Program Profile: Second Step®: A Violence Prevention Curriculum for Elementary School (2002 Edition)

This was a universal prevention program designed to reduce impulsive and aggressive behavior in children. The program is rated Ineffective. Intervention students had a statistically significant lower likelihood of using aggression while negotiating, needing adult intervention in conflict resolution, and showing more socially competent behavior and prosocial goals. However, the differences between the groups were small and there were no statistically significant differences in antisocial behavior.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

NOTE: The Second Step® program described below is not the current version of the curriculum. This version of the curriculum was available for schools until 2011. Learn more.

Program Goals/Target Population

Second Step®: A Violence Prevention Curriculum was a universal prevention program designed to reduce impulsive and aggressive behavior in children and adolescents by increasing their social competency skills. The goal of the program was to 1) cultivate children’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral skills; 2) reduce maladaptive beliefs and aggression; and 3) promote positive social goals and values.

Program Components

The Second Step® elementary curriculum consisted of 15 to 22 lessons that were taught for 25–40 minutes (dependent on grade level) once or twice a week. Children practiced specific self-regulatory strategies and behavioral skills through role playing and other classroom activities. Strategies for cueing, coaching, and acknowledging the targeted behaviors were included in the teacher materials, as well as suggestions on how to integrate content within the school’s academic program. The program’s lesson content varied by grade level and was organized into three skill-building units covering the following:

• Empathy Training, which taught young people to identify and understand their emotions and those of others. Emotional understanding, prediction, and communication were taught as core skills.
• Impulse Control and Problem Solving, which helped young people choose positive goals, reduce impulsiveness, and evaluate consequences of their behavior in terms of safety, fairness, and impact on others. Students repeatedly practiced generating and evaluating solutions to social problems.
• Anger Management, which enabled youth to manage emotional reactions and engage in decision making when they are highly aroused. Cognitive–behavioral techniques such as self-talk and attention control were emphasized in this unit.

In all of the units, students practiced specific behavioral skills meant to serve as building blocks for social problem solving, including resisting negative peer pressure, apologizing, and showing appreciation. Lesson scripts were provided to classroom teachers who presented and introduced the key concepts through questions that were initiated by photo cards or videotaped stories.

Version Note: This version of the Second Step Program is no longer active. In 2011, the Committee for Children developed and released the fourth edition of the Second Step program, which includes revised content and materials to enhance student success in school, and offers new content related to teaching students skills for learning such as aspects related to self-regulation (Low et al. 2015). A revised version of the 2002 edition of the Second Step program is also included on CrimeSolutions. For more information on the updated version of Second Step, please see the profiles for the Second Step for Elementary School (2011 Edition).

Study

Frey and colleagues (2005) conducted a randomized controlled trial using 15 elementary schools across three cities in western Washington State. The schools were located in school districts of two moderately sized cities; two suburban school districts that bordered the urban districts; and one small city school district that was adjacent to a naval base. Students were followed for 2 school years. The program was implemented in second- and fourth-grade classrooms during the first year of the study and in third- and fifth-grade classrooms during the second year. Schools were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 11) or the control group (n = 4). Intervention schools received the Second Step®: A Violence Prevention Curriculum, and control schools operated without any social competence program throughout the school day.

Of a total of 925 study participants, 462 students were in the intervention group, and 463 students were in the control group. Students were 48.2 percent female and between 7 and 11 years old. More than half of the students were in the second grade (54.6 percent). In regard to race/ethnicity, 52 percent to 89 percent of the participants were European American, approximately 18 percent were Asian American, and 12 percent were African American. There were no statistically significant differences between schools in the intervention and control groups in race/ethnicity or percentage of students who received free and reduced lunch. However, there was a statistically significant group difference at baseline found for teacher ratings of antisocial behavior for intervention group students, compared with the control group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in teacher ratings of student social competence at baseline; thus, baseline covariates were used.

Outcomes of interest included teacher-rated child antisocial behavior, teacher-rated child social competence, student’s need for adult intervention in conflict resolution, use of aggression while negotiating, and prosocial goals in the incarcerated person’s dilemma game. Children participated in tasks designed to create conflict between self-interested and prosocial goals. Teacher-rated reports of antisocial behavior and social competence were measured using the School Social Behavior Scale (SSBS), which asked teachers to report how frequently students engaged in 32 antisocial and 33 socially competent behaviors. Student outcomes such as use of aggression while negotiating (i.e., cooperative behavior), need for adult intervention in conflict resolution, and prosocial goals, were measured using observations of students’ participation in the incarcerated person's dilemma game, which required students to negotiate over the division of four prizes.

Data were collected in October of the first year (baseline), in April of each year (baseline and 12-month follow up), and during May and June of the second year (2 to 6 weeks following survey administration). To assess outcome differences between the intervention and control groups, the study authors conducted multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVA), followed by ANOVA and chi-square analyses when the MANCOVAs were significant. The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

Prior to the Second Step®: A Violence Prevention Curriculum implementation, 47 second- and fourth-grade teachers participated in an initial 2-day training from the Committee for Children trainers. The trainers introduced the program content to teachers, which optimized and adapted materials to cover practical learning objectives. Teachers were also allotted the opportunity to practice lessons and exchange ideas about the model and support skills throughout the school day. Program consultants met with teachers twice monthly to discuss and document program implementation (Frey et al. 2005).

Materials were developed by cognitive–behavioral therapists (and others) who translated program techniques into an educational framework that consisted of classroom activities and generalization efforts that were implemented throughout the day. 

More information is also available at the Second Step® website: http://www.secondstep.org/.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Grossman, David C., Holly J. Neckerman, Thomas D. Koepsell, Ping–Yu Liu, Kenneth N. Asher, Kathy Beland, Karin S. Frey, and Frederick P. Rivara. 1997. “Effectiveness of a Violence Prevention Curriculum Among Children in Elementary School.” The Journal of the American Medical Association 277:1605–11.

Holsen, Ingrid, Brian H. Smith, and Karin S. Frey. 2008. “Outcomes of the Social Competence Program Second Step in Norwegian Elementary Schools.” School Psychology International 29(1):71–88.

McMahon, Susan D., and Jason J. Washburn. 2003. “Violence Prevention: An Evaluation of Program Effects With Urban African-American Students.” The Journal of Primary Prevention 24(1):43–62.

McMahon, Susan D., Jason J. Washburn, Felix J. Yakin, and Gary Childrey. 2000. “Violence Prevention: Program Effects on Urban Preschool and Kindergarten Children.” Applied and Preventive Psychology 9:271–81.

Schick, Andreas, and Manfred Cierpka. 2005. “Faustlos: Evaluation of a Curriculum to Prevent Violence in Elementary Schools.” Applied and Preventive Psychology 11(3):157–65. (This study was reviewed but did not meet CrimeSolutions criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)

Taub, Jennifer. 2002. “Evaluation of the Second Step® Violence Prevention Program at a Rural Elementary School.” School Psychology Review 31:186–200.

Van Schoiack–Edstrom, Leihua, Karin S. Frey, and Kathy Beland. 2002. “Changing Adolescents’ Attitudes About Relational and Physical Aggression: An Early Evaluation of a School-Based Intervention.” School Psychology Review 31:201–16.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Bullying Prevention Programs

The practice includes programs designed to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization and to increase positive bystander behavior in bullying situations. The practice is rated Effective for reducing bullying perpetration (e.g., overall and physical), reducing bullying victimization (e.g., overall and relational), and increasing positive bystander behavior. The practice is rated Ineffective for increasing bystander empathy for bullying victims and reducing verbal bullying victimization.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Bullying
	Victimization - Overall bullying victimization
	Victimization - Relational bullying victimization
	Victimization - Physical bullying victimization
	Victimization - Bystander intervention
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Empathy for the victim
	Victimization - Verbal bullying victimization

School-Based Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) Programs

Designed to foster the development of five interrelated sets of cognitive, affective, and behavioral competencies, in order to provide a foundation for better adjustment and academic performance in students, which can result in more positive social behaviors, fewer conduct problems, and less emotional distress. The practice was rated Effective in reducing students’ conduct problems and emotional stress.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Multiple juvenile problem/at-risk behaviors
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Internalizing behavior

Universal School-Based Prevention and Intervention Programs for Aggressive and Disruptive Behavior

Universal school-based prevention and intervention programs for aggressive and disruptive behavior target elementary, middle, and high school students in a universal setting, rather than focusing on only a selective group of students, with the intention of preventing or reducing violent, aggressive, or disruptive behaviors. The practice is rated Effective in reducing violent, aggressive, and/or disruptive behaviors in students.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors

Selective School-Based Violence Prevention Programs

This practice consists of programs designed to prevent or reduce aggressive or violent behavior in K–12 students who are considered at risk of or who have demonstrated such antisocial behaviors. The practice is rated Effective for reducing aggression in students who participated in school-based violence prevention programs, compared with students who did not participate.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Aggression

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?