Crisis intervention programs have been developed to help educators be better prepared to prevent and respond to students in crisis. Schools spend millions of dollars for the use of these commercial programs, many of which are based on the principles of the Cycle of Acting Out Behavior (Colvin & Scott, 2015), which is considered the "gold standard". However, little research has been done on the effectiveness of these programs. This article discusses the potential implications of relying on practices with limited empirical support to educate some of the most vulnerable students. Recommendations are made for improving the quantity and quality of the extant research in this area, as well as preventative alternatives for school use in conjunction with or as alternatives to crisis intervention programs.