Second Step Elementary is a classroom-based, universal intervention for children between the ages of 6 and 11 years old, and is delivered in primary schools. It is delivered in 22 to 25 sessions, which are each five to 40 minutes long. Each session is delivered by one teacher to groups in school classes.
The information above is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
6 to 11 years old
Group
Second Step Elementary is a classroom-based intervention designed to improve school success and student behaviour. It is a universal intervention for children between the ages of 6 and 11 years old, and is delivered in primary schools.
Second Step is based on cognitive behaviour therapy and the content units are aligned with socio-emotional core competencies identified by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL).
Teachers begin each unit with a unit card that presents information specific to that unit. Lessons in nursery and up to Grade 3 are presented on large photo cards and in Grades 4 and 5 are based on video vignettes.
Please note that different editions of the Second Step Elementary intervention have been available over the course of the intervention’s development. The fourth edition is the most up-to-date and currently available version, and is described here. However, the evidence assessed by EIF investigates implementations of both the original edition (Grossman et al., 1997) and the second edition (Frey et al., 2005). The fourth edition is similar to the other versions with respect to length/frequency, mode of delivery and content, although it features an additional unit on ‘skills for learning’.
6 to 11 years old
Children between the ages of 6 and 11 years old in primary schools.
Disclaimer: The information in this section is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
Science-based assumption
Antisocial behaviours compromise the learning environment and are associated with poor long-term behavioural and schooling outcomes.
Science-based assumption
Behavioural problems may be due to inability to perform competently, or lack of motivation
Promoting social skills and improving motivation can lead to behavioural improvements.
Science-based assumption
Children between the ages of 6 and 11 in primary schools.
Intervention
The intervention teaches skills that strengthen students’ ability to learn, have empathy, manage emotions, and solve problems.
Short-term
Children have improved social-emotional competence and increased self-regulation.
Medium-term
Children have increased school success, reduced aggression, and improved peer relations.
Long-term
Children have fewer behavioural problems as adults, and greater educational and employment outcomes.
Children between the ages of 6 and 11 years old in primary schools.
Second Step Elementary is delivered in 22 to 25 sessions, which are each five to 40 minutes long. Each session is delivered by one teacher to groups in school classes.
The practitioner who delivers this intervention is a classroom teacher.
The intervention comes with an online Staff-Training Toolkit to help train teachers to implement the intervention with fidelity. The toolkit can be used by anyone overseeing intervention implementation and was designed to be adapted to best suit users’ own settings. The toolkit, which is customisable for any individual or group of teachers, includes the following components:
Supervision of practitioners is not required.
Intervention fidelity is maintained through the following processes:
Organisation: Committee for Children
Email address: info@cfchildren.org
Websites: http://www.cfchildren.org/
http://www.secondstep.org/
*Please note that this information may not be up to date. In this case, please visit the listed intervention website for up to date contact details.
Second Step Elementary’s most rigorous evidence comes an RCT and a QED which were conducted in the United States, consistent with Foundations’ Level 2 evidence strength threshold.
These studies identified statistically significant positive impact on prosocial behaviour, and reductions in antisocial behaviour.
Second Step Elementary has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome, but we cannot be confident that the intervention caused the improvement.
| Identified in search | 6 |
| Studies reviewed | 3 |
| Meeting the L2 threshold | 2 |
| Meeting the L3 threshold | 0 |
| Contributing to the L4 threshold | 0 |
| Ineligible | 4 |
| Study design | RCT |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 12 urban and suburban elementary schools (790 students), with children between 7 and 8 years old, where schools have a low level of need |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities |
|
| Population risk factors | Less than a quarter of sample population had behavioural problems, around a quarter received special education |
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 2 |
| Citations | Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Koepsell, T. D., Liu, P., Asher, K., Beland, K., Frey & K., Rivara, F. (1997) Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 277 (20), 1605–1611. |
| Study design | QED |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 15 elementary schools (1,253 students), with children between 7 and 11 years old, where schools have a low level of need. |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities |
|
| Population risk factors | Not reported |
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes | Decreased antisocial behaviours (Teacher report) |
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 2 |
| Citations | 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 behaviour. Applied Developmental Psychology. 26, 171–200. |
The following studies were identified for this intervention but did not count towards the intervention’s overall evidence rating. An intervention receives the same rating as its most robust study or studies.
Edwards, D., Hunt, M. H., Meyers, J., Grogg, K. R. & Jarrett, O. (2005) Acceptability and student outcomes of a violence prevention curriculum. The Journal of Primary Prevention. 26 (5), 401–418.
Holsen, I., Smith, B. H. & Frey, K. S. (2008) Outcomes of the social competence program Second Step in Norwegian elementary schools. School Psychology International. 29 (1), 71–88.
Low, S., Smolkowski, K., Cook, C. & Desfosses, D. (2019) Two-year impact of a universal social-emotional learning curriculum: Group differences from developmentally sensitive trends over time. Developmental Psychology. 55 (2), 415–433.
Taub, J. (2001) Evaluation of the Second Step violence prevention program at a rural elementary school. School Psychology Review. 31 (2), 186–200.
Note on provider involvement: This provider has agreed to Foundations’ terms of reference (or the Early Intervention Foundation's terms of reference), and the assessment has been conducted and published with the full cooperation of the intervention provider.
Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.
Click here for more information.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.
Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.
Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.
Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.
Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.
Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.
Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.
Click here for more information.
