Second Step: A Violence Prevention Curriculum

OVERVIEW

Second Step is a violence prevention curriculum for elementary school-aged children.  The curriculum consists of 30 specific lessons that teach social skills related to anger management, impulse control, and empathy. Schools were randomly assigned.  The results of an evaluation conducted two weeks after the program showed that it leads to reductions in levels of observed aggressive behavior during social problem-solving tasks and increases in neutral and prosocial behavior. No impacts were found for teacher or parent reports. Some of these impacts remained six months after the completion of the program. 

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target population: Elementary school-aged children in grades 1-3

Second Step is used to prevent aggressive behavior by increasing prosocial behavior.  The program consists of 30 lessons that last for about 35 minutes each.  During each lesson, students are shown a photograph accompanied by a scenario that forms the basis for the activities of the lesson.  Lessons are arranged in 3 units that include empathy training, impulse control, and anger management.  Role-playing is a large component of the program.  During role-play, the teacher models the skill, students practice it, feedback is given, and reinforcement is used when a skill is demonstrated appropriately.  The teachers of the program receive 2 days of training from the Committee for Children. 

EVALUATION OF PROGRAM

Grossman, D.C., Neckerman, H.J., & Koepsell, T.D, et al. (1997).  The effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school: A randomized controlled trial.  JAMA, 277(20).  1605-1611.

Evaluated population: 790 2^nd and 3^rd grade students were evaluated.  Of the 790 students, 418 were in intervention schools and 372 were in control schools.  Of the total sample, 54 percent were male.   In addition, 588 of the 790 subjects (12 subjects from each participating classroom) were randomly selected to be observed in the classroom, on the playground, and in the cafeteria.

Approach: Data were collected before the start of the program, two weeks after the program, and six months after the program.  The impact of the curriculum was measured by teacher ratings, parent ratings, and direct observations by trained observers (The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist and Teacher Report Form, the School Social Behavior Scale, and the Parent-Child Rating Scale). 

Results: The results of the parent and teacher surveys showed that there was little difference between the intervention and control schools at both evaluations, but the observations did show curriculum impacts.  Several impacts were observed at the 2-week follow-up.  In the classroom, differences between the intervention and control groups for physical negative and overall negative behaviors were borderline significant.  Rates of negative behavior decreased in the intervention group (0.51 to 0.48) but increased in the control group (0.36 to 0.71).  In the playground and cafeteria settings, there were significant differences between the two groups.  As in the classroom, rates of physical negative behavior decreased in the intervention group (2.20 to 1.56) but increased in the control group (1.82 to 2.56).  The trends for verbal negative behavior were similar but not significant.  Another significant finding was that the number of observed neutral/prosocial behaviors in the playground and cafeteria increased by 17.1 more observations per hour in the intervention group than in the control group. 

At the 6-month follow-up, there were no significant differences in negative behavior between the control group and intervention group.  Both groups experienced a decline in negative behavior.  However, with regard to physical aggression in the classroom setting, the rate was significantly lower in the intervention schools than in the control schools (intervention=0.33 and control=0.57).   There were no differences for neutral/prosocial behavior rates.  (The less impressive results of the 6-month evaluation could be because the 6-month interval included summer vacation, which gave students time to forget the skills they learned if their parents didn’t reinforce them at home.) 

Evaluators note that the impact of this intervention on behavior outside of the school environment is not known.  Additionally, it is noted that program impacts may be greater if the curriculum were implemented with a whole-school approach over several years.

Frey, K.S., Nolen, S.B., Edstrom, L.V.S. & Hirschstein, M.K. (2005).  Effects of a school-based socio-emotional competence program: Linking children’s goals, attributions, and behavior.  Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(2).  171-200.

Evaluated population:  15 western Washington elementary schools, containing a total of 1,253 children between the ages of seven and eleven were evaluated.  Located in both urban and suburban districts, school populations ranged from 52% to 89% European-American. Asian-Americans comprised 18% and African-Americans comprised 12%.  The sample was approximately even by sex (48.2% female).  620 students were in the intervention group, and 615 students were in the control group.

Approach: Eleven schools were recruited and randomly placed in either an intervention or a control group in the pre-study year.  Four more schools were recruited and randomly assigned during the first year of data collection.

Second- and fourth-grade teachers sent letters to students’ parents obtaining permission for study participation.  Sixty-three percent of the students (1,253) received permission to participate in the study; however, the program was given to all the students in treatment classrooms, whether or not they were participating in the study.  Teachers participated in a two-day training session prior to implementation in order to familiarize them with program content.  During implementation, program consultants met with teachers twice monthly to discuss issues.

Teachers taught one or two 25-40 minute lessons per week from October to March over two years.  The three units in the program include empathy training, impulse control and problem solving, and anger management.  Empathy training focuses on teaching children to recognize contextual cues through emotional understanding, prediction, and communication.  Impulse control and problem solving emphasizes safety, fairness, efficacy, and mutually rewarding interaction.  Anger management uses techniques such as self-talk and attention control.  All behavior skills practiced are meant to increase children’s social problem-solving abilities.

Teacher-rated student behavior was assessed each October, and aggression and attribution surveys were administered in October of the first year.  Teacher ratings and student surveys were administered each April.  In May and June of year two, pairs of children participated in tasks requiring negotiation of prizes and a prisoner’s dilemma game, which were intended to create conflicts between self-interest and pro-social goals.  Data in this analysis come from the second cohort and the control group, at the same time. 

Data in this analysis come from the second cohort and the control group, at the same time.

The estimated program cost, including class materials, staff training, and training materials, is less than $9 per student.

Results: Second Step participation was associated with positive student behavior, goals (effect size = 0.17), and social reasoning.  The intervention group had less aggression and need for adult intervention during prize division when compared with the control group.  Differences between the treatment and control groups in teacher-reported behavior were stronger during the first year of intervention (effect size = 0.2), than during the second (effect size = 0.1).  Higher-level negotiation strategies increased for girls in the treatment group (effect size = 0.17).  There were no differences between the groups in regards to the survey measures, attributions, and behavioral intentions.   The intervention group was significantly less likely to behave aggressively during negotiations than the control group (effect size = 0.14); however, the groups showed no difference in demanding, whiney behavior.  Compared with those in the control group, students in the intervention group were significantly more satisfied with outcomes of the prisoner’s dilemma game and prize division (effect size = 0.14).

Students rated as highly anti-social at baseline showed the largest decrease in antisocial behavior (effect size = 0.25), but decreases in antisocial behavior were also significant for students with low ratings of antisocial behavior at baseline (effect size = 0.17). 

Note: Randomization was done at the school level, but analysis was done at the student level.  Analyses were designed to adjust for the impact of clustering within schools.

SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION

Link to program curriculum: http://www.cfchildren.org/orderf/index_html

References

Grossman, D.C., Neckerman, H.J., & Koepsell, T.D, et al. (1997).  The effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school: A randomized controlled trial.  JAMA, 277(20).  1605-1611.

Frey, K.S., Nolen, S.B., Edstrom, L.V.S. & Hirschstein, M.K. (2005).  Effects of a school-based socio-emotional competence program: Linking children’s goals, attributions, and behavior.  Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26(2).  171-200.

Program categorized in this guide according to the following:

Evaluated participant ages: Grades 2-3 / Program age ranges in the Guide: Mid. Childhood (6-11)

Program components: school-based

Measured outcomes: social and emotional health and development, behavior problems

Program information last updated 11/3/08