Research and Evidence: The Second Step® Difference

| By: Committee for Children

Committee for Children has long been at the forefront of research, evidence, and continuous improvement in the field of social-emotional learning. With a decades-long history of scholarly contributions and curriculum development, we’ve kept research at the foundation of our efforts to help students, educators, and communities thrive.

In this interview, the Second Step^® research team at Committee for Children explains more about why and how we use data to guide our work.

Why is research and evidence so important to Committee for Children?

At Committee for Children, we believe that if you make a positive impact on enough children through social-emotional learning, then the ripples will help a family, a school, a community, and ultimately, the world. Research is clear that there are positive effects of social-emotional learning on young people of all ages. By grounding Second Step programs in research and evidence, we give educators the confidence that these tools can help their students thrive.

How are Second Step^® programs based in research and evidence?

Second Step programs are all research-based, which means we design the programs using research-based best practices in social-emotional learning, education, and psychology.  Each program includes either a review of research or a research summary.

Describing a program as evidence-based means external studies have shown that the curriculum has a positive effect on student outcomes. Soon after the release of the earlier, print editions of our programs, we funded an external researcher to conduct randomized control trial (RCT) studies.

RCT studies showed that compared to control groups that did not use our program:

• Children who participated in Second Step^® Early Learning (2011) had improved executive function.
• Students who participated in Second Step^® Elementary (2011) had increased skills for learning, emotion management, and social-emotional competencies, as well as decreased emotion problems and hyperactivity.
• Students who participated in the Second Step^® Child Protection Unit for PreK–Grade 4 had increased knowledge about personal safety and how to avoid and report child sexual abuse.

There are organizations that provide ratings of the evidence base of curricula to help districts and schools find evidence-based programs, including social-emotional learning programs. Two of the top groups are the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). Each gave us their top ratings based on positive results from the RCT studies: the print editions of our early learning and elementary programs have Strong ratings from ESSA and SELect ratings from CASEL.

For our newer, digital programs, we use a continuous improvement approach that allows us to make targeted improvements before RCT studies are conducted. In partnership with external researchers, we have received federal funding to conduct RCT studies of our digital elementary and middle school programs to confirm that they have the intended positive results.

Can you explain more about the continuous improvement approach and the difference it makes for educators using Second Step^® programs?

The continuous improvement approach is one where we use data from a variety of sources—such as observations of classrooms or feedback from educators and students through surveys or interviews and focus groups—to identify what aspects of the programs work well, what aspects need to be adjusted, and how to make adjustments. Then we use what we’ve learned from the educators and students to make changes to make our programs better. This is an ongoing process, so we are always making improvements to our programs. The continuous improvement approach puts the voices of educators and students front and center, and this is why our programs are so easy for educators to use. We pay attention to educators and students, and we tailor the program to their needs while also incorporating research-based best practices to achieve positive student outcomes. By engaging in this continuous improvement process, we can be confident that our programs will produce positive outcomes for students.

Five key commitments make this difference in quality and integrity possible:

1. Research expertise. Gathering, questioning, and understanding data can be done to differing standards of accuracy and excellence. Our bar is high, which reflects the impact-focused and nonprofit nature of our organization. We currently house a team of 10 researchers, including five doctorate-level research scientists. Most actively publish in journals and present at conferences for educators and other researchers to share what they learn from the studies we conduct so that we can help expand the field of education. A few recent contributions include these journal articles:

• How Are Schools Implementing a Universal Social-Emotional Learning Program? Macro- and School-Level Factors Associated with Implementation Approach
• A Toolbox of Adaptations for Online Delivery of SEL Programming
• “We’re in Crisis Response”: Challenges US Teachers, Counselors, and Principals Experienced Returning to School in Person During the Pandemic

2. An approach to social-emotional learning from an equity framework. Our programs serve over 45,000 schools in all 50 states. To ensure our programs are relevant to a broad range of educators and students, we have experts review our programs as we develop them. In addition, we work closely with students, educators, and district leaders from racially, socioeconomically, and geographically diverse communities in rural, urban, and suburban locales.

3. Standing advisory groups with students and educators. We regularly partner with groups of students, educators, site leaders, district leaders, and other field professionals to gain insights and in-depth feedback or to test new ideas. For example, we worked with 40 students, educators, and district staff to obtain input and feedback as we developed the Second Step^® High School program.

4. Ongoing data collection. We gather live data to help us understand how materials are being used and embed feedback opportunities at the end of lessons to capture in-the-moment perspectives from educators. In the 2022–2023 school year alone, we received input through more than 42,000 survey responses from educators across the Second Step Elementary and Second Step^® Middle School programs.

5. Continued improvement. We make annual updates to student-facing content and more frequent updates to resources and supplemental content, and we use the input from students and educators to make tangible and regular improvements.

What studies on Second Step^® programs are currently underway?

This year, we’re applying the data that we’ve collected to improve our programs’ content and implementation supports. We partner with a small number of schools for each program, and educators teach the full curriculum. To learn what works and what we can improve, we have different data collection methods: we observe classrooms during lessons, practices, and activities; ask students and educators to complete surveys; and get feedback from students and educators in focus groups. For some programs, we also ask the teachers to complete assessments of their students’ social-emotional skills so we can learn how effective the program is, or we get permission to access students’ grades to look at the effect of the program on academic outcomes.

For additional insights, we partner with external researchers or conduct grant-funded research on our programs. For example:

• Researchers at New York University are developing and testing engaging family materials for the Second Step Elementary digital program to give parents and caretakers tools to further support their child’s social-emotional development. A randomized control trial will start this school year to evaluate the effectiveness of these new family materials.

• An RCT study of the Second Step Elementary digital program has been funded by an Education Innovation and Research grant to learn whether the program supports students’ social-emotional development and academic achievement in rural schools. This study is being conducted in partnership with Wood County Special Education (Texas), the University of Oklahoma, and WestEd.
• American Institutes for Research received funding from the Institute of Education Sciences for an RCT study to learn whether Second Step Middle School supports students’ social-emotional development and has a positive impact on other outcomes, such as academic performance.
• An RCT study is underway by xSEL Labs to learn whether Second Step^® Out-of-School Time supports the development of children’s social-emotional skills.

How can I find out more about the research and evidence behind Second Step^® programs?

Our Research Team works closely with our Education Partnerships, Client Support, and Client Success teams who are listening and responding to educators every day. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have questions or feedback!

You can also explore these additional resources:

Second Step^® Programs and Research

The Case for a Comprehensive Approach to Social-Emotional Learning (PDF)

Second Step^® Early Learning Review of Research (PDF)

Second Step^® Elementary Classroom Kits Review of Research (PDF)

Second Step^® Elementary Digital Program Review of Research (PDF)

Second Step^® Middle School Review of Research (PDF)

Second Step^® High School Review of Research (PDF)

Second Step^® Out-of-School Time Review of Research (PDF)

Second Step^® SEL for Adults Review of Research (PDF)

Second Step^® Bullying Prevention Unit Review of Research (PDF)

Second Step^® Child Protection Unit Review of Research (PDF)