline and school safety. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(4), 495-511.

Vagi, K., Rothman, E., Latzman, N., Tharp, A., Hall, D., & Breiding, M. (2013). Beyond correlates: A review of risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 42(4), 633-649.