Second Step®: A Violence Prevention Program
Evidence-Based Practice in School Counseling
By: Amanda VanDixon & Kellsey Wagman
Assessment of Intervention, Targets, and Goals (“Knowing what is needed”)
● Social-emotional competence, violence prevention, and anti-bullying programs are needed within the 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
■ Vision: “Safe children thriving in a peaceful world”
■ Mission: “To foster the social and emotional development, safety, and well-being of children through education and advocacy”
■ Organization addresses alignment with American School Counselor Association (ASCA) Standards
● “Second Step is a structured social-emotional learning program for students in grades K-8. It is designed to reduce violence through increased empathy and social skills and through reductions in aggressive and bullying behaviors” (Carey, Dimmitt, Hatch, Lapan, Lee & Whiston, 2005, p. 7).
● “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).
● U.S. Department of Education endorsed the program as an exemplary Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools Program (Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools Expert Panel, 2005).
● Target Population
● Elementary and Middle School Population
● Male and Female Students
● Urban and Suburban Areas
● Reaches students from varying racial/ethnic backgrounds (Caucasian, African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, etc.) (CrimeSolutions.gov, 2014)
● Program Variation
● Elementary Curriculum (CrimeSolutions.gov, 2014)
○ 15 to 22 35-minute lessons
○ Main goal
■ Social problem-solving
● Middle School Curriculum (CrimeSolutions.gov, 2014)
○ 8 to 15 50-minute lessons
○ Main goal
■ Risk reduction and increase protective factors
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 et al., 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
● In the elementary school program, three main subject areas are addressed to promote social problem-solving (CrimeSolutions.gov, 2014)
○ Empathy Training
○ Impulse Control and Problem Solving
○ Anger Management
● In the middle school program, five main subject areas are addressed to promote risk reduction and increase protective factors (CrimeSolutions.gov, 2014)
○ Empathy and Communication
○ Bullying Prevention
○ Emotion Management and Coping
○ Problem Solving, Decision Making, and Goal Setting
○ Substance Abuse Prevention
● 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!
Intervention and Program Evaluation Competence (“Knowing how students changed”)
● Testimonials
○ http://www.cfchildren.org/chicago.aspx
○ http://www.cfchildren.org/austin.aspx
● 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: “Participation in the Second Step program was associated with 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).
● Study Four: Students who participated in the Second Step program were less likely to endorse the use of aggression compared to control students (Van Schoiack-Edstrom et al., 2002).
■ These 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 postest in terms of verbal aggression, physical aggression, and disruptive behavior” (McMahon & Washburn, 2000, p. 277).
■ “Significant reductions in problem behaviors were 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. These results emphasize the need for comprehensive and continuous efforts to reduce students’ aggression in schools” (p. 369).
■ “Intervention group exhibited an overall significant effect on increasing knowledge about violence and about skills to reduce violence at posttest” (p. 369).
■ “Results from this pilot study suggest that violence prevention programs in schools may have the potential for reducing violence among students” (p. 370).
● 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 (Carey et al., 2005)
● “The Panel is an independent body that strives to provide comprehensive and unbiased reviews and analyses. The Panel seeks to determine levels of existing evidence and to support the development of research-based school counseling practice by identifying school counseling interventions or approaches that have a demonstrated beneficial causal relationship to important student outcomes” (Carey et al., 2005, p. 4).
● “The protocol’s primary purpose is to 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).
● The seven domains are as follows:
1. Measurement
a. “Principle: Important academic, career and/or personal/social outcomes are measured using valid and reliable instruments” (p. 25).
2. Comparison Groups
a. “Principle: Comparison groups with adequate controls are included so that resulting group differences can be attributed to the intervention” (p. 26).
3. Statistical Analysis of Outcome Variables
a. “Principle: Statistical analysis documents low probability of Type 1 error and potency of intervention” (p. 26).
4. Implementation Fidelity
a. “Principle: Intervention can be delivered with fidelity across contexts and is not contaminated by implementor” (p. 27).
5. Replication
a. “Principle: The same intervention independently implemented with an equivalent population results in equivalent outcomes” (p. 28).
6. Ecological Validity
a. “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).
7. Persistence of Effect
a. “Principle: The intervention results in a lasting effect on an important outcome measure” (p. 28).
● “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)
References
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.
Additional Resources
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 www.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.