Building capacity to reduce bullying (2014); NAP-IOM

This PDF is available from The National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18762
ISBN
978-0-309-30398-9
150 pages
6 x 9
PAPERBACK (2014)
Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary
Patti Simon and Steve Olson, Rapporteurs; Board on Children, Youth, and
Families; Committee on Law and Justice; Institute of Medicine; National
Research Council
Visit the National Academies Press online and register for...
Instant access to free PDF downloads of titles from the
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
10% off print titles
Custom notification of new releases in your field of interest
Special offers and discounts
Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Request reprint permission for this book
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Patti Simon and Steve Olson, Rapporteurs
Board on Children, Youth, and Families
Committee on Law and Justice

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The workshop that is the subject of this workshop summary was approved
by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are
drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy
of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
This activity was supported by Contract No. HHSH250200976014I/HHS25034018T
between the National Academy of Sciences and the Health Resources and Services
Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The views
presented in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations
or agencies that provided support for the activity.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-30398-9
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-30398-2
Additional copies of this workshop summary are available for sale from the National
Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800)
624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
For more information about the Institute of Medicine, visit the IOM home page
at: www.iom.edu.
Copyright 2014 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research
Council). 2014. Building capacity to reduce bullying: Workshop summary. Wash-ington,
DC: The National Academies Press.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society
of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to
the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.
Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Acad-emy
has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific
and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy
of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter
of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding
engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members,
sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the
federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineer-ing
programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,
and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is presi-dent
of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of
Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in
the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Insti-tute
acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its
congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own
initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J.
Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci-ences
in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the
Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government.
Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the
Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy
of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the
government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Coun-cil
is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr.
Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of
the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org

PLANNING COMMITTEE ON INCREASING CAPACITY
FOR REDUCING BULLYING AND ITS IMPACT ON
THE LIFECOURSE OF YOUTH INVOLVED1
FREDERICK P. RIVARA (Chair), Seattle Children’s Guild Endowed
Chair in Pediatrics, Professor of Pediatrics, University of Washington
School of Medicine
CATHERINE BRADSHAW, Professor, Associate Dean for Research
and Faculty Development, Curry School of Education, University of
Virginia
NINA FREDLAND, Associate Professor, Texas Woman’s University
DENISE GOTTFREDSON, Professor at the University of Maryland
Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology
NANCY GUERRA, Professor of Psychology, Associate Provost for
International Programs and Director, Institute for Global Studies,
University of Delaware
MEGAN A. MORENO, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, University of
JONATHAN TODRES, Professor of Law, Georgia State University College
v
College of Nursing
Washington
of Law
Project Staff
PATTI SIMON, Project Director
TARA MAINERO, Research Associate
STACEY SMIT, Senior Program Assistant
Board on Children, Youth, and Families Staff
KIMBER BOGARD, Director
FAYE HILLMAN, Financial Associate
Committee on Law and Justice Staff
ARLENE LEE, Director
1 Institute of Medicine planning committees are solely responsible for organizing the work-shop,
identifying topics, and choosing speakers. The responsibility for the published workshop
summary rests with the workshop rapporteurs and the institution.

Reviewers
This workshop summary has been reviewed in draft form by individu-als
chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accor-dance
with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report
Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide
candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its
published workshop summary as sound as possible and to ensure that the
workshop summary meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence,
and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft
manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process. We
wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this workshop
summary:
David V. B. Britt, Retired CEO, Sesame Workshop
Deborah Gross, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing and
Mark L. Hatzenbuehler, Columbia University
Tracy Vaillancourt, University of Ottawa
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive
comments and suggestions, they did not see the final draft of the workshop
summary before its release. The review of this workshop summary was
overseen by Hugh H. Tilson, University of North Carolina Gillings School
of Global Public Health. Appointed by the National Research Council and
vii
Medicine

viii REVIEWERS
the Institute of Medicine, he was responsible for making certain that an
independent examination of this workshop summary was carried out in
accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments
were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this work-shop
summary rests entirely with the rapporteurs and the institution.

Contents
1 Introduction and Overview 1
PART I
UNDERSTANDING BULLYING
2 Overview of Bullying and Victimization 9
3 Targets of Bullying and Bullying Behavior 19
PART II
CONTEXTS FOR PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION
4 School-Based Interventions 35
5 Family-Focused Interventions 49
6 Technology-Based Interventions 57
7 Community-Based Interventions 65
8 Peer-Led and Peer-Focused Programs 73
9 Laws and Public Policies 81
PART III
FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND OVERALL THEMES
10 Translating Bullying Research into Policy and Practice 91
11 Reflections of School Personnel and Student Perspectives 103
12 Final Thoughts 113
ix

x CONTENTS
APPENDIXES
A References 121
B Workshop Agenda 131
C Workshop Statement of Task 139

1
Introduction and Overview1
Bullying—long tolerated as just a part of growing up—finally has been
recognized as a substantial and preventable health problem. Bullying is
associated with anxiety, depression, poor school performance, and future
delinquent behavior among its targets, and reports regularly surface of
youth who have committed suicide at least in part because of intolerable
bullying. Bullying can also have harmful effects on children who bully, on
bystanders, on school climates, and on society at large. Bullying can occur
at all ages, from before elementary school to after high school. It can take
the form of physical violence, verbal attacks, social isolation, spreading
rumors, or cyberbullying.
Increased concern about bullying has led 49 states and the District of
Columbia to enact anti-bullying legislation since 1999. In addition, research
on the causes, consequences, and prevention of bullying has expanded
greatly in recent decades. However, major gaps still exist in the understand-ing
of bullying and of interventions that can prevent or mitigate the effects
1
of bullying.
On April 9–10, 2014, the Board on Children, Youth, and Families of
the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Research Council (NRC)
1 The planning committee’s role was limited to planning the workshop, and the workshop
summary has been prepared by the workshop rapporteurs as a factual summary of what
occurred at the workshop. Statements, recommendations, and opinions expressed are those
of individual presenters and participants, and are not necessarily endorsed or verified by the
Institute of Medicine or the National Research Council, and they should not be construed as
reflecting any group consensus.

2 BUILDING CAPACITY TO REDUCE BULLYING
held a 2-day workshop titled “Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying and Its
Impact on Youth Across the Lifecourse.” The purpose of this workshop was
to bring together representatives of key sectors involved in bullying preven-tion
to identify the conceptual models and interventions that have proven
effective in decreasing bullying, to examine models that could increase pro-tective
factors and mitigate the negative effects of bullying, and to explore
the appropriate roles of different groups in preventing bullying.
At the workshop more than 20 presenters reviewed research on bul-lying
prevention and intervention efforts as well as efforts in related areas
of research and practice, implemented in a range of contexts and settings,
including
• Schools
• Peers
• Families
• Communities
• Laws and Public Policies
• Technology
Following the research presentations, two panels of discussants—one
consisting of youth and one of school personnel—provided additional
perspectives to the workshop. Box 1-1 lists the workshop’s objectives. An
additional 200 people registered for the webcast of the workshop and con-tributed
questions to the discussion sessions.
The planning committee for the workshop consisted of Frederick P.
Rivara (chair), Seattle Children’s Guild Endowed Chair in Pediatrics and
professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine;
Catherine Bradshaw, professor and associate dean for research and faculty
development at the University of Virginia Curry School of Education; Nina
Fredland, associate professor at the Texas Woman’s University College of
Nursing; Denise Gottfredson, professor in the Department of Criminal
Justice and Criminology at the University of Maryland; Nancy Guerra,
professor of psychology, associate provost for international programs, and
director of the Institute for Global Studies at the University of Delaware;
Megan Moreno, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Wash-ington;
and Jonathan Todres, professor of law at the Georgia State Univer-sity
College of Law.
The workshop was funded by the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. The website for the workshop is http://www.iom.edu/activities/
children/reducingbullying/2014-apr-01.aspx.

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 3
BOX 1-1
Workshop Objectivesa
The overall objective of the workshop was to highlight current research on
bullying prevention. More specifically, workshop presentations and discussions
addressed the following questions:
• What are the underlying knowledge base and conceptual models that
guide the design, delivery, and evaluation of bullying prevention and
intervention efforts?
• Are there specific interventions that are effective in decreasing bullying
and the antecedents to bullying?
• What programs designed to address other negative adolescent behaviors
(e.g., substance abuse or delinquency) are also effective at preventing or
reducing bullying?
• Are there specific models and interventions that increase protective fac-tors
and mitigate the negative health impacts of bullying?
• What are the key sectors involved in bullying prevention and intervention?
How does involvement or lack of involvement by key sectors influence op-portunities
and barriers to implementing a blueprint for bullying prevention
and intervention? What are some appropriate roles for each of the key
sectors in preventing bullying?
a The workshop statement of task is included in Appendix C.
COMMENTS FROM THE SPONSOR
“When it comes to bullying prevention, we know we can still do a lot
better,” said Michael Lu, associate administrator for maternal and child
health at HRSA, during his opening remarks at the workshop. According to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2011 Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System, 20 percent of high school students in the United States
experience bullying (Finkelhor et al., 2009), Lu said. The 2008 and 2009
School Crime Supplement, based on statistics from the National Center for
Education and the Bureau of Justice, indicates that, nationwide, 28 percent
of students in grades 6 through 12 experience bullying (Eaton et al., 2012).
Many millions of children are bullied each year, Lu said.
In 2004 HRSA launched the first federal anti-bullying campaign,
including the first federal website to prevent bullying. Today, these
efforts have evolved into a collaborative interagency initiative hosted
at http://www.stopbullying.gov, which is a one-stop shop for all federal
bullying
prevention resources. “We have made great strides in raising

public awareness about bullying and its negative impact on youth,” Lu
said. But “there are still way too many children and youth in this country
who are being bullied every day.”
A major obstacle to improvement is the amount that remains unknown,
Lu observed. That knowledge gap was the motivation behind HRSA’s inter-est
in sponsoring an IOM/NRC workshop to highlight current research on
bullying prevention. The workshop was designed to consider what does
and does not work and to derive lessons learned. “Five years from now, or
10 years from now, as a nation, we will know a lot better about how to
prevent bullying and reduce its impact on millions of children, youth, and
families across the lifecourse,” Lu said.
“This is an extraordinary gathering,” he concluded. “We have policy
makers, researchers, educators, practitioners, and the public with us today
in the room or online. We all come from different parts of the country. We
come from different backgrounds, different walks of life. . . . [But] we have
all gathered here today for one common purpose, united by one common
cause—to reduce bullying and its impact on youth.”
ORGANIZATION OF THE WORKSHOP SUMMARY
The organization of the workshop summary follows the organization
of the workshop panels and presentations. As noted earlier, this organiza-tion
highlights the contexts in which bullying prevention interventions
occur and the sectors that are engaged in these efforts. The contents of
this summary reflect the research presented at the workshop and the dis-cussions
that followed but should not be perceived as a comprehensive
review of bullying prevention research. Specific topics (e.g., cyberbully-ing)
and populations (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT]
youth, racial/ethnic minority youth) are considered within the broader
contexts framework. This was a deliberate decision on the part of the plan-ning
committee, explained Bradshaw. For example, in putting together the
workshop agenda, the planning committee considered having a separate
panel that focused on issues of diversity (e.g., ethnic or cultural diversity,
individuals with disabilities, LGBT populations) and bullying prevention,
she said. Given the heterogeneity of these groups and their experiences, the
planning committee decided instead to include issues and research related
to diversity “as a thread” throughout the workshop, said Bradshaw. This
decision should not be perceived as omission or lack of emphasis on issues
of diversity, and discussions of these topics can be found in this summary in
presentations by Susan Limber, the Dan Olweus Distinguished Professor at
the Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life at Clemson University (see
Chapter 2); Jaana Juvonen, professor in the Developmental Psychology Pro-gram
at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Dorothy Espelage,

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 5
Edward William Gutgsell and Jane Marr Gutgsell
Endowed Professor in the
Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-
Champaign (see Chapter 3); and Mark Hatzenbuehler, assistant professor
of sociomedical sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public
Health (see Chapter 9).
Similarly, while the workshop includes two reaction panels—one of
school personnel and one of students—to offer their perspectives on the
workshop presentations, these should not be viewed as the only stakeholder
perspectives that would enhance an overall discussion of bullying preven-tion.
The planning committee’s decision not to include additional stake-holder
reaction panels—of parents and caregivers, for example—should not
be viewed as an omission, but rather as a function of what was considered
to be feasible within the format of a 2-day workshop. Discussions of addi-tional
stakeholder groups can be found in this summary in presentations by
Melissa Holt, an assistant professor at the Boston University School of Edu-cation
(see Chapter 5); Deborah Gorman-Smith, professor in the School of
Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago (see Chapter 5);
Asha Goldweber, a behavioral health researcher in SRI International’s Cen-ter
for Education and Human Services (see Chapter 7); and Joseph Wright,
professor and vice chair in the Department of Pediatrics and professor of
emergency medicine and health policy at The George Washington Univer-sity
Schools of Medicine and Public Health (see Chapter 7).
The summary is organized into 3 parts and 12 chapters. Part I, which
includes Chapters 2 and 3, describes a basis for understanding bullying.
Part II, which includes Chapters 4 through 9, examines the contexts for pre-vention
and intervention. Part III, which includes Chapters 10 through 12,
describes possible future directions and overall themes that were discussed
at the workshop. Each of the chapters is described briefly below.
Following this introduction, Chapter 2 provides an overview of bully-ing
and victimization, including definitions, prevalence, and consequences.
Chapter 3 reviews what is known about the targets of bullying and bullying
behavior, including recent research on the neurobiological impact of
bullying. Chapter 4 takes a closer look at school-based interventions,
including characteristics of effective school interventions, the influence of
school climate, and school policies to address bullying. Chapter 5 consid-ers
family-focused interventions and the role of parents and caregivers in
bullying prevention. Chapter 6 focuses on technology-based interventions
and includes a discussion of cyberbullying. Chapter 7 considers community-based
interventions, including the role of health care professionals in bully-ing
prevention. Chapter 8 reviews the research on peer-led and peer-focused
interventions, which includes a discussion of both positive and negative peer
influence. Chapter 9 provides an overview of laws and policies related to
bullying and what is known about their effectiveness. Chapter 10 considers

how to translate research on bullying prevention to policy and practice.
Chapter 11 includes highlights from two reaction panels—one composed
of school personnel and one of students—who offered their perspectives
on the workshop presentations. Finally, Chapter 12 includes highlights
from the workshop sessions and areas for future research as identified by
individual members of the workshop planning committee.

Part I
Understanding Bullying

2
Overview of Bullying and Victimization
Key Points Made by the Speaker
• A recently developed uniform definition of bullying will help
researchers assess the scope and effects of bullying. (Limber)
• Although prevalence rates vary with the timeframe examined,
the measurement approach used, the informant, and the geo-graphic
location of the study, 20 to 30 percent of children
report having been bullied at least once in the past year, and
more than 10 percent of children report having been bullied
two to three or more times per month in the past 2 months.
(Limber)
• Bullying can have harmful effects not only on the targets of
bullying but also on children who engage in bullying behaviors,
on bystanders, on school climates, and on society at large.
(Limber)
• The continued collection of data on bullying will help to indi-cate
whether prevention efforts are helping to change bullying
Concerns about bullying have grown dramatically in recent years, noted
Susan Limber, the Dan Olweus Distinguished Professor at the Institute on
Family and Neighborhood Life at Clemson University, in her introductory
9
rates. (Limber)

overview of bullying and victimization, but what exactly is “bullying”?
Without a consistent definition of bullying, it becomes more difficult to
understand the scope and magnitude of the problem, to measure the impact
of bullying on children, and to prevent bullying.
After concerns about inconsistent definitions were raised at the first
Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Summit, which took place in 2010,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of
Education launched an initiative to develop a uniform definition of bully-ing.
With input from a panel of researchers and practitioners, the following
definition was established (Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7):
Bullying is any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group
of youths . . . that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and
is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may
inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psycho-logical,
social, or educational harm.
The first key element of this definition, Limber said, is that bully-ing
involves unwanted aggressive behavior—the targeted youth wants the
aggression to stop. Bullying does not include playful taunting or teasing,
although it can be a challenge for adults and other youth to tell whether
behaviors are unwanted or not. The definition also describes aggression as
the intentional use of harmful behaviors that are threatened or actual. The
focus, Limber explained, is on whether the aggressor intends to use harmful
behaviors, not on whether the aggressor intends the target to experience
an injury.
The second key element in the definition, Limber said, is that bully-ing
involves an imbalance of power. The aggressor is using observed or
perceived personal or situational characteristics to exert control over the
target or to limit his or her ability to respond or stop the aggression. Power
differences can be characterized by many factors, including physical char-acteristics
such as differences in size, age, or strength, but they can also
include such factors as popularity or demographic characteristics, includ-ing
whether or not a child is a member of a majority or a minority racial
or ethnic group. Power differences can also include distinctions in social,
academic, or other skills or abilities; access to resources; the ability to reach
an entire student body with messages or images sent online; and the power
of numbers, Limber said.
A third key element of bullying, she said, is its repetitive quality. Chil-dren
who are targets of bullying often experience multiple incidents or a
pattern of aggressive behavior against them. According to the definition, a
single incident can be considered bullying if there is a strong likelihood that
it will be followed by more like it. However, even though bullying typically

OVERVIEW OF BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION 11
is repeated over time, a one-time occurrence can be bullying, and adults
should not wait for a pattern to emerge before responding, Limber said.
The uniform definition also acknowledges that bullying often inflicts
harm or distress on the targeted youth, although this is not a requirement
for a behavior to qualify as bullying, Limber noted. Not all bullied youth
may be able to immediately identify or express what harm or distress they
may have experienced from bullying, she said. For example, a child with
developmental delays or disabilities may not always recognize that he or
she is being harmed by being taunted or teased, but may be bullied none-theless,
Limber said.
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF BULLYING
The uniform definition document recognizes two distinct modes of
bullying, Limber explained. The first is direct bullying, which occurs in the
presence of a targeted youth. The second is indirect bullying, such as the
spreading of a rumor or encouraging others to exclude a peer.
The uniform definition also enumerates distinct types of bullying. For
example, physical bullying includes such acts as hitting, kicking, punching,
spitting, tripping, and pushing. Verbal bullying can include taunting, name-calling,
sexual comments, or threatening words, notes, or gestures. Rela-tional
bullying is designed to harm reputations and relationships through,
for example, social isolation, spreading rumors, or posting embarrassing
images.
The terms “violence” and “bullying” are sometimes used interchange-ably,
and bullying is clearly a form of aggressive behavior, Limber said. But
while all bullying is aggression, not all aggression is bullying, she observed.
For example, a fight or a nasty argument between two peers of equal power
or strength certainly is aggressive behavior but probably would not be
characterized as bullying.
The World Health Organization has defined violence as “the inten-tional
use of physical force or physical power, threatened or actual, against
another person or against a group or community” (Dahlberg and Krug,
2002 p. 5). Thus, it overlaps with bullying but is not synonymous with
bullying
(see Figure 2-1). Some bullying may constitute discriminatory
harassment under federal law. In a “Dear colleague” letter issued in 2010,
the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights clarified the
relationship between bullying and discriminatory harassment and reminded
schools of their obligations under anti-discrimination statutes (U.S. Depart-ment
of Education, 2010). The letter notes that bullying of an individual
based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability can be a civil rights
violation if it is “sufficiently serious that it creates a hostile environment

Aggression
Violence Bullying
Physical
bullying
FIGURE 2-1 Physical bullying is a subset of both aggression and the narrower
category of violence.
SOURCE: Limber presentation, 2014.
and such harassment is encouraged, tolerated, not adequately addressed, or
ignored by school employees.”
THE PREVALENCE OF BULLYING
In a review of more than 90 studies that had examined bullying preva-lence
among children and youth, Cook et al. (2010a) found that the preva-lence
rates vary according to the timeframe examined, the measurement
approached used, the informant, and the geographic location of the study.
Were children asked how much bullying they had experienced in the past
year, the past 6 months, or the past week? Was bullying defined, and if so,
how was it defined? Was the information derived from self-reports, peer
reports, or teacher reports? Was bullying being examined in the United
States or other countries?
For data on prevalence, Limber cited four national surveys that focus
on slightly different age groups. The School Crime Supplement to the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) found that 28 percent of
12- to 18-year-olds said they had been bullied at school in 2011 (Robers
et al., 2012). The Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), which focuses on
high school students, reported that in 2011, 20 percent of students had been
bullied on school property during the previous year (Eaton et al., 2012).

The Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC), which collects data
from a nationally representative sample of children and youth in grades 5
through 10, reported that during the 2009–2010 school year, 28 percent
of youth had been bullied at school at least once in the previous 2 months,
while 11 percent of youth had been bullied two to three times per month
or more during this timeframe (Iannotti, 2014). The National Survey of
Children’s
Exposure to Violence, which involved a national telephone sur-vey
of caregivers and youth with an age focus from 2 to 17, found that
13 percent of children had been physically bullied and 20 percent had
been teased or emotionally bullied during the previous year (Finkelhor et
al., 2009).
Researchers interested in examining the prevalence, nature, and effects
of bullying often have analyzed the experiences of three distinct groups of
children directly involved in bullying, Limber said. The first group consists
of youth who bully others but are not themselves bullied. The literature
refers to these youth as aggressors, perpetrators, or bullies. The second
group consists of youth who are bullied but do not bully others. Sometimes
they are referred to as targets or victims. The third group consists of youth
who both are bullied themselves and also bully other youth. They often are
referred to in the literature as bully–victims.
Cook et al. (2010a) found that children who are bullied constitute the
largest proportion of students involved in bullying, followed by youth who
bully, and finally youth who are bullied and also bully others. One study of
third through twelfth graders who were involved in bullying two to three
times per month or more, found these three categories to account for 13
percent (children who are bullied), 4 percent (children who bully others),
and 3 percent (children who are bullied and also bully others) of all stu-dents
in these grades (Limber et al., 2013).
According to data from the HBSC, students in grades 5 through 10
who are bullied two to three times per month or more at school most
often experience verbal bullying and the spreading of lies (see Figure 2-2).
Similarly, the NCVS found that verbal bullying and rumor spreading were
the most common forms of bullying for sixth through twelfth graders (see
Figure 2-3).
According to Cook et al. (2010a), boys and girls experience relatively
similar rates of being bullied. On the other hand, Limber said, this meta-analysis
found that boys were almost twice as likely as girls to bully others
and were about 2.5 times as likely to both bully others and be bullied. The
prevalence of different types of bullying also differs between boys and girls.
According to the NCVS, girls are more likely than boys to indicate that they
have been bullied through name-calling, rumor spreading, social exclusion,
and cyberbullying, while boys are more likely than girls to say that they
have been physically bullied (Eaton et al., 2012).

FIGURE 2-2 Prevalence of different types of bullying.
NOTE: The types of bullying that occurred most often are highlighted in green.
SOURCE: Limber presentation, 2014. Data from HBSC, 2013.
verbal
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
lies spread sexual jokes left out race physical computer cell phone
rumors
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
verbal physical excluded threatened force property
destroyed
cyber
FIGURE 2-3 Students ages 12 through 18 who are bullied during the school year
most often experience rumors and verbal bullying.
NOTE: The types of bullying that occurred most often are highlighted in green.
SOURCE: Limber presentation, 2014. Data from Robers et al., 2013.
Children’s experiences with bullying also vary according to their age,
Limber said. The likelihood of being bullied is greatest in elementary
and middle school and decreases throughout the high school grades (see
Figure 2-4). Similarly, Limber et al. (2013), in a survey of more than 20,000
students in grades 3 through 12, found that rates of being bullied were
highest among third graders and thereafter decreased steadily through
elementary, middle, and high school both for boys and for girls.

Although bullying victimization is particularly likely in middle child-hood,
the specific forms of bullying that children are most likely to experi-ence
vary by age, depending on the children’s verbal, cognitive, and social
development and on circumstances, Limber said. For example, rates of
cyberbullying rise from middle school to high school and peak in about the
tenth grade (Robers et al., 2013).
Somewhat different age patterns are observed for self-reports of bully-ing
others and of being a bully–victim, Limber said. In a large-scale survey
of students in grades 3 through 12, Limber et al. (2013) found that among
boys, bullying others increased steadily from about grade 3 through around
grade 12, but among girls, rates of bullying others peaked in eighth grade
(see Figure 2-5). However, Cook et al. (2010a) found that rates of bullying
others decreased from age 3 through age 18 while the likelihood of being a
bully–victim peaked in the adolescent years before then decreasing.
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
age 2–5 age 6–9
physical bullying
teasing or emotional bullying
age 10–13 age 14–17
FIGURE 2-4 The likelihood of being bullied is greatest in elementary grades and
decreases through middle and high school.
SOURCE: Limber presentation, 2014. Data from Finkelhor et al., 2009.

7% 7%
10% 10%
9% 9%
CHANGES OVER TIME
6%
4%
Boys
Girls
Despite increased attention to bullying since the early 2000s, the extent
to which the rates of bullying have changed over time remains unclear,
Limber said. Time trends depend on the data source, the gender of the
participants, and the frequency of involvement, she added.
The percentage of students who said they were bullied occasionally—
defined as once or more in the past couple of months—decreased between
2001/2002 and 2005/2006 by 16 percent for boys and 15 percent for girls,
according to data from the HBSC (Molcho et al., 2009). Frequent victim-ization
decreased by 5 percent for boys and 6 percent for girls during this
time period. Data from the NCVS showed that the percentage of 12- to
18-year-olds who said they were bullied at school decreased by about 12
percent between 2007 and 2011, but the trend was much more pronounced
for boys than girls (Robers et al., 2010, 2012, 2013). Data from the YRBS,
which looks at high school students’ experiences in the previous year,
showed no changes between 2009 and 2011, which are the only 2 years
for which data are comparable, given changes in the wording of questions
over time (Eaton et al., 2009, 2012).
These data need to continue to be gathered and analyzed, Limber
emphasized, because they will help to indicate whether bullying prevention
efforts are changing the rates of bullying.
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
3rd
5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
3%
6% 6%
6% 6%
11%
7%
4th 5th 6th 7th
Grade level
8th 9th 10th 11th 12th
FIGURE 2-5 The percentage of third through twelfth graders who have bullied
other students two to three times per month or more rises until eighth grade for
boys and girls and continues to rise after that for girls.
SOURCE: Limber et al., 2013.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF BULLYING
The consequences of bullying include not only the effects on the targets
of bullying but also long-term outcomes for children who engage in bullying
behavior, effects on bystanders, effects of bullying on the broader school
climate, and the costs of bullying to society, Limber said.
Limber added that a very large body of research points to an asso-ciation
between being bullied and later internalizing problems and that a
number of recent longitudinal studies have confirmed that being bullied is
associated with the later development of a variety of issues: internalizing
problems, including depression, anxiety, agoraphobia, panic disorder, and
low self-esteem (Copeland et al., 2013; Faris and Felmlee, 2011; Ttofi
et al., 2011a); psychosomatic problems, including headaches, stomach pain,
sleeping problems, and poor appetite (Gini and Pozzoli, 2013); and school
avoidance and lower academic achievement (Buhs et al., 2006, 2010). Some
researchers have also found that peer victimization is associated with later
externalizing behaviors, such as such as aggression, delinquency, and mis-conduct
(Reijintjes et al., 2010).
Although researchers have concluded that there is a relationship
between bullying and suicide-related behaviors (Hertz et al., 2013), rela-tively
few longitudinal studies have been conducted to explore the causal
links between bullying and later suicidal ideation, attempts, or deaths by
suicide. Researchers have found that being bullied in childhood predicted
later suicide attempts and deaths by suicide for girls but not for boys, after
controlling for prior depression and conduct problems (Klomek et al., 2013),
and that boys identified as bully–victims were at increased risk of suicidal
thoughts and attempts in young adulthood (Copeland et al., 2013). How-ever,
this connection should not be overstated or misinterpreted, Limber
said. The causes of suicide are complex, and many individual, relational,
community, and societal factors can contribute to the risk of suicide (CDC,
2012). When researchers used data from the National Violent Death Report-ing
System to look at the precipitating circumstances for youth ages 10
through 17 who had died by suicide, they found that school-related prob-lems
were a precipitating circumstance in about one-quarter of the deaths
(Karch et al., 2013). A small percentage of these—12 percent—appear to be
related to bullying, Limber said. To put that number in context, she added,
intimate-partner relationship problems were identified as a precipitating
circumstance in about one-half of the deaths.
Longitudinal research of children who engage in bullying behavior also
points to reason for concern, Limber said. For example, research has found
that boys who bullied peers in middle school were four times as likely as
peers to have three or more criminal convictions as young adults (Olweus,
1993), and boys who frequently bullied others were at high risk for later

criminality when accompanied by a high level of psychiatric symptoms
(Sourander et al., 2007). A meta-analysis of 18 studies found that bullying
others was related to a greater likelihood of being involved in later criminal
behavior and antisocial behavior (Ttofi et al., 2011b). In addition, Espelage
et al. (2012) found that bullying others was associated with later sexual
harassment of others among middle school students.
By one estimate, more than 80 percent of bullying is witnessed by oth-ers
(O’Connell et al., 1999), and research suggests that bullying can have
significant effects on bystanders (Polanin et al., 2012). Bystanders report
feeling anxiety and insecurity (Rigby and Slee, 1993). These feelings stem,
in part, from fears of retaliation (Musher-Eizenman et al., 2004), which
often prevent bystanders from seeking help (Unnever and Cornell, 2003).
Compared with their peers who have not observed bullying, individuals
who have report more symptoms of interpersonal sensitivity, helplessness,
and potential suicidal ideation (Rivers and Noret, 2013).
Limber reported that many have argued that prevalent bullying or
bullying that is not adequately addressed within a school environment
can contribute to a negative school climate (Espelage and Swearer, 2010;
Olweus, 1993; Olweus et al., 2007), where school climate is defined as the
quality and character of school life, including collective beliefs, values, and
attitudes (Cohen, 2009; Cohen et al., 2009). Cohen et al. (2009) found
that safety, including attitudes about bullying and violence, is one of four
essential dimensions of school climate. Students who perceive staff mem-bers
to be supportive are more likely to indicate they would seek help for
bullying and threats of violence (Eliot et al., 2010). In addition, bullying
prevention at schools has been associated not only with reductions in bully-ing
but also with improvements in the social climate of the school (Olweus,
1991, 1997).
Finally, Limber said, bullying may result in substantial costs to society.
Those who have been involved in bullying are “overconsumers” of society’s
health and social services (Olweus, 2012; Sourander et al., 2007), she said.
For example, efforts to quantify the costs for troubled youth estimate that
the cost of saving a single high-risk youth from a career in crime ranges
from $2.6 million to $5.3 million (Cohen and Piquero, 2009; Cohen et al.,
2010).
Future research will help to quantify the costs of bullying. But there is
no doubt, Limber concluded, that “the individual human price tag is far
too costly.”

3
Targets of Bullying and
Bullying Behavior
Key Points Made by Individual Speakers
• Ethnic minority middle-school students generally feel safer and
less bullied in more diverse contexts, perhaps because they
perceive peer mistreatment as a sign of prejudice and do not
blame themselves in the same way that majority students do.
(Juvonen)
• Having one friend lowers the risk of being bullied, and even a
neutral social interaction can help re-establish a sense of con-nection
after being bullied. (Juvonen)
• Bullying has been associated with direct and indirect exposure
to family violence and with sexual harassment and teen dating
violence during adolescence. (Espelage)
• Many of the students who engage in bullying are found to be
near the center of dense social networks, and aggression tends
to stay within social categories. (Faris)
• Genetics research, neuroimaging, studies of the stress hormone
cortisol, and investigations of chromosomal changes all have
revealed harmful biological changes associated with bullying.
(Vaillancourt)
19

Bullying can be analyzed at different levels, from the sociological to the
genetic. In the initial panel of the workshop, four presenters summarized
research on students who bully others and on the targets of bullying from
four different perspectives and then, in the discussion period, explored pos-sible
ways in which these perspectives could be integrated.
CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS ON THE TARGETS OF BULLYING
“Why are we concerned about bullying?” asked Jaana Juvonen, profes-sor
in the developmental psychology program at the University of Califor-nia,
Los Angeles. Is it because of its prevalence or because of the negative
effects on the targets of bullying? The answer, in all likelihood, is both, she
said. But when the effectiveness of interventions is examined, the focus is
on prevalence and related factors, such as improvements in school climate.
These outcomes are undoubtedly important, but Juvonen said that she was
unable to find, in preparing for the workshop, even one study that exam-ined
whether anti-bullying efforts help alleviate the emotional pain and
the health consequences for the most vulnerable—those who experience
bullying repeatedly.
To create environments that protect the chronically bullied, it is neces-sary
to understand how bullying-related distress varies across contexts and
situations, Juvonen said. First, the emotional distress of the targeted varies
across individuals. This variation is usually attributed to individual differ-ences
among the targets of bullying. For example, those who show more
distress may be seen as lacking emotion-regulation abilities, being more
sensitive to rejection, or not having good coping strategies, Juvonen said.
Much less is known, Juvonen said, about the role of social context. For
example, how does group composition or the relationships in a particular
context make the pain of bullying either greater or less? To address this
void in the research, Juvonen and her colleague Sandra Graham have been
investigating features of the social environments of school-based bullying
to try to understand the links between bullying experiences and emotional
distress. Specifically, they have compared the plight of targets of bullying
across schools that vary in ethnic composition, with a focus on environ-ments
in which students feel safe as opposed to unsafe.
Comparing schools in California with varied ethnic compositions, they
found that African-American and Latino middle-school students gener-ally
felt safer and less bullied in the more diverse contexts (Juvonen et al.,
2006). However, Juvonen asked, although diversity may be protective for
at least some groups or individuals, is there safety in numbers of similar
others when bullied? Peer groups become increasingly ethnically segregated
across grades, suggesting that same-ethnic peers are an important reference

TARGETS OF BULLYING AND BULLYING BEHAVIOR 21
group. The question, then, she said, is whether the plight of a target may
vary depending on the size of his or her ethnic group.
In this case, Juvonen and her colleagues examined social anxiety and
found a stronger association between victimization and social anxiety when
the victims of bullying had a greater number of same-ethnic peers (Bellmore
et al., 2004). Similar findings were obtained for loneliness, she said. Thus,
being bullied was more strongly associated with both social anxiety and
loneliness when students were in settings with greater (as opposed to fewer)
same-ethnic peers.
This finding raises the question of how targets construe their plight.
When youth are bullied, Juvonen observed, they are likely to ask, “Why
me?” Answers to this question—that is, the attributions they make—are
likely to affect the level or type of distress they experience.
Using the construct of characterological self-blame—the idea that tar-gets
come to blame themselves and believe that there is nothing they can do
about it—Juvonen and her colleagues looked at why students who belong
to majority groups in their school would feel worse. They found a stron-ger
association between getting bullied and self-blame when the students
belonged to the numerical majority (Graham et al., 2009). In contrast, no
association was found between bullying and self-blame when the students
belonged to the numerical minority in their schools. Recent evidence sug-gests
that those who are in the numerical minority perceive this kind of peer
mistreatment as reflecting prejudice on the part of their peers and do not
blame themselves in the same way that those who belong to the numerical
majority, Juvonen said.
To further understand the role of characterological self-blame, Juvonen
and her colleagues have more recently examined its potential role in pro-longing
bullying. Focusing on the first year in middle school, they looked
at which youths bullied in the fall continued to be targeted by the spring
of sixth grade. The question was whether self-blame functions similarly
to depression—as both a consequence and a risk factor of victimization.
They found support for indirect associations, in that children who had
been targeted in the beginning of sixth grade were more likely to continue
to be bullied throughout the school year if they self-blamed and become
depressed (Schacter et al., 2014).
These analyses suggest that contextual factors affect how children
interpret their mistreatment and that self-blame is especially detrimental,
Juvonen said. They also suggest that to alleviate distress and reduce the
duration of bullying, interventions may need to change targets’ attributions
of their plight.

The Power of Friends
Juvonen concluded her presentation with “something a little more
positive.” A particularly potent protective factor against bullying, she said,
is having friends. Although the type of friend matters, good evidence sug-gests
that having even one friend lowers the risk of being bullied. Moreover,
when a student is bullied, his or her distress can be alleviated by having that
one friend, Juvonen said.
Two recent dissertation studies from her laboratory provide further
insights about these findings, suggesting that the effect may result not from
individual differences in whether children have friends but from social
replenishment after peer mistreatment. In the first study, Guadalupe Espi-noza
showed that when an individual experienced cyberbullying, time spent
with friends—not the quality of the friendship—alleviated the intensity of
distress reported by high school students (Espinoza, under review). If, on
the day a student was cyberbullied, that student spent some time with a
friend, stress was significantly and substantially alleviated, Juvonen said.
In the second study, Elisheva Gross varied the activities of youth who
were excluded in an online experiment: They were randomly assigned either
to instant message with an unknown peer or to play a solitary computer
game. The goal was to document recovery from self-esteem loss related
to the exclusion experience. What she found was that recovery was much
quicker for those who had a chance to interact with an unknown peer as
opposed to playing a solitary computer game (Gross, 2009). These findings
suggest that recovery does not even “require” having a friend but just con-necting
with a peer, Juvonen observed.
This research has helped identify two possible antidotes to bullying that
can vary across situations and contexts, Juvonen said. The first is to realize
“It’s not just me” in thinking about bullying. The second is to recognize that
even a neutral social interaction can help reestablish a sense of connection
after being bullied. It is important to realize that environments make youth
socially isolated, Juvonen said. Youth are not socially isolated unless other
people ignore or exclude them, she said, which is why a school environment
that fosters connectedness is critically important.
ASSOCIATIONS AMONG BULLYING,
SEXUAL HARASSMENT, AND DATING VIOLENCE
Bullying is not an isolated behavior, observed Dorothy Espelage,
Edward William Gutgsell and Jane Marr Gutgsell Endowed Professor in
the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign. For example, several cross-sectional and a handful
of longitudinal studies link direct and indirect exposure to family violence

with bullying behavior (Espelage et al., 2000, 2013; Voisin and Hong,
2012). Bullying is also predictive of sexual violence during adolescence,
and the two share similar risk factors (Basile et al., 2009; Espelage et al.,
2012). In addition, Miller et al. (2013) demonstrate how dating violence
and bullying often co-occur, highlighting the need to recognize the inter-relatedness
of these behaviors.
However, few longitudinal studies have unpacked the mechanisms from
the contextual variables of bully perpetration, Espelage said. Even fewer
longitudinal studies have considered how bully perpetration is associated
with the emergence of gender-based bullying, sexual harassment, or teen
dating violence during early adolescence.
Espelage and her colleagues (2014) have proposed a developmental
model of bullying, sexual harassment, and dating violence. To test this
model, they tracked 1,162 racially and economically diverse students from
2008 to 2013. The students were in three cohorts—fifth, sixth, and seventh
graders in 2008—with seven waves of data collection occurring during the
years of the study.
One takeaway message from this research, Espelage said, is that homo-phobic
name-calling and unwanted sexual commentary are prevalent in
middle school. “It takes about 3 minutes when you go into a middle school
to hear this kind of language,” she said. Youth who engage in bullying
behavior resort to homophobic name-calling over the middle-school years
(Espelage et al., 2012, in press). Boys and girls may try to demonstrate their
heterosexuality by sexually harassing others. Bullying and homophobic
name-calling may also promote unhealthy dating relationships, she said.
This has been a powerful finding for teachers and administrators, who
say that they often hear this language. Bullying prevention programs need
to include a discussion of language that marginalizes gender non-conform-ing
and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, Espelage said, despite
the potential backlash from those who see such discussions as promoting
an alternative sexual orientation.
Espelage’s research also has demonstrated that bullying and homopho-bic
name-calling is associated with later sexual harassment (Espelage et al.,
in press). As students transition to high school, a strong connection emerges
between bullying and sexual harassment, she said. In addition, sexual
harassment, unwanted sexual commentary, and unwanted touching pre-dicted
teen dating violence, including verbal, physical, and sexual coercion.
This research is predicated on a social–ecological model and a social–
interactional learning model in which family violence serves as an important
context for understanding the relations among bullying perpetration, sexual
harassment perpetration, and teen dating violence, Espelage explained. The
researchers have tested this model by evaluating the changing influence
of key social agents across early to late adolescence. For example, in the

dataset discussed by Espelage at the workshop, 32 risk and protective fac-tors
were considered. Girls were separated out because of the tremendous
variability in the ways in which they report bullying perpetration and expo-sure
to family conflict and sibling aggression. On this last point, Espelage
noted that sibling aggression is emerging as a potent predictor of bullying
involvement for both perpetration and victimization. For boys, family con-flict
did not predict bullying perpetration, just sibling aggression. “Sibling
aggression, which many of us feel is a proxy in some ways for violence in
the home, was an important predictor here as well,” Espelage said.
Possible Next Steps
From this research, Espelage offered several suggestions. Future
research will need to consider multiple contexts to identify longitudinal
predictors, mediators, and moderators associated with outcomes for youth
who engage in bullying behavior, she said. “We must begin to think much
more creatively about incorporating discussions of gender-based name-calling,
sexual violence, and gender expression.”
In addition, Espelage said there is a need to examine and respond to
various forms of interpersonal violence as a part of prevention of bullying
and youth violence. In particular, Espelage pointed to exposure to family
violence and teen-dating violence victimization and perpetration. Such
research could evaluate the changing influence of key socializing agents
across early to late adolescence and examine the antecedents, correlates,
and sequelae of bullying, sexual harassment, and teen dating violence, she
said.
Finally, Espelage said that there is a need for comprehensive, social–
ecological longitudinal studies to understand the complex developmental
unfolding of different types of youth violence. The effect sizes for many
bullying prevention programs have been low and have even been negative
for some programs in high schools, partly because programs designed for
elementary school children are being used inappropriately for older stu-dents
(Yeager et al., in press). “We need to be developmentally sensitive to
the types of experiences kids are reporting,” Espelage said.
INSTRUMENTAL AGGRESSION
The research literature on bullying suggests that individuals who engage
in bullying behavior have two contradictory attributes, said Robert Faris,
associate professor of sociology at the University of California, Davis. On
the one hand, bully perpetrators would seem to have substantial forms of
maladjustment, such as troubled home lives or challenging psychological
dispositions, which would imply that they are on the fringes of social net-

works and do not have high status. On the other hand, he said, bullying
would seem to be a way of building status by establishing one’s place in a
social hierarchy.
Faris’s own research suggests that both of these observations are accu-rate.
“I find a lot of evidence to suggest a very traditional perspective of
maladjusted kids who are picking on those who are weaker than them,” he
said. “I also found a second pattern, . . . which is instrumental aggression.”1
When the social connections among students in a high school are dia-grammed,
many of the students who engage in bullying are found to be near
the center of dense social networks, Faris said. Connections between indi-viduals
who engage in bullying behavior and their targets tend not to occur
around the perimeter of social networks, as the early work on bullying
would suggest (Faris, 2012). “What we see is a preponderance of ties origi-nating
within the core of these networks among the more popular kids,”
he said. “I think this is evidence of an instrumental pattern of aggression.”
Working with Susan Ennett, Faris has also done research on the role of
status motivation. They found that students who want to be more popular
are more aggressive (Faris and Ennett, 2012). They also found that stu-dents,
regardless of how much they care about popularity themselves, are
more likely to be aggressive if they have friends who care about popularity.
In addition, they found that the highest rates of aggression occur between
pairs of students who are both high status, not between high-status and
low-status students. “To me that is consistent with the idea of competition
for status and the use of aggression to those ends,” Faris said.
Social Distance
Instrumental aggression also depends in part on social distance.2
Aggression tends to stay within social categories, Faris said. For example,
the highest rates of aggression tend to be within race and not across race.
His data indicate that bullying has a very low likelihood of crossing racial
lines.
The situation with gender is similar: The highest rates of aggression are
between girls and between boys rather than across gender lines. Although
boys and girls have roughly equal rates of aggression, both boys and girls
target girls more often than they target boys, which results in girls being
disproportionately targeted, Faris said.
1 Instrumental aggression refers to purposive aggression intended to achieve some goal,
particularly higher social status.
2 Social distance can refer to fundamental demographic barriers (e.g., racial divides) and,
in social network terms, to the number of friendship links separating two people in a social
network (e.g., a friend of a friend is distance 2).

Working with a different dataset, Faris and his colleagues found very
high rates of aggression among adolescents who identify as lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, or questioning (LGBTQ) as well as the more tradi-tional
pattern of heterosexual students bullying LGBTQ youth at a rela-tively
high rate (see Figure 3-1). Again, he said, bullying often occurs within
social demographics.
Faris said that a similar conclusion also emerges from analyses of
friendship networks. Rates of bullying drop dramatically as young people
become farther apart socially. A lot of aggression occurs within friendship
groups and even between friends, Faris said. This can lead to some com-plicated
dynamics. For example, preliminary evidence suggests that when
friends have an aggressive event, they cease to become friends. But when
two students who are not friends are aggressive toward each other, they
have a greater likelihood of becoming friends at some point in the future.
“There is a cycle of conflict that is going on,” Faris said “Allegiances are
being formed and broken up.”
Cyberbullying appears to exhibit the same patterns, Faris said. Rela-tively
high-status students are more likely to target each other.
AAWhite
AAAA
WhiteWhite
WhiteAA
FemaleFemale
FemaleMale
HeteroHetero
LGBTQLGBTQ
LGBTQHetero
HeteroLGBTQ
MaleMale
MaleFemale
FIGURE 3-1 Aggression rates are higher within race, gender, and sexual orientation
categories than across categories.
NOTE: AA = African American; LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or
questioning.
SOURCE: Faris presentation, 2014.
5
4
3
2
1
0
1.9
1.7
0.6
0.4
1.8
4.6
1.9
1.2 1.1
0.9 0.9
0.7
Rates of Agression

In a recent paper, Faris and his colleagues looked at five different out-comes
of victimization: anger, anxiety, depression, attachment to school,
and centrality in social networks, which they referred to as status (Faris and
Felmlee, 2014). They found that the victims who were high status had a
more adverse reaction to aggression. When high-status students are victim-ized,
their anger, anxiety, and depression increase much more dramatically
than is the case with lower-status students, and they drop in status much
more than do low-status students—an effect that is also seen with students
who are in the middle of social hierarchies. By the time students reach high
school, a given act of bullying is not necessarily going to transform the
sense of self of a low-status student, Faris said, but “a kid who may have
struggled mightily to reach a lofty social position might experience a little
more distress. They may feel that they have more to lose.”
Is Bullying Instrumental?
The final issue Faris discussed was whether bullying is effective if it is
considered as instrumental. The data suggest that victims of bullying do lose
status. In addition, using yearbook data to provide additional measures of
social status, Faris and his colleagues found that aggressive behavior pre-dicted
a significant increase in social status by the end of high school, but
it depended partly on whom was targeted (Faris, 2012). “They had to go
after kids who were socially close, kids who were themselves aggressive,
or kids who were high status themselves,” he said. “They had to pick the
right targets to receive a social boost. Again, I think this all fits a picture of
aggression as at least potentially useful for climbing social ladders.”
In general, these data point to a relatively poor quality of friendships
among high school students and adolescents, Faris said. As an example of
these poor-quality friendships, he noted that if students are asked to name
their eight best friends, only 37 percent of those ties are reciprocated.
Furthermore,
when Faris and his colleagues asked students to name their
five closest friends every 2 weeks, they found high rates of turnover in
those lists.
“This is a symptom of a problem,” he said. “It is related to this process
of competing for status. If we thought about ways of helping kids develop
stronger, more robust friendships and perhaps fewer of them, I think that
might help build resilience.”
Many young people do not recognize what a good friend is and do not
know how to be a good friend, Faris said. Parents and other adults can help
teach these lessons, he said, and schools could be reorganized to offer activi-ties
that can foster interest-based friendships, as opposed to their traditional
organization of offering just a few prestigious activities, he suggested.

THE BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS ASSOCIATED WITH BULLYING
Some youth fare poorly when they are bullied, and some do better. It
is important to understand the moderators and mediators behind this vari-ability,
said Tracy Vaillancourt, a professor and the Canada Research Chair
in Children’s Mental Health and Violence Prevention at the University of
Ottawa. For example, she said, some evidence suggests that girls are pro-foundly
affected by being socially excluded, while boys are more affected
by being physically abused by their peers. Social support also matters. For
example, children who are targets of bullying at school and also experience
bullying at home tend to have poorer outcomes. In addition, temperament
is associated with how people cope with stress, in that some people are
more agitated over time, Vaillancourt said.
Less attention has been paid to the biological moderators and media-tors
that are associated with bullying at a physiological level, Vaillancourt
said. She summarized research in four areas of “how bullying gets under
the skin to confer risk.”
Genetic Evidence
Genetic evidence suggests that biology may confer a risk for poorer
outcomes. Caspi et al. (2003) found that a polymorphism of a serotonin
transporter gene influenced the likelihood of a person being depressed at
age 26 after having been severely maltreated, probably maltreated, or not
maltreated in childhood. Those who had been severely maltreated and who
had two short alleles for the gene had a depression rate of about 70 percent
at age 26, while those who had been severely maltreated and who had two
long alleles had no greater odds of being depressed at age 26 than children
who had been treated well by their caregivers, Vaillancourt said.
This study has been replicated within the context of peer abuse,
Vaillancourt said. Looking at girls who have been relationally victimized
by their peers, Benjet et al. (2010) found that having the short allele of the
gene conferred a risk of depression that was three times greater than having
the long allele. “I can’t think of something that confers such a strong risk,”
Vaillancourt said. This “is a really powerful finding.”
Neurophysiological Evidence
People who have experienced bullying often use physical pain meta-phors
to describe the social pain they feel. Such comments as, “It felt like
somebody punched me in the stomach,” or “It broke my heart when they
said that to me,” are common, Vaillancourt said.
Neuroscience points to an overlap between social and physical pain,

Vaillancourt said. For example, Chen et al. (2008) found that people can
relive and re-experience social pain more easily than physical pain and that
the emotions they feel are more intense and painful than the experience of
physical pain. “Physical pain is short-lived, whereas social pain can last a
lifetime,” Vaillancourt said. “Think about when you were in grade six and
you were excluded or ostracized. Then think about the time when maybe
you broke your ankle. When you think about breaking your ankle, you
don’t get a visceral reaction to recalling the event. When you recall the
event of being excluded by the peer group, it is as if you are living it today.”
Neuroimaging studies show that parts of the cortical physical pain
network are activated when a person is socially excluded (Masten et al.,
2009). The same areas of the brain that are activated when a person stubs
a toe are activated when that person is called stupid or is not invited to a
party, Vaillancourt said.
Similarly, children may be hypersensitive to rejection, Vaillancourt
said. Crowley et al. (2009) found that 12-year-olds could recognize being
rejected in less than 500 milliseconds. “We have this radar . . . to not being
included,” she said, which might have its roots in some evolutionary advan-tages
in mammalian species.
Neuroendocrine Evidence
A large amount of research has examined the hypothalamic/pituitary/
adrenal (HPA) axis, or the human body’s stress system, Vaillancourt said.
One product of that stress system is cortisol, which has been used as a
biomarker of dysregulation of the HPA axis—that is, of impairments in the
normal functioning of the HPA system.
When people are stressed, they produce more cortisol, which has been
shown to have detrimental effects on the brain, Vaillancourt explained.
However, she added, when people face extreme and prolonged stress, cor-tisol
levels tend to be lower than normal, perhaps because receptor sites are
damaged from cortisol overproduction.
A variety of studies have demonstrated a link between peer victimiza-tion
and dysregulation of the HPA axis, Vaillancourt said. Dysregulation
of the HPA axis has also been shown to be related to disruptions in neuro-genesis,
or the growth of new brain cells, resulting in poorer memory. For
example, Vaillancourt et al. (2011) found that children who were victimized
by their peers became depressed, and this depression led to changes in the
HPA axis. The dysregulation of the HPA axis led in turn to memory deficits,
particularly in areas that are sensitive to the effects of cortisol. “One of the
things that we know about kids who are bullied is that they don’t do as well
in school,” Vaillancourt said. “A lot of times we think that perhaps it has
to do with the fact that they are distracted by being bullied, [but] perhaps

the effects of being bullied are affecting their memory, which then changes
their academic profile and outcomes.”
In a study of whether changes in the HPA axis are actually caused by
having been bullied, Ouellet-Morin et al. (2011) looked at pairs of identical
twins, one of whom experienced bullying and the other of whom did not.
The researchers showed that these childhood experiences had a causal effect
on the neuroendocrine response to stress. “It is not the case that kids get
bullied because for some reason the peer group picks up on the fact that
their HPA axis is different and that they are dysregulated. They become
dysregulated as a function of being bullied,” Vaillancourt said.
Telomere Erosion
Finally, Vaillancourt described the erosion of telomeres, which are
repetitive DNA sections at the ends of chromosomes that promote chromo-somal
stability and help regulate the replicative lifespan of cells. The length
of telomeres is linked to normal processes such as aging and is associated
with such health behaviors as smoking and obesity. “Your telomere gets
shorter and shorter the longer you live and the more bad things you do,”
Vaillancourt explained.
Shalev et al. (2013) recently found that exposure to violence during
childhood, including bullying, was associated with telomere erosion from
5 to 10 years of age. These changes could alter a person’s developmental
or health trajectory through epigenetic mechanisms and explain, for exam-ple,
why one sister develops breast cancer while her twin sister does not,
Vaillancourt
said.
Changing Health Trajectories
Understanding the biological underpinnings of how peer relations affect
emotional and physical health can help legitimize the plight of peer-abused
children and youth, Vaillancourt concluded. It can also cause policy mak-ers
and practitioners to prioritize the reduction of school bullying. These
kinds of findings “urge us to really get going,” she said, because bullying
and bullying prevention can change children’s health trajectories.
INTEGRATING PERSPECTIVES
During the discussion period, several questions centered on the issue of
integrating the different perspectives offered by the four presenters in this
session. In response to a question on this subject, Vaillancourt said that one
of her motivations in studying bullying is to prevent the targets of bullying
from being re-victimized by educators who think that they are at fault and

just need to be tougher. If some students are shown to be biologically more
susceptible to the negative effects of bullying, then principals, parents, and
other adults may be less likely to blame the targets of bullying and more
likely to protest strongly when students are bullied.
Vaillancourt also described recent epigenetics research that points to
changes in the expression of genes as a consequence of environmental influ-ences,
including early adversity. “We have failed to recognize that the stress
of being bullied by our peers, which interferes with our fundamental need
to belong, would be equivalent to living in a house where you are abused
by your caregiver,” she said. “It would be equivalent to living in extreme
poverty.” The study of epigenetic effects caused by such experiences may be
a way to understand mental and physical health trajectories. “We all need
to come together and intersect our knowledge bases so that we can be better
informed in preventing this,” she said.
Espelage said that her longitudinal study found that not only was bullying
perpetration predicted by family violence but also bully perpetration
and victimization were associated with the later onset of alcohol and drug
use in the victims (Espelage et al., 2013; Rao et al., in press). Faris observed
that the victims of bullying are more likely to turn to substance use as a
way of coping.
The moderator of the panel, Catherine Bradshaw of the University of
Virginia, speculated that aggressors may be picking up on the emotional
vulnerability of some individuals and targeting them and that students who
are less affected by bullying may be less attractive targets. Perhaps individu-als
engaging in bullying behavior use social cues and the reactivity of other
students to choose targets, Bradshaw suggested.
Vaillancourt pointed to recent research on how the presence or absence
of power affects the brain (Hogeveen et al., 2014). When a subject is
afforded power, he or she pays less attention to and is less aroused by
others.
At the neurological level, those who hold power are less sensitive to
the plight of others. Those who do not hold power are much more aware
of the environment and the distress signals of others, Vaillancourt said.
One of the youth panelists, Glenn Cantave, a junior at Wesley Univer-sity,
noted that when he was younger he was more sensitive to the attacks
of bullies, but he has since developed a “thicker skin.” Does that, he asked,
imply some sort of tolerance to stress that perhaps would be related to
cortisol levels?
Vaillancourt responded that the offspring of Holocaust survivors have
lower cortisol levels, even though they did not experience the trauma of the
Holocaust themselves. Perhaps such lower cortisol levels are a protective
adaptation that acts to reduce the risks associated with chronically high
cortisol levels, but the actual mechanisms behind the lowered cortisol levels
are still not well understood. For example, Vaillancourt said, almost every

study of children who have been bullied finds that they have low cortisol,
whereas their longitudinal studies showed first high levels and then low lev-els,
suggesting that the dysregulation of cortisol is a more important factor
to look for than absolute levels. Longitudinal studies of the HPA axis over
time across different stressors could reveal some of the mechanisms behind
these complex patterns, she suggested.
Vaillancourt also referred back to the relationship between depression
and being bullied. The depression often comes first, suggesting that the
lack of engagement among depressed young people may make them more
vulnerable to victimization. Again, she said, longitudinal studies would help
explain the observed heterogeneity in trajectories and outcomes.
Basing interventions on the social organization of schools may be a
way to integrate knowledge in practice. For example, Espelage pointed out
that a better approach than universal programs for sexual violence and
rape prevention might be to identify students who have the greatest social
capital and train them to be attitude changers, drawing on what is known
from industrial and organizational psychology. Bystander intervention pro-grams
have been shown to produce large effect sizes in promoting positive
bystander behaviors (Polanin et al., 2012), she said. Another promising
approach is to work with teachers to understand the networks and hierar-chies
in their classrooms.
Juvonen agreed that focusing on bystanders is an especially promis-ing
way of changing the high status of individuals who engage in bullying
behavior. “Bullies love the audience,” she said. “They want not only a reac-tion
from their victim, but they also live for the fact that everybody else is
in awe and joins the bully rather than the victim. It is those dynamics that
need to be changed.” One way to turn this around, Juvonen suggested, may
be to emphasize to students the rights that they have, one of which is the
right to come to school and not be afraid.
Juvonen also pointed out that teachers and administrators know who
the lowest-ranking individuals are—and thus have a good idea of those who
are at highest risk for victimization—yet not many schools offer proactive
remedies for these students. Instead, a wise librarian or well-liked teacher
might keep a door open after lunch. A better option, Juvonen said, would
be a lunchroom that brings people together with specific interests. “We have
a lot of smart teachers and educators out there who are doing little things
that can make a huge difference.”

Part II
Contexts for Prevention and Intervention

4
School-Based Interventions
• Research has identified some effective elements of anti-bullying
initiatives, including high levels of playground supervision,
rules related to bullying, the training of teachers, and the
involvement of parents. (Bradshaw)
• Research has also identified approaches that are not recom-mended,
including zero-tolerance policies, grouping aggressive
youth together, and brief awareness campaigns. (Bradshaw)
• School climate factors that can affect problem behaviors among
students include student-to-teacher ratios and the number of
different students taught by the typical teacher, a sense of com-munity
or belonging in a school, and consistent discipline man-agement
that supports positive school norms. (Gottfredson)
• Recent school violence has led to a spate of new school safety
measures, but these steps can cost millions of dollars and can
deprive schools of resources that could be allocated to anti-bullying
programs and counseling services. (Cornell)
Schools are one important setting in which bullying among youth
occurs. They are also where many of the interventions designed to pre-vent
or ameliorate the effects of bullying are implemented. In the first of
35

six panels on anti-bullying initiatives in specific contexts, three presenters
examined the aspects of schools that can facilitate or prevent bullying and
the key elements of effective school-based programs.
SCHOOL-BASED PREVENTIVE INTERVENTIONS
As indicated in the previous chapter, bullying is a particular form of
aggressive behavior, but it also is part of a broader set of problem behaviors
seen within schools. Programs designed to prevent both bullying and these
other problem behaviors have been studied, and the results can be applied
either narrowly to bullying or else more broadly, observed Catherine
Bradshaw, a professor and the associate dean for research and faculty
development at the University of Virginia Curry School of Education.
Ttofi and Farrington (2011) carried out a meta-analysis of 53 rigorous
evaluations and randomized trials of programs aimed at preventing bully-ing,
two-thirds of which were conducted outside of the United States and
Canada. They found overall a 23 percent decrease in the perpetration of
bullying and a 20 percent decrease in victimization. The most effective ele-ments
of programs that they identified were:
• use of parent training activities, meetings, and information
• high levels of playground supervision
• use of consistent disciplinary methods
• classroom management strategies
• classroom and school-wide rules related to bullying
• training of teachers (including aspects of that training and the
amount of time and intensity of training)
• multicomponent prevention approaches
Some caveats should be noted concerning this meta-analysis, Bradshaw
said. First, the effects generally were stronger in the nonrandomized con-trolled
trial designs. Impacts were also larger among older children, and
the programs generally were more effective in European than in North
American sites.
Some observers, such as Merrell et al. (2008), have argued that there
are relatively few effective universal bullying prevention programs. To
examine this issue, Bradshaw and her colleagues have been looking more
broadly at violence prevention efforts. School-wide efforts that involve all
school staff and are implemented across all school settings show the most
promise in reducing bullying and rejection, she said. For example, a model
called KiVa developed in Finland shares some elements of school-wide
approaches (Salmivalli et al., 2011). It uses a videogame that students can

SCHOOL-BASED INTERVENTIONS 37
use to practice different strategies in resolving bullying situations. That
model is now being studied to determine whether cultural and contextual
changes need to be made to it in order for it to be imported successfully
into the United States, Bradshaw said.
Universal school-wide prevention models that are broadly focused on
violence and disruptive behaviors may also affect bullying, she said. For
example, frameworks based on social–emotional learning have demon-strated
effectiveness in some cases, although not in others. One example of
a successful program is Second Step, which was originally developed for
elementary school but more recently has been extended to middle school;
it has had some promising effects on precursors to bullying behavior.
Similarly, the PATHS (Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies) program
has been shown to affect a wide range of behavioral and mental health
outcomes, Bradshaw said.
Programs that focus on classroom management may also be effective
in reducing problem behaviors, including bullying, Bradshaw said. For
example, studies in Baltimore by Sheppard Kellam and Nick Ialongo have
shown that just 1 year of implementation of a classroom management
strategy called the Good Behavior Game can produce long-term effects
across a range of outcomes, including substance use, violent and aggressive
behaviors, and bullying (Kellam et al., 2011). This research has also found
effects on academic performance, high school completion, and the number
of students who need special education services. “That is one model of
classroom management that we could think about more broadly as it relates
to impacting bullying and other outcomes,” Bradshaw said.
A public health approach to prevention is one way to build a multi-tiered
system of support, Bradshaw said. This approach combines universal
prevention for all students with indicated or intensive intervention for a few
students and selective or targeted interventions for some additional stu-dents.
Research has demonstrated that these approaches can have significant
impacts on the school environment, Bradshaw said, including significant
improvements in school climate and systems changes that are sustainable
over multiple years. For example, data from randomized, controlled tri-als
of a model known as the Positive Behavior Support Framework found
significant reductions of suspensions as well as bullying behavior, she said.
Bradshaw concluded by recommending that bullying prevention pro-grams
contain the following core elements:
• Teacher training
• Activities for students
• Parent activities
• Multi-component programs

• School-wide scope
• Continuum of positive supports
• Data-driven process
Bradshaw also touched on several approaches that are not recom-mended.
One example is a zero-tolerance policy in which students are
automatically suspended for bullying. Another is to group students who
bully together, because that can make their aggression worse rather than
better, she said. Brief assemblies or 1-day awareness campaigns have little
effect in terms of sustained outcomes for youth. Conflict resolution and peer
mediation can be effective for other forms of aggressive behavior but raise
concerns in the context of bullying. Finally, focusing excessively on issues
of mental health and suicide can contribute to contagion processes rather
than addressing the problem directly, Bradshaw said.
In multi-component programs, it is important to provide training to
classroom teachers concerning classroom management and what to do
in bullying situations. “It sounds like a no-brainer,” she said, “but there
are programs that don’t actually provide any training to teachers.” Simi-larly,
while parent engagement is a clear challenge for nearly all schools,
school–home communication about bullying is particularly important in
order to let parents and caregivers know about the strategies and lessons
being taught in school, she said. Multi-component programs are character-ized
by a continuum of responses, so that suspending a student is not the
only option, but rather an array of positively oriented activities exists from
which to choose, Bradshaw said.
In response to a question about the use of conflict-resolution centers
to provide free confidential mediations to people in the community who
need it, including students and teachers, Bradshaw responded that schools
need to have many tools in their toolkits. The same tools used to deal with
conflicts or fights may not be useful in a bullying situation. Many youths
who are victimized by their peers do not want to sit across the table and
talk with their aggressors, even in a well-structured environment. But many
other strategies exist, such as restorative practices where youth can make up
for past transgressions. Systematic research is needed to determine which of
these interventions work best in different circumstances, she said.
In response to a later question about playground supervision and
whether the lack of unstructured play may be inhibiting the development
of conflict-resolution skills, Bradshaw pointed to the importance of youths
learning how to resolve small day-to-day conflicts as practice for larger
conflicts. “That way when it does get big, you have some kind of skill set
to draw upon.” Similarly, social–emotional curricula seek to give students
strategies and skills for learning how to label and regulate their own emo-tions,
she said.

SCHOOL CLIMATE AND BULLYING
Schools are more than the sum of the individuals inhabiting those
schools, said Denise Gottfredson, professor in the Department of Criminal
Justice and Criminology at the University of Maryland. Each school has its
own personality, and that personality influences student outcomes, includ-ing
the amount and nature of bullying in a school.
Gottfredson pointed to research dating back to the 1970s that demon-strated
the importance of three aspects of the school climate in predicting
a variety of problem behaviors among students:
• Student-to-teacher ratio
• School norms
• Consistent discipline (Cook et al., 2010b)
Regarding student-to-teacher ratios, in the 1970s the Safe School Study,
which looked at a national sample of 642 secondary schools, identified
several school climate predictors of victimization, one of which was large
schools (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1985). More recently, Gottfredson
and DiPietro (2011) used data from the National Study of Delinquency Pre-vention
in Schools to try to replicate that finding and also to explore other
measures related to school size. They found that higher student-to-teacher
ratios and a higher number of different students taught by typical teach-ers
increased student victimization, replicating the findings from the Safe
School Study. However, they found that higher overall student enrollment
was related to lower victimization rates, Gottfredson said, suggesting that
it is not the total number of students in a school that matters but the ratio
of students to teachers and the ways that students are organized for instruc-tion.
Similarly, a recent study of 95 elementary schools found that students
in schools with higher student-to-teacher ratios reported greater frequencies
of bully victimization and reduced perceptions of safety (Bradshaw et al.,
2009).
The second factor involves a sense of community or of belonging in a
school, part of which involves a shared belief about acceptable behaviors.
In their study of schools, Gottfredson and DiPietro (2011) found that one
reason why students in schools with higher ratios of students to teachers
experience more victimization is that these schools have less consensus
regarding norms for behavior. Gottfredson’s colleague Allison Payne, using
the National Study Data, further demonstrated the importance of a commu-nal
social organization, in which students and adults know, care about, and
support one another, have common goals and a sense of shared purpose,
and actively contribute and feel personally committed to the school. Payne
found that a communal social organization reduces student delinquency

and that the effects of this factor on delinquency are mediated by student
bonding (Payne et al., 2003). Students in schools with communal social
organizations are more attached to school, and that attachment serves to
inhibit their offending behavior. Similarly, a recent study of nearly 300
schools found that students in schools with high levels of perceived teacher
and school staff support are more willing to seek help for bullying and
aggressive behavior (Eliot et al., 2010).
The third factor Gottfredson highlighted is consistent discipline man-agement
that supports school norms. A study done in the 1990s by the U.S.
Department of Education and the National Institute of Justice found that
consistent discipline management was related to lower levels of student
victimization and delinquency (Gottfredson et al., 2005). That study also
found that a more positive social climate—as measured by organizational
focus, teacher morale, and strong administrator leadership—was related
to lower levels of teacher victimization. A more recent analysis similarly
demonstrated that teacher support and firm and consistent discipline man-agement
are related to lower levels of both bullying and other forms of
victimization (Gregory et al., 2010).
To her discussion of these three factors, Gottfredson added a brief
description of a study undertaken to understand what factors might have
led to the spate of school shootings experienced in the 1990s. This study
sent teams of ethnographers into six different communities that had expe-rienced
lethal school shootings to interview people and to collect records
relevant to the incidents. The study is relevant to bullying because many of
the shooters reported feeling bullied at school, Gottfredson said. The most
relevant finding from this study for purposes of understanding bullying was
that there was a large gulf between youth and adults in these communities
(IOM and NRC, 2003). The study found that the adults had a very poor
understanding of the children’s experiences. The study also found that
shooters reported that they felt they had nowhere to turn, that they were
intensely concerned about their status and protecting themselves, and that
specific warnings had been given and missed. All of this research demon-strates
the importance of meaningful relationships between students and
the adults in a school, Gottfredson said.
Gottfredson summarized the research on the several interventions
to improve the aspects of school climate that she had discussed earlier.
Although the quality of the research on these interventions is generally low
by current standards (e.g., most of the studies were not randomized con-trolled
trials [ERCTs]), these trials nevertheless provide promising results
for reasonable interventions that could be tested more rigorously today,
she said.

Changing School Climates
In the 1980s the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
funded tests of 16 different ideas on how to intervene in schools to prevent
delinquency, with two of these programs focusing on changing aspects of a
school’s climate related to bullying, Gottfredson said. Although the studies
do not meet the standards of rigor used today, they provide promising ideas
that could be revisited and tested more rigorously, she said.
The first program, Project STATUS, reorganized schools using a school
within a school approach (Gottfredson, 1990). The schools used block
scheduling to create a 2-hour block of time that was team-taught by pro-gram
teachers who were especially trained to use more engaging teaching
methods. For at least this portion of the day, students stayed with the same
teachers and with the same group of students in a small environment that
was designed to promote a sense of belonging and cooperation. An evalu-ation
of the program indicated that it was successful in reducing various
forms of problem behavior, including crime, antisocial behavior, and sub-stance
use, Gottfredson said.
The second program, Project PATHE, focused on reorganizing schools
to improve students’ attitudes about school. Schools were reorganized into
teams of staff, students, and community members who worked together
to revise school policies and practices in five different areas (Gottfredson,
1986, 1990). Two of these areas were the discipline policy and school cli-mate.
A discipline policy team focused on developing a referral system for
discipline; developing handbooks that were distributed to students, parents,
and staff; and focusing on consistent enforcement of that discipline policy,
Gottfredson said. The school climate team worked on developing and
implementing a variety of different activities throughout the school year
that engaged students in fun and constructive activities, such as school pride
campaigns and a variety of extracurricular activities. The program placed a
great deal of emphasis on discipline management and a sense of belonging
in the school. In a study involving nine schools over 2 years, evaluations
showed that the program was successful at reducing a number of problem
behaviors, she reported.
In addition to these older programs, several recent efforts, while not
focused exclusively on bullying, have focused on aspects of school climate
that are related to bullying, Gottfredson said. The first is Safe Dates, which
is a dating violence prevention program for middle- and high-school stu-dents.
It includes a 10-session curriculum as well as a theater production
that is put on by the students about how an adolescent victim of dating vio-lence
can seek help, she explained. The program also includes a school-wide
poster contest in which students develop posters about dating violence.
The posters are displayed throughout the school, students vote on the best

poster, and the three best posters win a cash prize. An RCT of the program
in 14 schools found that it was effective for reducing psychological perpe-tration,
sexual violence, and violence perpetrated against a current dating
partner (Foshee et al., 2005).
Finally, Gottfredson said, the Positive Behavior Interventions and Sup-ports
(PBIS) program focuses on improving the school discipline system
by creating a team of school community members who work together to
improve the school over time. The team establishes expectations for positive
behaviors, sets up positive reinforcement systems, and improves the clarity
and consistency of discipline in the school. An RCT studying the school-wide
components of PBIS in 37 schools found improved organizational
health, reduced aggressive behavior, and reduced peer rejection (Bradshaw
et al., 2008).
Research Gaps
Taking into account the research that has been done to date, Gottfredson
pointed to three areas of research that should be considered in the future.
The first, she said, is to combine ideas from earlier and more recent school
climate research in order to design more effective programs. The second is
to rigorously test those programs. And the third is to examine how school
climate influences the effectiveness of individually targeted interventions.
BULLYING AND SCHOOL SAFETY
School policies on bullying are not carried out in a vacuum, observed
Dewey Cornell, a forensic clinical psychologist and the Linda Bunker Pro-fessor
of Education at the University of Virginia Curry School of Education.
The policies are implemented in the context of broader school safety con-cerns
that can be quite pressing and that can impede efforts to implement
bullying prevention programs.
Since the 1990s broad school safety policies have been shaped exten-sively
by fears of school violence, Cornell said. Today, school administra-tors
have to consider building security, school shooting drills, zero-tolerance
practices, and the pressure for high-stakes testing, all of which they see as
competing priorities.
Recent school shootings have brought bullying to national attention
because of a perceived link between bullying and these shootings, which has
provided an important context for bullying prevention programs, Cornell
said. A study of school shootings by the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S.
Department of Education (2002) found that the majority of attackers felt
bullied or persecuted. School shootings have seemingly transformed school
safety and discipline, primarily through the expansion of zero-tolerance

policies to not only firearms but also all sorts of toys and otherwise innocu-ous
behaviors (Cornell, 2006). Today, schools are suspending students for
much less serious behaviors than in the past, raising concerns about pos-sible
discriminatory practices, Cornell said. In general, events such as the
Sandy Hook shootings have exposed people throughout society to terrible
images, thoughts, and fears, which have strongly influenced school prac-tices,
he said. Since those shootings, some schools have rushed to institute
security measures such as bulletproof building entrances, metal detectors,
x-ray screening, cameras, and increased school security personnel, Cornell
said. Other responses that have been discussed include giving teachers fire-arms
training or putting additional locks on doors to keep out intruders
with a gun, Cornell said.
These steps can cost millions of dollars, which can deprive schools of
resources that could be allocated to anti-bullying programs and counseling
services (DeAngelis et al., 2011). “It is a terrible dilemma to have to choose
between security and anti-bullying,” Cornell said. These security measures
also have an impact on school climate, he said. It is unclear how these drills
affect children’s sense of security and their impact on school climate.
Increases in School Safety
The new concern with school safety may be an overreaction, Cornell
said. Homicides in which school-age youths are the victims rarely occur at
school (see Figure 4-1). Instead, he said, most homicides occur in residences
and at other locations, and school violence has actually declined over time.
According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
98 to 99 percent of homicides of school-age children occur outside of
school (CDC, 2014a,b; Modzeleski et al., 2008). But school shootings are
so traumatic that they skew perceptions of school safety and convince the
public and policy makers that there are urgent needs for security measures,
Cornell said.
Overall, school-associated violent deaths—not only among students,
but also staff members and adults as well—have been declining, Cornell
said. One recent study estimated that the average school in the United States
can expect a student homicide about once every 6,000 years (Borum et al.,
2010). School violence has also declined, with aggravated assault, robbery,
and forcible rape dropping substantially since the 1990s, Cornell added.
School policies on bullying need to be disentangled from concerns
about school shootings and school safety, Cornell said. “Those policies
need to be based on the recognized harms associated with bullying, not on
the fear of school shootings,” he said. Instead of thinking about security
as the first line of defense against a school shooting or other serious act

All Homicides
FIGURE 4-1 Homicides at school are a tiny fraction of all homicides of youth ages
5 through 18.
SOURCE: Cornell presentation, 2014. Data from CDC, 2014a,b.
of violence, he said, the focus should be on prevention and mental health
services in schools, threat assessment, and bullying prevention programs.
Almost all of the states have passed legislation related to bullying (see
Chapter 9), but the legislation varies greatly from state to state, Cornell
said. Usually, legislatures direct schools to come up with their own policies
about bullying, sometimes with guidance to address things like defining and
prohibiting bullying and mandating staff reporting for bullying, Cornell
said.
Policy recommendations for schools also exist. For example, he sug-gested
the following guidelines:
• Clarify the definition of bullying for the school community (stu-dents,
staff, parents).
• Detect and intervene to stop bullying, but do not use zero tolerance.1
• Use valid measures to assess bullying.
1 Zero tolerance refers to “a philosophy or policy that mandates the application of predeter-mined
consequences, most often severe and punitive in nature, that are intended to be applied
regardless of the gravity of behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context” (APA
Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008, p. 852).
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1613 1600 1614 1605 1640
1745
1964
1885
1785
1633
14 16 18 23 22 21
32
21 17 17
400
300
200
100
0
2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10
All Homicides
Homicides at School
At School

• Use evidence-based strategies to reduce bullying and intervene with
victims, perpetrators, and bystanders.
• Recognize when bullying is criminal or discriminatory.
School policies also face an array of challenges, Cornell said. First, state
definitions of bullying tend to be very inclusive. They include almost any
form of intentional peer aggression and rarely mention the power imbal-ances
that are featured in most research definitions of bullying. As a result,
he said, the more narrow definitions of bullying used in evidence-based pro-grams
tend not to line up with the definitions of bullying used in schools.
Second, students are often unwilling to report bullying, Cornell said.
A more supportive school climate and change in peer culture could help
with this code of silence, but schools also need more systematic and effec-tive
ways to identify victims, he said, including tip lines, peer nomination
surveys, and active staff monitoring and inquiry.
Third, Cornell said, schools tend to rely on anonymous self-report
surveys, but anonymous surveys cannot be validated against independent
criteria. Furthermore, self-reports depend on student knowledge and under-standing
of the complex concept of bullying (Cornell and Cole, 2011).
Fourth, many bullying prevention programs have little or no scientific
support, Cornell said, so policies need to encourage greater use of evidence-based
programs. Unfortunately, he said, some legislators mistrust the idea
of relying on scientific research rather than on deeply held values, and the
programs most often used in schools often feature motivational speakers
and 1-day programs that are of unknown effectiveness rather than pro-grams
that have been studied by researchers and have empirical support
for their use.
Fifth, bullying and harassment are often confused and used inter-changeably.
Harassment has legal significance, whereas bullying does not,
Cornell noted, and harassment does not require a power imbalance.
The U.S. Department of Education (2013) has made what Cornell
called “excellent recommendations” to address the bullying of students
with disabilities, which can become severe enough to deny such students a
free and appropriate public education. In fact, Cornell suggested that these
recommendations could apply equally well for all students. These recom-mendations
are to:
• Use a comprehensive multi-tiered behavioral framework
• Implement clear policies on bullying
• Collect data on bullying, such as frequency, types, and location
of bullying behavior, and adult and peer responses
• Notify parents or guardians of both the student who was the
target of the bullying behavior and the student who engaged

in the bullying behavior of any report of bullying that directly
relates to their child when bullying occurs
• Address ongoing concerns about a student’s behavior that is not
safe, responsible, or consistent with established school expectations
through specific feedback on behavior, increased adult engagement,
or more focused skills instruction
• Sustain prevention efforts
These recommendations were created partly in response to concerns
about harassment and legal action, but they also reflect lawsuits in which
parents in the community have successfully sued schools for victimization
of their children, Cornell said.
In concluding, Cornell noted that federal protections from bullying
are largely limited and piecemeal. They are concerned with bullying when
it targets someone based on sex, race, color, national origin, or disability
status, he said, but “all students are entitled to protection from unlawful
discrimination and harassment.” The overarching concern should be the
protection of all children and youth from bullying, he concluded.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND OTHER COUNTRIES
During the discussion period, an interesting exchange centered on why
some bullying prevention programs are less effective in the United States
than in other countries, as Bradshaw had mentioned in her presentation.
U.S. schools emphasize testing and high-stakes accountability, Bradshaw
observed, which puts tight constraints on how the schools can spend their
time. She also pointed to cultural differences between societies in the levels
of violence and exposure to violence in the media. Such differences also
exist among U.S. schools, she said. For example, many bullying prevention
programs have been studied in suburban communities rather than in urban
settings, which may influence the effect sizes of the interventions. Students
in urban communities tend not to even use the word “bullying,” and they
may have strong cultural norms against reporting on others, Bradshaw said.
Given this variability, adapting interventions to the particular culture is
critical, Bradshaw said. “We need to work with our community partners to
figure out adaptation that is strategic and appropriate,” she said. “We have
to make sure that we are thinking culturally and contextually about tak-ing
models not only from Europe but even within the United States. What
might work in a suburban community may not work very well in inner-city
Chicago or DC or Baltimore.”
Gottfredson added that another possible explanation for the lesser
effectiveness of bullying prevention programs in the United States is the

quality of the implementation of the programs. When she and her col-leagues
collected information about the number of different programs that
schools are implementing, she said, “we were astounded to see that the
average school is implementing 17 different programs at the same time.
When we looked at the quality indicators, they were very extremely low.
. . . I think that is one possible reason why we see differences in the U.S.”

5
Family-Focused Interventions
• Relatively little research has examined the role of parents and
families on issues related to bullying. (Holt)
• Parents tend to report lower rates of bullying than do children,
partly because children may not tell parents about bullying
experiences. (Holt)
• Youth who are involved in bullying report more mental health
difficulties than their parents think they are experiencing.
(Holt)
• Research is investigating how factors such as family violence,
poor parenting practices, hostility within families, and fam-ily
dynamics that are overprotective or conflict avoidant may
increase the risk of bullying involvement. (Gorman-Smith)
• Although most bullying prevention efforts are school-based,
parent training and involvement are key to the prevention of
bullying and victimization. (Gorman-Smith)
• Some family-based interventions that have focused on reduc-ing
violence and aggression also may decrease bullying.
49
(Gorman-Smith)

Families and parents—including legal guardians and other caregivers—
are critical influences on the health of children and adolescents, includ-ing
influencing their involvement in bullying. Parent perceptions, their
responses to bullying behaviors, and family-level interventions relevant to
bullying are therefore major considerations in bullying prevention.
PARENT ATTITUDES ABOUT AND RESPONSES TO BULLYING
Less is understood about parents’ role in bullying issues than about
the various other bullying-related factors discussed at the workshop, said
Melissa Holt, an assistant professor at the Boston University School of Edu-cation.
Multiple studies have found that parents tend to report lower rates
of bullying than do students, she said. The discrepancies in reporting vary
somewhat based on the type of bullying being assessed and on the gender of
the child, she said, but youth often do not tell their parents about bullying
experiences, even though parents usually think they would.
How do parents respond to bullying problems? It varies, depending on
whether a child is the perpetrator or victim, Holt said. One study found
that only 24 percent of children who bully said that their parents talked
to them about their perpetrating behaviors, while, in sharp contrast, 62
percent of youth who were being bullied said their parents discussed those
victimization experiences with them (Houndoumadi and Pateraki, 2001).
A Dutch study found that among elementary school children who said
their parents knew that bullying was happening, 24 percent reported that
the parents did nothing to try to stop it (Fekkes et al., 2005). Another 37
percent of the students said their parents tried to intervene, with varying
levels of effectiveness; only 17 percent of the children reported that their
victimization decreased as a result. However, Holt said, “when parents
do become involved and provide appropriate support, often the negative
effects of bullying can be diminished,” including thoughts of suicide among
victimized children.
Holt described two of her own studies in this area, with the caveat that
they are basic research and require follow-up work. In the first project,
which focused on 205 fifth graders at 22 schools and their parents, she and
colleagues collected matched datasets to examine bullying perpetration
and victimization; parents’ attitudes, awareness, and responses to bully-ing;
and student versus parent concordance (Holt et al., 2008). Family
characteristics and functioning, including areas such as conflict, support,
and monitoring, were also examined.
Consistent with previous research, youth in this study reported more
bullying involvement than parents thought was occurring, Holt said. For
instance, among the 16 percent of students who reported that they were
being teased, only about two-thirds of the parents correctly believed their

FAMILY-FOCUSED INTERVENTIONS 51
child was being teased, while the other one-third of the parents did not
think their child was being victimized. That is, in 5.5 percent of the cases a
child was being teased and the parent was unaware. Discrepancy rates were
even higher for scenarios where children reported they were bullying other
youth: “In 11 percent of the cases the child said that they perpetrate bully-ing
behaviors, and the parent said ‘No, my child doesn’t,’” Holt explained.
Conversely, parents sometimes reported a problem when the child did not.
For example, in one-third of the cases where students said they were
not being teased, their parents thought they actually were being teased.
When such mismatches in reporting occur, who should one believe?
What is the reality? Holt is not sure. But as she and Gorman-Smith empha-sized
later in the discussion period, what matters more is the child’s view
of the situation, because research indicates that children’s mental health
outcomes are ultimately influenced by their perceptions.
Holt’s study also found that about 37 percent of parents thought that
schools should deal with bullying without parental interference. In addi-tion,
child maltreatment and violence in the home environments were
linked to bullying involvement for both victims and perpetrators, Holt said,
although only according to the self-report data from the children.
A second study by Holt and colleagues compared the views of 480
students in grades 3 to 8 and 159 of the students’ parents on bullying
involvement while also investigating the link to mental health (Holt et al.,
2008). The study design was limited in that it did not collect matched data
sets, Holt said. Again, children reported more bullying than their parents
did across a range of behaviors, from teasing and spreading rumors to
cyberbullying (see Figure 5-1). There was a striking discrepancy in parents’
awareness of cyberbullying, perhaps because “parents are less aware of
what is going on with the children online,” Holt said. Furthermore, many
parents of bullied children were unaware their children had missed school
because of fears of being harassed. Children were more likely to talk to
friends about bullying than to an adult at home, but, importantly, the youth
who reached out to parents or guardians found them helpful in negotiating
effective solutions, Holt said.
To assess mental health, the researchers asked the students to rate them-selves
on emotional function, conduct, hyperactivity, social behavior, and
other areas. Across all these domains, youth who were involved in bullying
“are reporting more associated mental health difficulties than parents feel
their children are experiencing,” Holt said (see Figure 5-2). One unfor-tunate
implication is that parents often are “minimizing their children’s
experiences, which probably leads to fewer interventions and less support,”
she said. The broader research literature on child psychopathology makes it
clear that these sorts of mismatches in reporting occur when children have
behavioral and emotional problems—and that when greater discrepancies

FIGURE 5-1 Children report higher rates of bullying than do their parents.
SOURCE: Holt et al., 2008.
FIGURE 5-2 Children report higher rates of mental health difficulties associated with
bullying than do their parents.
SOURCE: Holt et al., 2008.
Teasing
Rumors
Ignored
Hit
Threatened
Stealing
Sexual
Cyber
Total
Student
Parent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Emotional
Conduct
Hyperactiviy
Peer
Prosocial
Total
Student report
Parent report
25
20
15
10
5
0
Rates of Mental Health Difficulties

exist, children can have worse mental health outcomes. The same might
apply with bullying, Holt said. “When parents don’t understand what is
going on for the kids, the children’s mental health might be compromised.”
In conclusion, Holt emphasized that experts need to encourage parents
to get involved with bullying problems because their engagement is the key
to prevention. She wrapped up by listing six points of advice for parents
concerned about bullying, which she took from an article by Lovegrove et
al. (2013):
• Maintain open communication with children
• Identify warning signs
• Coach children on responses to bullying
• Model kindness and leadership
• Work with the school
• Promote children’s strengths
FAMILIES AS SOURCES OF RISK AND PROTECTION
Deborah Gorman-Smith, professor in the School of Social Service
Administration at the University of Chicago, who studies aggression and
violence in children, pointed out that there currently are no family-focused
intervention programs that are specifically aimed at preventing bullying.
The burden of dealing with bullying has fallen upon schools, she said.
Given that the developmental research literature suggests “family is one of
the most important developmental influences on our behavior,” she argued
for an increased focus on families.
Families play three different types of roles that are relevant to bullying,
Gorman-Smith said: They affect bullying risks directly (What is happening
within the family that increases risk for children to perpetrate or become
victims of bullying?), they influence bullying risks arising from environ-ments
outside the family (How do families help manage the contextual risks
of schools or neighborhoods?), and they can act to protect children from
bullying and encourage them to engage in healthy behaviors.
The relatively little research conducted so far on risks for bullying
that arise from within families has looked at family violence, parenting
practices, and family relationship characteristics—all factors that relate
to the risks for aggression and violence more generally, Gorman-Smith
said. Some research indicates that youth who live in families where there
is intimate partner violence or child abuse and neglect are at significantly
increased risk for engaging in bullying behavior (Smokowski and Kopasz,
2005). Other studies have examined such questionable parenting practices
as harsh discipline and poor monitoring of how children spend their time
and who their friends are as well as such family relationship characteristics

as hostility and conflict, Gorman-Smith said. Even when families monitor
and discipline their children, she added, a lack of emotional warmth and
personal connection within a family “seems to be particularly important
around perpetrating aggression and violence.”
Much less is known about how family characteristics increase the risk
of victimization. Two broad areas that seem relevant for being bullied,
Gorman-Smith said, are families that are overprotective and families that
tend to avoid conflict, “so that children don’t have the opportunity to
learn to manage conflict.” However, it is difficult to disentangle cause from
effect: Is a parent overprotective because the child has been victimized, or
was the child more vulnerable to being victimized as a result of that par-ent’s
overprotection? (Yet another possible factor, sibling aggression, was
talked about briefly during the discussion period. Both Gorman-Smith and
Holt said that there is enough research to suggest that aggression between
siblings may be a risk factor for bullying and victimization in the school
context.)
The overwhelming majority of bullying prevention programs are
school-based, and they sometimes also include parent training, which often
focuses on children as victims or bystanders while, surprisingly, giving
less information on the perpetration of bullying, Gorman-Smith said. In a
systematic meta-analysis of school-based programs, Farrington and Ttofi
(2009) found that parent training was one of the components associated
with the greatest decrease in bullying and victimization. Yet training efforts
for parents were often minimal, Gorman-Smith said: “They mostly con-sisted
of informational handouts or two or three meetings where a speaker
provided information about bullying. A greater focus on parenting and
family might be something that could help us move the dial a bit more.”
What do families need to do? Based on the larger body of research on
family-focused interventions for general aggression and violence, Gorman-
Smith listed a number of protective measures and goals that have been
identified for working with families: nurturing parenting skills; building
stable family relationships with emotional connections, clear communica-tion,
and support; encouraging the supervision and monitoring of children;
increasing parental involvement in schools; and connecting families within
neighborhoods with one another and to greater social support.
Many of these elements form the basis for two family-focused pro-grams
aimed at decreasing the risk for aggression and violence with which
Gorman-Smith has been involved in over the past 15 to 20 years (Multisite
Violence Prevention Project, 2009, 2013; Tolan et al., 2010). “We have
some evidence that these probably have an impact on bullying behaviors
as well,” she said. One program, Schools and Families Educating (SAFE)
Children, focuses on kindergarten and first-grade students. In tracking how
first graders in SAFE fared when they got to high school, Gorman-Smith

found a 50 percent decrease in school reports of serious misconduct includ-ing
bullying, a 33 percent reduction in reports of violence, and a 20 percent
increase in being “on track” for high school graduation.
The other program, GREAT Schools and Families, focuses on high-risk
students in the transition from sixth grade to middle school, including
students who were rated as “socially influential” (Smith et al., 2004). The
researchers have observed lower reported rates of violence not only at the
level of individual students participating in GREAT but also across entire
schools. Other kinds of evidence-based, family-focused interventions have
targeted parenting behavior, the parent–child relationship, and parental
involvement in school, Gorman-Smith said.
Future research questions for exploration include the relationships
between aspects of family risk and different types of bullying and victim-ization;
ethnic, racial, and contextual differences in family risk for bullying
involvement; and the developmental timing of interventions for affecting
bullying behavior, Gorman-Smith said. Another question is whether exist-ing
evidence-based, family-focused interventions have had an impact on
bullying; most of the well-known studies of such interventions are 20 to
30 years old and did not originally include measures of bullying behaviors,
she said.
GETTING FAMILIES INVOLVED
One topic raised during the discussion period was how to get families
more engaged in bullying prevention. Even if experts had effective parent-ing
interventions available and even if policy makers decided to implement
them widely, Gorman-Smith said, “parental involvement in school has been
surprisingly difficult to negotiate.” One problem, she said, is that in schools
in inner-city Chicago and many other places, “parents don’t feel particularly
welcome.” Furthermore, she added, parent participation rates are typically
very low for family-focused interventions.
For the SAFE Children study, Gorman-Smith and her colleagues had to
expend a great deal of effort into regularly going into neighborhoods and
knocking on doors. In a follow-up trial to confirm the effectiveness of their
intervention, they partnered with a local community mental health agency.
“Our biggest challenge was participation,” she said. Most social workers
at schools and staffers at community mental health agencies are trained to
work with people who come in seeking services and assistance. Yet many
people in the communities viewed the prevention outreach as unethical
and intrusive because they were not necessarily asking for help, Gorman-
Smith said. Such outreach work “really does take a personal connection
with people,” she added. “You can’t send a flier home and expect people to
come.” One way that researchers have dealt with this challenge, she said,

is to enlist the help of families who have benefited from the intervention
project to help recruit others into the program.
One sensitive issue about research into the importance of familial
factors in bullying is how the information is presented to parents, said
workshop participant Deborah Temkin of the Robert F. Kennedy Center
for Justice and Human Rights. “This blame element comes in,” she said.
Gorman-Smith responded that it is important to clarify that familial
factors may increase risks in only some cases of bullying involvement, not
the majority of cases. “We are not saying this is true across the board or
that parents are the sole contributors to what is going on,” she said. Holt
suggested framing the broader conversation around “supporting healthy
and positive development” of families rather than preventing bullying or
violence. The idea is that parenting is hard and that parents need more sup-port,
she said, so it is okay for them to seek ideas, information, and help
from other families in managing some of these situations.

6
Technology-Based Interventions
• Youths use technologies for many purposes, including explor-ing
problems; developing their identities; accessing information,
resources, and support; developing networks and communities;
and communicating with peers. (Mishna)
• Cyber interventions may be a safe way for youth to access anti-bullying
resources and help and to disclose incidents. (Mishna)
• Effective interventions in non-bullying fields provide reasons
for optimism that technology-based bullying prevention pro-grams
are feasible and acceptable. (Ybarra)
• Technology-based programs require self-motivation and inter-est
and can be costly. (Ybarra)
Bullying is an age-old behavior, noted Fred Rivara of the University of
Washington School of Medicine in his opening remarks at the workshop.
But the rise of social media and the increasing prevalence of technologies
in children’s lives may present new opportunities to ameliorate bullying.
57

CYBERBULLYING AND CYBER INTERVENTIONS
In many ways cyberbullying is similar to bullying, but there are also
ways in which it is not, said Faye Mishna, dean, professor, and the Margaret
and Wallace McCain Family Chair in Child and Family at the University
of Toronto. The cyberworld has created a new social environment for
youth, she explained. Texting, e-mail, social media, chatting, social media,
YouTube, apps, webcams, blogs, and other means of electronic communi-cation
are always advancing. Today’s youth are increasingly immersed in
technology. Ninety-nine percent have cyber access outside school, and U.S.
youth spend more than 7 hours per day with digital information and com-munications
technologies, Mishna said. Yet when stories about youth and
the cyberworld appear in the media, they are often negative. These stories
then tend to generate punitive laws and policies, such as zero-tolerance
approaches, she said.
The important thing to recognize is that these information and commu-nication
technologies are here to stay, Mishna said. Technology may pose
risks, she said, but it also can have tremendous benefits.
Young people, many of whom have never lived in a world without these
technologies, use them for many purposes, Mishna said. They explore prob-lems;
develop identity; access information, resources, and support; develop
networks and communities; and communicate with peers. These technolo-gies
can be especially helpful to youth lacking offline support, such as
lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) youth or young people who
are isolated or stigmatized, she said. “They might not be able to tell peers.
They might not be able to tell school teachers. They may not be able to
tell parents. [But] they may have an online world that is very supportive.”
Adults may perceive youth as more technically proficient and may
therefore struggle to intervene or mediate their use of information and
communications technologies, Mishna said, but many youth lack the criti-cal
thinking and decision-making skills necessary for always using these
technologies safely and appropriately. Often, young people make right
decisions, but they sometimes slip up—and some of them slip up more than
others, including those youth whom research has shown to be more vulner-able.
“They need adults’ input and guidance,” Mishna said.
Survey Results
Reaching young people, Mishna said, requires understanding what
platforms are being used, how they are being used, and how technologies
and platforms are changing. Mishna has been doing research on cyberbullying
with students in grades 4, 7, and 10. Although the research is still

TECHNOLOGY-BASED INTERVENTIONS 59
under way, she discussed several preliminary observations and findings at
the workshop.
First, the definitions and meanings associated with cyber behavior may
differ considerably between adults and youth. When young people are
asked whether they have been cyberbullied, they often say no, but then they
describe incidents they have experienced that most adults would indeed
consider cyberbullying; instead of “bullying” or “cyberbullying,” the vic-tims
tend to describe these experiences by other names, such as “drama”
or “trash talk.” Even the idea of an aggressor and a victim in cyberbully-ing
is often not clear, Mishna said, because the exchanges are often back
and forth. Also, over time, young people have become desensitized to the
kinds of things they may be pressured to do, such as sending photographs
of themselves electronically to others, she said.
Furthermore, young people often do not disclose cyberbullying to
adults, Mishna said. Often the only times that adults hear about cyber-bullying
are when something bad happens. But it is happening even when
adults are unaware of it, she said. Disclosure can be very difficult, and
opportunities for disclosure may be limited, Mishna said.
As part of the research ethics protocol that Mishna and her colleagues
developed, they had to have a way of identifying young people who were
in distress. They found that about one-quarter of the students in grades 4,
7, and 10 were in “quite serious distress,” she said, which is in line with
the results of surveys of mental health issues in schools and colleges. “What
became very clear is that we were often the first adults they had told about
it,” Mishna said. Many students said they did not want to make a big deal
out of their problems. They may think that telling parents and teachers
will not help or else will worsen the situation. Yet by the time that young
people do tell adults, the situation may indeed have become worse, Mishna
observed.
Opportunities for Intervention
Mishna provided several ideas for improving opportunities for disclo-sure.
One is to make the disclosure mechanism highly accessible and easy
for youth. Giving youth control over the process may also be important,
especially in referring young people for professional help.
Cyber interventions may represent an accessible way to disclose inci-dents
without making it a “big deal,” Mishna said. However, to date,
almost no research has been done on such cyber interventions, she said, and
available initiatives may not be helpful, may not be comprehensive enough,
or may miss the target population. As an example, Mishna cited the It
Gets Better project, which emphasizes that life gets better as bullied youth
grow older. But, Mishna said, this message is not necessarily helpful. First,

many young people cannot wait to deal with an issue until they are adults.
Furthermore, she observed, life does not get better for everyone. And, more
important, some young people interpreted this message to mean that they
could tell someone about a problem when such disclosures were in fact not
safe. “It actually put them at risk,” Mishna said. “So we have to make sure
that we have online campaigns that provide tangible resources to support
struggling youth at the time.”
Cyber interventions may provide a safe way for youth to access
resources and help, Mishna said. Because one-third of youth access health
information online, it is particularly important that this information be
accurate, she said. Sites designed to help youth with certain issues, such
as depression, have been found to be moderately effective, with interac-tive
sites appearing to be the most promising approach, Mishna said. In
addition, research has shown that evidence-informed, school-based inter-ventions
using technology as a learning tool may be somewhat efficacious
in increasing student knowledge. However, she added, these interventions
tended not to change students’ attitudes about cyberbullying, which is why
this strategy needs to be combined with others.
Mishna closed with several recommendations for cyber interventions
based on her own research. Such interventions should be continuous and
not be a single event, she said, and they need to be implemented in con-junction
with other strategies, including traditional therapeutic supports.
Furthermore, cyber interventions need to be tailored to youth with different
needs, she said, and they need to be continually adapted to youth’s changing
patterns of cyber use. Finally, interventions need to be made as accessible
as possible in order to reduce barriers to their use. Research on the efficacy
of existing interventions and how they can be improved to prevent harmful
outcomes could help achieve all of these objectives, she concluded.
INTERVENTIONS IN OTHER AREAS
Few online interventions for bullying prevention are now available, said
Michele Ybarra, president and research director of the Center for Innova-tive
Public Health Research. One of those few is Bully Text, an interven-tion
based on text messaging that invites users to “Stand up to bullying”
(DoSomething.org, 2014). Users sign up to receive messages, which walk
them through a bullying scenario with the intention of creating empathy
and perspective, Ybarra explained. Another campaign at the same site pro-vides
young people with examples of how to reach out to those who are
being bullied in their high schools and to be a useful bystander, Ybarra said.
Ybarra also said that she was working with Dorothy Espelage (whose
presentation was summarized in Chapter 3) to develop a text messaging–
based bullying prevention program. Although in its infancy at the time of

the workshop, it was conceived as a 6-week program, focused mostly on
middle-school students, and based on a social–emotional learning frame-work.
Students would receive three to eight messages a day for 5 weeks
dealing with such topics as empathy, communication, and attitudes, with a
follow-up set of booster messages. “The idea would be to have this lie on
top [of what schools are doing] and make sure that young people are getting
the minimum information that they need,” Ybarra explained.
Ybarra spent most of her presentation talking about examples of work
done with technology in non-bullying fields that have the potential to
inform the development of technology-based bullying prevention programs.
One such application is CyberSenga, an Internet-based HIV-prevention
program for adolescents in Uganda. CyberSenga provides information,
motivation, and behavioral skills related to preventing HIV infection. As
Ybarra said, “Knowing that condoms are effective is one thing, but if you
don’t have motivation to actually use a condom, it is not that useful.” The
intervention was studied through a randomized controlled trial of about
360 young people, half of whom were provided with the intervention
(Ybarra et al., 2013a). At 6 months post-intervention, 80 percent of those
who received the intervention plus a booster intervention had not had sex
in the past 3 months, compared to 57 percent of those who received just
the intervention and 55 percent of those who were in the control group.
Among sexually active youth, those who had sex in the past 3 months and
who received the intervention plus booster were much less likely to report
unprotected sex than youth in the control and intervention-only groups.
These data, Ybarra said, “show that we can move the needle not just in
terms of attitudes, but also in terms of self-reported behavior.”
Another example was a text-messaging smoking cessation program
called StopMySmoking, which was tested in Ankara, Turkey, and in the
United States. It was a 6-week program based on cognitive behavioral
therapy, Ybarra said. During a 2-week pre-quit period, participants received
four to seven messages a day to help them reflect on why they were smok-ing,
when they smoked, and what they could do instead of smoking. The
day that they quit they received 10 messages, she said. “That whole first
week is trying to be there with you in the moment.” The number of mes-sages
then begins to drop, until toward the end of the period people are
more independent and ready to be on their own. If people report that they
did not have a cigarette, they get a reinforcing message, Ybarra said, while
if they say that they slipped, they get a message about getting back on track.
In Turkey, a randomized controlled trial found that 11 percent of
the people in the intervention group quit smoking, compared with only
5 percent of those in the control group, who had just received a brochure
about quitting (Ybarra et al., 2012). Among light smokers, 17 percent in
the intervention quit versus none in the control group, and among women,

14 percent in the intervention group quit versus none in the control group.
This suggests, Ybarra said, that “no one intervention is going to be univer-sal.”
In Turkey, she noted, this program seems to be well suited for women
and light smokers.
In the United States, Ybarra’s group looked at 150 young people
between the ages of 18 and 24 who were randomly assigned either to
the intervention group or to an attention-matched control group whose
members received text messages at the same rate as the intervention group,
but the messages were about fitness and sleep rather than about quitting
smoking. Three months after the designated quit day, 40 percent of the
intervention group had quit, versus 30 percent of the control group (Ybarra
et al., 2013b), and the results were even better for young people who were
not in college, Ybarra said.
Online Health Information
As mentioned by Mishna, many young people look for health infor-mation
online. In a national survey of more than 5,000 youth, adolescents
who were bullied had significantly higher rates of seeking information
online about such topics as medications, depression and suicide, drugs and
alcohol, and violence and abuse (Mitchell et al., 2013). Yet the highest rates
were still just 22 percent.
Online information is important, she concluded, but it should be just
one tool in an overall approach to bullying prevention. Technology-based
programs require self-motivation and interest, and they can be costly. Thus,
Ybarra said, figuring out how to engage youth and keep them coming back
may be critical.
PREVALENCE AND RESPONSES
Two interesting subjects that arose during the discussion sessions were
the prevalence of cyberbullying and the ways in which people respond to
cyberbullying.
Both Ybarra and Mishna observed that cyberbullying appears to be less
prevalent than is commonly assumed. Among adolescents 14 to 18 years
old, cyberbullying occurs at only about one-half the rate of in-person bullying,
Ybarra said, with the rates depending somewhat on the definitions and
perceptions of cyberbullying. These statistics, Mishna said, “speak to the
need to identify the facts and the myths that come up.”
In response to a question about responses from bystanders to bullying,
Mishna observed that because the cyberworld is more impersonal, bystand-ers
have less motivation to intervene. “That is part of the education they

need,” she said. “While they are being witnesses, it actually can make a
big difference for somebody.” Ybarra pointed out that cyberbullying can
seem anonymous, but usually the identity of a perpetrator is known. Still,
the experience is different from standing in front of a target and a group
of people.
Mishna emphasized the need for responses to be short, direct, and
interactive. For example, developing an engaging way to deliver the mes-sage
that bullying is hurtful could have a substantial impact, she said.
Ybarra pointed to the importance of having enough exposure to change
behavior. As noted in many of the presentations, one-shot interventions
do not provide enough exposure. Therefore, Ybarra said, it will be neces-sary
to find ways to motivate young people to return to a website or other
technology platform repeatedly. As Ybarra noted, building an intervention
does not mean that anyone will use it. Young people need to be motivated
to use a technology or communications platform, she said. Schools have
a captive audience, but that is not the case online. She added that it helps
if an intervention is available where youth are online, even if they are in
multiple places that change over time.
In response to a question about the advisability of tracking and moni-toring
software to prevent cyberbullying, Mishna said that a better option
would be for school districts and parents to find ways to have an interaction
so that children and youth can respond to professionals online. The prob-lem
with tracking and monitoring software is that young people will find
other ways to do what they want to do, Mishna said. “We want to open up
the conversation and not close it.” That also means providing information
to adults so that they neither overreact nor minimize the problem.
In Canada, Mishna said, universities are forming taskforces with stu-dents
and professors to identify the issues involving in bullying. “We have
to begin that conversation, but students need to be involved,” she said.

7
Community-Based Interventions
• Most community-based programs are not evidence-based, and
evidence about programs that do work tends not be effectively
communicated to practitioners. (Goldweber)
• Effective community-based programs in areas other than bully-ing
demonstrate the potential for bullying prevention programs
to exert an influence on the lives of youth. (Goldweber)
• Pediatricians and other health care professionals who work
with children can advocate for bullying awareness by teachers,
educational administrators, parents, and children and make the
case for new laws and policies that affect bullying. (Wright)
• Pediatricians can also make valuable contributions of data to
existing surveillance systems and can participate in practice-based
research networks that are studying bullying and other
problem behaviors. (Wright)
Because youths function as members of communities, community-based
interventions can be a particularly effective means of reducing bullying. Yet
community settings can be extremely diverse. Two presenters looked at sev-eral
examples of community-based interventions, including those grounded
65

in health care, as examples of the potential for such programs to change the
norms that exist and to influence youths’ experience of their communities.
EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS
Youth have a four times greater chance of being the victim of violent
crime during after-school hours to when they are in school, and juve-nile
crime triples outside of the school setting and hours (Snyder and
Sickmund, 2006). Because the after-school hours are so relatively danger-ous,
it is particularly important that interventions targeted at this period—
i.e., community-based interventions—be effective and evidence-based, but
most are not (Glasgow et al., 2003; Ringwalt et al., 2009; Saul et al., 2008;
Woolf, 2008), observed Asha Goldweber, a behavioral health researcher in
SRI International’s Center for Education and Human Services. And, she
added, information about programs that do work tend to not be effectively
communicated to practitioners (Kerner and Hall, 2009; Saul et al., 2008).
A notable exception to this observation is the work of Swearer et al.
(2006) on the importance of neighborhood- or community-level collective
efficacy, which Goldweber defined as a neighborhood’s connectedness and
willingness to intervene with regard to youth problem behaviors (Odgers
et al., 2009). Essentially, she said, this makes the entire community a
bystander to bullying. An informal application of this principle, Goldweber
said, is a program in Baltimore called Safe Passages, in which garbage
collectors act as informal monitors as students make their way through
neighborhoods. Another example is a program in California called Home-boy
Industries, which was developed by a pastor for severely at-risk youth
caught in a cycle of recidivism. The idea, captured in the slogan “Jobs, not
jails,” is to provide young adults with skills and training so that they can
break the cycle of crime and delinquency, she explained.
Goldweber described a number of community-based interventions that
are being evaluated using criteria evaluation developed by Blueprints for
Healthy Youth Development, which is one of several sets of criteria for the
evaluation of interventions. According to these criteria, for a program to
be deemed “promising” it must meet a minimum standard for the speci-ficity,
quality, impact, and readiness for dissemination of an intervention.
“Model programs” must meet a set of higher standards, including having
been validated by a minimum of two high-quality randomized controlled
trials or one high-quality randomized controlled trial and one high-quality
quasi-experimental evaluation. In addition, the impact of a model program
must be sustained for a minimum of 1 year after the intervention ends,
Goldweber said.
Because no community-based programs that focus specifically on bully-ing
prevention are in the evaluation phase, Goldweber discussed three other

COMMUNITY-BASED INTERVENTIONS 67
programs for which evaluations are available and which may be applicable
to the development of bullying prevention programs: the Big Brothers and
Big Sisters of America, the Communities That Care, and the Multidimen-sional
Treatment Foster Care programs.
The Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America program matches adult
volunteer mentors with at-risk children with the expectation that a caring
and supportive relationship will develop, Goldweber explained. Multiple
evaluations of the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America program have
been conducted at various locations and among a variety of demographic
groups, she said, although most of these studies have been small and
have lacked methodological rigor. The best study, Goldweber said, which
still does meet quality standards, was conducted by Public/Private Ven-tures
beginning in 1991 (Tierney et al., 1995). Outcomes that have been
examined include a wide range of effects, including delaying initiation of
substance use, academic performance, relationships with family and peers,
self-concept, and social and cultural enrichment. The program has been
shown to cut illicit drug initiation by 46 percent and to reduce alcohol
initiation by 27 percent, although that decrease is only marginally signifi-cant.
Also notable, youth reported that they were less likely to hit someone
at the 1-year follow-up. There were significant reductions in truancy and
cutting class and significant effects on risk and protective factors, includ-ing
improvements in the quality of relationships with parents, marginally
significant improvements for peer emotional support, and positive effects
on schoolwork competency, Goldweber said.
Communities That Care (also described in Chapter 10) is a preven-tion
system that gives communities the tools to address adolescent health
and behavior problems through a focus on empirically identified risk and
protective factors. It encompasses the five steps of getting started, getting
organized, developing a community profile, creating a plan, and implement-ing
and evaluating that plan, Goldweber said.
An evaluation of the program found reductions in self-reported vio-lent
behaviors at the 1-year follow-up (Hawkins et al., 2012), Goldweber
reported. Compared with youth in the comparison group, youth under the
Communities That Care program were 25 percent less likely to have initi-ated
delinquent behavior and 32 and 33 percent less likely to have initiated
alcohol and cigarette use, respectively.
Finally, the Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care program finds
out-of-home placements for youth from the juvenile justice, foster care, and
mental health systems, Goldweber said. According to Kerr et al. (2009), 12
months after baseline, boys in the program were incarcerated for 60 per-cent
fewer days, had fewer subsequent arrests, and exhibited less drug use.
At the same point, girls in the program had fewer days in locked settings,

fewer criminal referrals, lower caregiver-reported delinquency, and more
time spent on homework, Goldweber said.
Community-Based Research
Goldweber also described community-based participatory research,
which brings community members to the table shoulder-to-shoulder with
interventionists and researchers. Among the many factors that affect this
research, she said, are buy-in through relationship building, engaging gate-keepers,
trust, communication, return on investment, capacity, sustainabil-ity,
and cultural response.
An excellent example of such research, Goldweber said, is the
PARTNERS youth violence prevention program (Leff et al., 2010). In this
program, Leff and his colleagues meet community members in the com-munity
instead of in an academic setting, thereby reducing the perception
of a power imbalance. They have informal meetings over a meal so that
they can talk about what both parties’ perceptions are for the goals to be
achieved, and they agree to remain at the table even when disagreements
arise, Goldweber said.
Another example, she said, is the Holistic Life Foundation, which
is a nonprofit organization based in Baltimore, Maryland, that provides
mindfulness-based interventions in an after-school setting. It trains young
adults in the community to become the interventionists. “The kids who are
receiving the intervention are seeing someone who looks like them and that
they may already know from their community,” she said. “This is changing
the cultural or the community climate. It is also invoking that construct of
neighborhood collective efficacy.”
Goldweber said that the most important step is to get all of the stake-holders
together at the table. She also emphasized the importance of meet-ing
people where they are. Instead of having meetings at a university,
practitioners and researchers can have meetings in the community or pro-vide
bus fare and meals for meeting participants.
Community-based participatory research needs to meet certain stan-dards
of effectiveness, such as the Blueprint guidelines, Goldweber said,
but such programs can also balance the demands for systematic imple-mentation
of community-based interventions with being responsive to the
immediate needs of the community. In addition, issues of generalizability
can arise across contexts, because programs developed in one country or
region may not generalize to other countries or regions. Strict monitoring
of the integrity of the intervention’s implementation is necessary to arrive
at a scientifically successful and generalizable program, Goldweber said.
Measures of success can vary across communities. For example, Leff
and his colleagues met with community stakeholders and either worked to

adapt existing measures or to develop new measures that would more accu-rately
represent the community’s experience, Goldweber said. “Researchers
can work with the community to develop new measures that still meet
scientific standards but that are culturally responsive,” she said.
Finally, Goldweber briefly described her work in California on
teacher credentialing initiatives and voluntary accreditation processes for
community-
based organizations that are intended to ensure understanding
of student mental health issues. “It is not that the teachers become student
mental health providers,” she said, “but that they are aware of the signs and
then can appropriately refer students to the necessary stakeholders.” The
idea of voluntary accreditation processes for community-based organiza-tions
might start a conversation about the importance of community-based
research that is also evidence based, she suggested.
ROLES OF HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS
For health care professionals, the issue of bullying has largely been sub-sumed
into the broader issue of violence, said Joseph Wright, a professor
and vice chair in the Department of Pediatrics and a professor of emergency
medicine and health policy at the George Washington University Schools of
Medicine and Public Health. Injury due to violence is a substantial problem
facing pediatricians, pediatricians feel they have an important role to play
in prevention, and parents believe that pediatricians have a central role
to play in prevention, according to surveys conducted by the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). This interest in violence prevention led the
AAP in 2009 to issue a policy statement on the role of the pediatrician in
youth violence prevention (Wright et al., 2009). According to Wright, this
statement was focused largely on bullying as an emerging topic and one
that pediatricians need to be prepared to address no matter in which set-ting
they practice.
The question, Wright said, is, “What is a pediatrician to do?” In his
answer, he focused on two kinds of approaches for pediatricians: awareness
and advocacy at the community level, and anticipatory guidance at the level
of clinical practice.
In the community, Wright said, pediatricians need to advocate for
bullying awareness by teachers, educational administrators, parents, and
children as well as for the role of health care professionals as appropri-ate
public health messengers through print, electronic, or online media.
Pediatricians see children and families repeatedly over time, so they have
repeated opportunities to provide information and increase awareness.
Furthermore, Wright said, pediatricians and others who see the effects of
bullying behavior have many opportunities to make the case for new laws
and policies.

The majority of states still do not require anti-bullying education as
part of the professional development for educators, Wright said. However,
the AAP policy statement recommends that pediatricians have a working
familiarity with Connected Kids, which is the AAP’s primary care violence
prevention protocol. Connected Kids includes provisions for screening,
counseling, appropriate and timely treatment, and referral for violence-related
problems, including bullying (AAP, 2014).
When parents take their children to a pediatrician, they should expect
the children to receive anticipatory guidance from the doctor, Wright said.
The kinds of questions a pediatrician might ask of a child are:
• Have you been in any pushing or shoving fights?
• What happens when you and your friends argue or disagree?
• What do you do for fun?
• What do you like best about school?
• If you see someone being bullied, what do you do?
Such questions are child centered and parent centered, are connected to the
community in which a family lives, and have a primary focus on the physi-cal
safety of children, Wright said. The questions are designed to be open
ended rather than leading to a close-ended response. The emphasis is not
on risk, he explained, but rather on helping the children become strong,
resilient, and healthy and socially oriented.
Research has demonstrated the value of anticipatory guidance, Wright
said. For example, an analysis conducted at the Harborview Injury Pre-vention
Center at the University of Washington with preschool children
found that parental cognitive stimulation and emotional support, which
are provided by reading with children or having meals together, are inde-pendently
and significantly protective against bullying (Zimmerman et al.,
2005). This study also found that each additional hour of daily television
viewing is significantly associated with the development of subsequent bul-lying
behavior. These results are “a promising outcome for the anticipatory
guidance approach,” Wright said.
For middle childhood, brochures are available to both pediatricians and
parents—as part of the Connected Kids curriculum—on independence, drug
abuse, friends, anger, and bullying, Wright said. These brochures provide
pediatricians with a way to address the issue of bullying in the most com-mon
health care setting that children will encounter, which is the office-based
setting, he said.
Finally, Wright pointed out another valuable contribution that pediatri-cians
can make to anti-bullying efforts: They can contribute data to existing
surveillance systems. They can also participate in practice-based research
networks that are studying bullying and other problem behaviors.

Wright also noted, in response to a question about opportunities pre-sented
by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, that the health
care profession, in the context of Medicaid expansion, is working on a
uniform tool for behavioral health screening in the clinical setting. Such a
tool could produce broader compliance with recommendations for early
and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment, he said.
In response to another question, Wright observed that the universal
definition of bullying enables the collection of information that could be
kept in an electronic health record. More uniform reporting and responses
to bullying could help school systems, health care practitioners, and other
groups that interact with children, such as parks and recreation depart-ments,
speak the same language and be on the same page, he said.
THE FOCUS OF PREVENTION
One issue that arose during the discussion session was whether pre-vention
should be issue-specific or general. The moderator of the session,
Angela Diaz of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, said, “The
way that we do prevention tends to be very distinct and issue specific—
pregnancy prevention, sexually transmitted disease prevention, HIV pre-vention,
bullying prevention, and the funding tends to be like that also,
very separate and categorical.” We should consider the benefits of a more
integrated prevention approach, Diaz said, because often the same youth
may get involved in multiple of these behaviors or be at risk for multiple of
these outcomes. In addition, having a more integrated prevention approach
is likely to be more cost effective, she said.
Wright said that a universal approach to prevention has many posi-tive
aspects. For example, the project at the University of Washington,
which encouraged parental cognitive stimulation and emotional support of
children to deal with various potential issues, stressed primary prevention,
not secondary prevention after an issue is present. Goldweber agreed that
early and universal prevention approaches, such as focusing on kindness
or compassion, are needed, along with funding that cuts across outcomes.
Wright agreed with a questioner that pediatricians have limited time
with children and parents. But if anti-bullying interventions were incorpo-rated
as part of a longitudinal approach to prevention, he said, the time
pressures would be less difficult. This approach needs to begin when chil-dren
are young, he said, and then continue as they age.
Diaz also emphasized the “sacred space” of the clinic. “Young people
are willing, if you ask them directly, to share their entire life with you, but
it does not have to be the physician doing this questioning,” she said. “We
have many different members of the team—the nurses, the health educa-tors,
the social workers, and others. . . . We will know the life of the kids,

their strengths and assets as well as what they struggle with, what is really
in their soul. They are willing to put it out there in that type of environ-ment.
I have not necessarily seen such willingness to share in other types
of environments.”

8
Peer-Led and Peer-Focused Programs
• Bullying is not necessarily an emotional reaction but rather an
attack on another youth, and it can be induced by coercion or
contagion of aggressive actions by peers. (Dishion)
• Interventions that support adult involvement, positive rela-tionships,
group management skills, and nonaggressive norms
in schools can have positive effects on problem behaviors.
(Dishion)
• Individual interventions are more likely to be effective and cost
beneficial than group interventions that bring together aggres-sive
Much of what happens among adolescents happens away from adults,
said Jonathan Todres of the Georgia State University College of Law, who
moderated the session on peer-led and peer-focused programs. “They are
experts, in many respects, on their lives and the lives of their peers,” he
said. Two speakers explored the potential of bullying prevention programs
to tap into that expertise.
73
youth. (Dodge)

PEER IMPACT ON CHILD DEVELOPMENT
Youth who exhibit behavior problems as adolescents often have trav-eled
along a developmental trajectory in which parenting contributions and
amplifying mechanisms have led to a cascading series of problems, includ-ing
reactive and proactive antisocial behavior (see Figure 8-1), explained
Thomas Dishion, the director of the Prevention Research Center and a
professor of psychology at Arizona State University. Bullying tends to be a
proactive behavior, he observed. It is not necessarily an emotional reaction,
but rather a planned attack on another youth.
Two microsocial dynamic processes can amplify these problem behav-iors:
coercion and contagion, Dishion explained. Coercion is negative rein-forcement—
or escape conditioning—for peer aggression. “If I escalate and
the person backs down, I am more likely to escalate and be aggressive in the
future,” he said. Contagion is mutual positive reinforcement for antisocial
talk and behavior among peers, which also has been called deviancy train-ing.
For example, Dishion explained, in deviancy training a child might talk
about something deviant, a peer laughs, the child escalates the story, and the
peer further encourages the behavior. After just 30 minutes of videotaped
Early Childhood
Defiance,
Poor Self-Regulation
Academic Deficits,
Peer Rejection, and
Early Peer Clustering
Childhood
Reactive and Proactive
Antisocial Behavior
School Failure and
Deviant Peer Clustering
and Contagion
Family Management, Support,
Structuring, and Monitoring
Peer Environments
Adolescence
Drug Use, Sexual
Promiscuity, Serious
Problem Behaviors
FIGURE 8-1 Parenting contributions and amplifying mechanisms can lead to a
developmental cascade of problem behaviors.
SOURCE: Dishion presentation, 2014.

PEER-LED AND PEER-FOCUSED PROGRAMS 75
observation of such conversations, children are much more likely to per-form
deviant acts, Dishion said. These are normal rather than pathological
behaviors, he emphasized, and developmentally they can happen as early as
kindergarten. “Kids will aggregate on the playground, and they will start to
reward each other for these types of aggressive positions,” he said. “That
clustering will lead to more and more aggressive acts.”
Gang Formation
Recently, Dishion has also been looking at what he called coercive join-ing,
where aggressive youth achieve status by forming a gang. Since at least
the beginning of the 19th century, Dishion noted, gangs have existed in the
United States, and they remain prevalent in many impoverished neighbor-hoods
and cities. Several factors predict gang involvement (Dishion et al.,
2005). For females, these factors include a history of antisocial behavior,
a history of rejection by peers and teachers, and poor grades. For males,
the same factors are involved as well as peer acceptance. “Some of the kids
who we think are potentially problematic are higher social status in the peer
group,” Dishion said. “That might be part of the dynamic that maintains
bullying and aggressive behavior.”
Gang involvement is important in the progression from youths being
aggressive on the playground to being dangerous in the community, Dishion
said. When 16-year-olds are videotaped interacting in the laboratory, they
can be seen talking about victimizing other people, whether members of
the other gender or some other outgroup, he said. They escalate their
aggressive behavior and can exhibit a struggle for dominance in the room.
That dynamic predicts young adult dangerousness, Dishion said, including
assaults, robberies, and violence. Yet the fact that it is occurring at age 16
suggests that at least some of these dynamics are malleable, he said.
In some neighborhoods, aggressors achieve more status by becoming
more dangerous. For example, Djikstra et al. (2010) have shown that in
some neighborhoods in New York, carrying a weapon gives youth greater
status. “This is part of the issue that we need to understand,” Dishion said.
Moderating the Influence of Peers
A number of factors moderate peer influence, Dishion said. Youth with
higher levels of self-regulation and lower impulsivity are less influenced,
for instance, while youth with a history of peer rejection tend to be more
influenced by peer norms. Some young people embrace a false consensus
by perceiving that peers endorse the deviant norms. And adults who skill-fully
monitor or structure peer environments can reduce contagion, Dishion
added. “I like to think of it as adult leadership,” he said. “Having adults

be in a leadership role, taking a stand, and dealing with these minor events
when they are occurring and not letting them escalate is certainly a key to
moderating peer influence.”
Dishion also pointed to several conclusions and promising directions
that emerge from this work. Interventions that support adult involvement,
positive relationships, and group management skills are likely to have posi-tive
effects on problem behavior and also to reduce peer coercion and con-tagion,
he said. Examples include the Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports program, the Good Behavior Game, and the Olweus program.
Mobilizing parents in a way that puts them in a leadership role is also part
of the solution, he said.
Instilling nonaggressive norms in the context of schools is likely to have
positive effects, Dishion said. Norms are important, as is leadership about
the kinds of norms that are guiding interactions in a school or neighbor-hood,
he added.
Finally, more attention needs to be paid to preventing the self-organization
of youth into groups that promote aggression and victimiza-tion,
Dishion said, and these interventions need to start in childhood. “The
development of identity around a gang is very difficult to reduce or treat
once it has happened,” he said. “But prevention is certainly possible, and
there is some evidence to suggest that even family-based interventions can
reduce the involvement of gangs in early adolescence.”
PEER INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
Kenneth Dodge, the William McDougall Professor of Public Policy
and director of the Center for Child and Family Policy at Duke University,
discussed two approaches to the prevention of bullying. The first is to build
social competencies within the aggressor. This can be done one-on-one with
an adult trainer and the individual child, it can be done in groups in which
the bullying child is interacting with non-aggressive peers, or it can be done
in groups of other aggressors, Dodge said.
The techniques to help a child build social skills that will help that child
refrain from bullying and aggression have improved dramatically in recent
decades (Dodge and Sherrill, 2006). Interventions that have proven effective
include cognitive behavioral therapies, cognitive behavioral skills building,
social skills building, and social problem-solving training, Dodge said.
However, most policies are not directed toward individual skill build-ing,
Dodge said. Instead, the most common way to deal with an aggressive
or deviant child is to place that child with other deviant peers in systematic
interventions. For example, group therapies or milieu therapies are common
in mental health and account for more than one-half of the expenditures in
the mental health arena for aggressive behavior, Dodge said. In the area of

education, he noted, a variety of interventions—tracking, special education,
in-school suspensions, and alternative schools—place children with similar
issues together. And the juvenile justice system places delinquents in training
schools and boot camps and incarcerates them, with group-based interven-tions
accounting for more than 90 percent of juvenile justice expenditures,
Dodge said. “It is our most common public policy for dealing with aggres-sion
and bullying,” he said.
Among the rationales for peer group interventions are that they are
less costly, they afford role playing and practice, they enable manipulation
of peer group reinforcement, and they help youth feel comfortable, Dodge
said. However, Lipsey (2006) found that, on average, group interven-tions
are one-third less effective than individual interventions. Furthermore,
many group interventions yield net adverse effects. About 42 percent of
the prevention programs that Lipsey studied yielded net adverse effects, as
did 22 percent of the probation programs in that study. As a result, Lipsey
concluded that individual interventions are more effective and cost benefi-cial,
Dodge said.
This conclusion, which was based on a comparison of different inter-ventions,
was supported by an experimental test using an intervention
called Coping Power, which is a social-cognitive skill building interven-tion
for 8- to 14-year-old aggressive children. The experiment compared
the effectiveness of the intervention administered to individuals versus the
intervention administered to groups, Dodge explained. In the study of 360
aggressive fourth-grade children in 20 different schools who were randomly
assigned at the school level to receive Coping Power either individually or in
deviant-only groups, the findings were somewhat mixed immediately after
treatment (Lochman et al., 2013). There was some tendency for homogeni-zation,
with the most aggressive children becoming less aggressive and the
least aggressive children becoming more aggressive. However, at the 1-year
follow-up, the children who received the individualized intervention had
much greater reductions in externalizing and internalizing problems than
did the children who received the group intervention.
For situations where it is not possible to administer the intervention
individually, Dodge said, strategies exist to mitigate the iatrogenic effects—
that is, the negative effects on individuals caused by the treatment itself—
from being part of deviant peer groups. Strong training for experienced
adult group leaders, the use of behavioral reinforcement strategies, teaching
strategies that emphasize clear instructions, and emphasizing a peer-culture
norm of non-deviance can all reduce the negative influences of peers, Dodge
said. Other approaches are to limit unstructured time with peers, to moni-tor
hot spots where peers congregate, to limit the interaction opportunities
of the peer group members by mixing children from different schools or
communities, and using short-duration interventions, he said.

Changing the Peer Culture
The second approach Dodge discussed was working with the peer envi-ronment
and culture to reduce the reinforcement of bullying. Two promis-ing
approaches are the Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS)
program (Waasdorp et al., 2012) and the Supporting Early Adolescent
Learning and Social Success (SEALS) model (Farmer et al., 2013).
SEALS is a teacher-training and directed-consultation model that helps
teachers with managing social dynamics, enhancing academic engagement,
and improving classroom behavior management, Dodge explained. In a
trial in 28 middle schools randomly assigned to receive either the SEALS
teacher training intervention or a control, teachers trained in the SEALS
intervention were more accurate at understanding peer affiliations and
became better managers of the classroom (Farmer et al., 2013). Their
students made greater academic achievement gains and reported valuing
school more and feeling a greater sense of belonging in the school. Students
also perceived a more supportive school and peer context and interacted
more with more normative peers rather than just academic peers. The
researchers have not yet reported whether the intervention reduced bullying
or aggression, Dodge said.
Research Conclusions
Dodge provided four conclusions that he drew from his review of the
research. First, programs, placements, and treatments that bring devi-ant
peers together should be avoided whenever possible, he said. Such
strategies include training schools, boot camps, Scared Straight, Guided
Group Interaction, the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program,
midnight basketball, hangouts, non-structured after-school programs, and
long prison terms mandated by three strikes laws. Highly structured after-school
programs may be effective, he said, depending on who is in those
groups.
His second conclusion was that effective alternatives to deviant peer-group
placement should be encouraged. Examples of such alternatives
include individual therapies such as functional family therapy, multi-systemic
therapy, and multidimensional treatment foster care; therapeutic
courts; early prevention programs such as the High/Scope Perry Preschool,
and Fast Track; programs that combine high-risk and low-risk youths
such as 4-H, school-based extracurricular activities, boys and girls clubs,
scouting, and church activities; and universal peer-culture interventions
like PBIS and SEALS. For older youth, Job Corps, individual skills train-ing,
and efforts to disperse rather than increase gang cohesiveness are good
approaches, Dodge said.

When placement with peers is inevitable, specific measures should be
implemented to minimize its impact, Dodge said. Highly susceptible youths,
such as slightly delinquent early adolescents, should not be placed with
deviant youths, and deviant youths with older, more deviant peers or peers
with similar problems from the same community should not be combined.
Experienced leaders are needed and should have training, Dodge said, and
youths need to be placed in highly structured environments with little free
time. It is possible to reduce problems by monitoring youths’ behavior
closely and keeping their placements short, he said.
Finally, practitioners, programs, and policy makers should document
placements and evaluate the impacts of those placements, Dodge said. The
record needs to include a description of the placement environment and of
peers, he added.
Structuring School Systems and Classrooms
One interesting application of engineering a positive peer culture, which
came up in the discussion session, involved the structure of middle schools.
Sixth graders who go to an elementary school have less drug use, fewer
school suspensions, less deviant behavior, and higher academic test scores
than sixth graders who spend their time with seventh and eighth graders,
Dodge said. And, most important, those effects hold not only while the
children are in sixth grade but into high school. “There is something about
the way we engineer schools that we might rethink,” he said.
During the discussion period, Dodge also addressed the issue of the
extent to which adverse peer influences can be offset by positive peer influ-ences.
“Imagine you are the superintendent of a school system,” he said.
“Twenty percent of your children are deviant. Where do you place them?
Are you going to have a net overall positive effect by sending them off to
an alternative school or tracking them, even though it might have a negative
effect on them? Is it going to have a positive effect on the other 80 percent
who do not have to deal with them? After all, these placements are directed
by parents of the non-deviant kids who do not want deviant kids with
their well-behaving child.” Dodge has been involved in research that has
indicated the existence of a critical mass effect. If a class includes no more
than three elementary or early middle-school children who were suspended
in the previous year, he said, then those children typically have a minimal
impact on their classmates. But once the number exceeds a critical mass,
the deviant peer influence seems to outweigh the positive peer influence.
“There may be ways to engineer the whole system to maximize the positive
influence and minimize the deviant peer influence,” Dodge said.

YOUTH LEADERS
Another topic that arose during the discussion period was the influence
of youth leaders on their peers. Group interactions, Dishion said, can have
many effects, some positive and some negative. Youth who have turned
their lives around can be especially effective leaders, but they also can have
relapses and continued problems. “There is a danger there as well,” he said.
“You cannot emphasize enough structuring these environments so that you
really have a handle on them.”
Dodge pointed to empirical evidence that aggressive children are, by
and large, disliked by the larger peer group in kindergarten, first grade, and
second grade, but by middle school the aggressive child is more popular, at
least in some contexts. In this case, he said, “one might think about how to
get those deviant peer-group leaders who have influence to use their influ-ence
in a positive way rather than a negative way.”
Dishion also reminded the workshop participants of the success dem-onstrated
by programs such as Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America
(see Chapter 7), which provide children and adolescents with positive role
models.
On the topic of peer leaders, Catherine Bradshaw of the University of
Virginia Curry School of Education noted another sort of challenge—that
the youth who are volunteering for leadership roles may not be particularly
influential in their peer groups. Sometimes they have a history of victimiza-tion
or are from a marginalized group, she said, although they can achieve
more status as they get older.

9
Laws and Public Policies
• As of 2014, 49 states and the District of Columbia have enacted
anti-bullying laws, whose key components range widely. But little
is known about the extent to which the laws and their imple-mentation
actually decrease bullying behaviors. (Hatzenbuehler)
• One Oregon study suggests that “inclusive” anti-bullying
policies—
those that specifically include sexual orientation as a
protected-class status—reduce the risk of suicide attempts and
peer victimization in gay teenagers. (Hatzenbuehler)
• Student-on-student bullying victimization can be perceived as
imposing a learning disability on the targeted children because
victimization creates barriers to their education. (Abrams)
• Schools face strong disincentives against enforcing state-mandated
anti-bullying laws, including the risk of costly law-suits
brought by bullies and their parents claiming infringement
of First Amendment speech rights. But, unlike speech, physi-cal
assaults and true threats are not protected under the law.
• Existing law puts school districts in a strong legal position to
impose discipline in student-on-student bullying cases, but dis-tricts
seeking to protect targeted students must defend lawsuits
81
(Abrams)
that might arise. (Abrams)

As student-on-student bullying has received greater attention in recent
years, state legislatures have responded. Forty-nine states and the District of
Columbia now have laws against bullying. Evaluation is critical for under-standing
a law’s impact, how it ends up being enforced, and any unintended
consequences of enforcement. Two speakers provided an overview of anti-bullying
laws and policies, including how attempts to prohibit bullying fit
within a broader legal framework that addresses children’s issues.
MANY ANTI-BULLYING LAWS EXIST, BUT ARE THEY EFFECTIVE?
The United States has seen a rapid proliferation of anti-bullying laws,
with state legislatures enacting or amending more than 120 bills on bully-ing
and related behaviors between 1999 and 2010. As of 2014, 49 out of
50 states have laws to prevent bullying, said Mark Hatzenbuehler, assis-tant
professor of sociomedical sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman
School of Public Health. The lone exception is Montana, which does,
however, have an anti-bullying policy, he said.
Scholars have developed conceptual frameworks for understanding
the content and scope of laws and policies that target bullying behaviors
(Limber and Small, 2003; Srabstein et al., 2008; U.S. Department of Educa-tion,
2011). In a 2011 report, the U.S. Department of Education developed
a comprehensive framework to evaluate anti-bullying laws and policies
in 46 states. The report identified 16 key components found in the exist-ing
laws, such as a definition of what bullying is; a list or “enumeration”
of the specific groups of individuals to be protected from bullying; and
requirements for communicating the law or policy to school administrators,
teachers, and students. Some key components were more common than
others. For example, 43 states included descriptions of bullying behaviors
that are prohibited, but only 17 states enumerated protected groups. About
one-third of states included at least 13 to 16 of the components, noted
Hatzenbuehler.
The vast majority of research on anti-bullying legislation has focused
on legal content analyses, Hatzenbuehler said, but “we know very little
about the extent to which these policies are actually effective in meet-ing
their stated goal.” He and Katherine Keyes of Columbia University
conducted one of the first empirical studies to look at the effectiveness of
these policies (Hatzenbuehler and Keyes, 2013). They investigated whether
having an “inclusive” anti-bullying policy—one that specifically includes
sexual orientation as a protected class—reduced suicide risk and peer vic-timization
(being aggressively targeted by other children) in lesbian and gay
youth. Focusing on 34 counties in Oregon that had anti-bullying policies,
the researchers examined 197 school districts to determine whether those
policies at the district level included sexual orientation as a protected-class

LAWS AND PUBLIC POLICIES 83
status. In only 15 percent of the Oregon counties did all their school dis-tricts
have inclusive anti-bullying policies, Hatzenbuehler said.
The researchers linked these findings on anti-bullying policies to health
and sexual orientation data collected through an annual survey of 11th-grade
public school students in Oregon, including 301 lesbian and gay
youth. Counties were divided into three categories ranging from “least
inclusive” to “most inclusive” based on the proportion of their school dis-tricts
with anti-bullying policies that included sexual orientation. Results
showed that around 31 percent of lesbian and gay youth living in the least
inclusive counties had attempted suicide in the past year—twice as many
as the 16 percent of gay and lesbian teens who attempted suicide in the
most inclusive counties (see Figure 9-1). “We find that policies that do
not include sexual orientation as a protected class are not protective of
lesbian and gay youth in terms of reducing the risk of suicide attempts,”
Hatzenbuehler said. Inclusive anti-bullying policies were also associated
with a reduced risk for peer victimization for all youth, not just gay and
lesbian youth.
Hatzenbuehler noted that research on the effect of anti-bullying policies
is consistent with other studies that document the impact that public poli-cies
have on health and behavioral outcomes (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009,
2010, 2012). Hatzenbuehler suggested that this is noteworthy in that it
offers precedence for considering laws and public policies as one of a num-ber
of effective strategies that can be used to improve the health and well-being
of young people. However, much more research is needed to study the
actual effectiveness of policies in reducing bullying behaviors to establish
Low Medium High
Past-Year Suicide Attempts
30
25
20
15
10
5
FIGURE 9-1 Counties in Oregon with more inclusive anti-bullying policies have
the lowest risk of suicide attempts among lesbian and gay youths.
SOURCE: Hatzenbuehler and Keyes, 2013.

best practices for policy makers and school administrators, Hatzenbuehler
said, including stronger methodologies for establishing cause-and-effect
linkages. It is often unethical to conduct randomized controlled trials that
would assign individuals to live in environments with or without an anti-bullying
policy, he noted, but longitudinal and quasi-experimental studies
can be used instead. Researchers can also take advantage of the heterogene-ity
in anti-bullying laws to see whether states with the more comprehensive
policies have more success in reducing bullying.
If anti-bullying policies are in fact protective, Hatzenbuehler added,
then experts should be studying why they work (by examining mediating
factors) and for which groups of people they are most effective (by testing
moderators). For example, reducing peer victimization appeared to be one
of the mediating factors in Hatzenbuehler and Keyes’ study. More studies
are also necessary to understand the effects of putting anti-bullying laws
into practice on the ground, he said. Qualitative and ethnographic studies
in schools with administrators, teachers, parents, and youth could help
identify barriers and facilitators in implementation, he added.
To start to address some of these critical gaps, Marizen Ramirez of
the University of Iowa is conducting a longitudinal study to evaluate the
implementation and outcomes of anti-bullying legislation in her state.
Hatzenbuehler and Ramirez are also analyzing the legal content of anti-bullying
legislation in several key U.S. regions and linking those findings to
Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance data to see whether stronger laws against
bullying are more effective in reducing bullying behaviors.
HOW THE LAW BOTH HELPS AND HINDERS THE
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM BULLYING
To further describe the legal framework for anti-bullying regulations,
Douglas E. Abrams, a professor at the University of Missouri School of
Law, discussed the private and public system that protects children. The
pediatric safety system has parents at the top of the hierarchy and works its
way down through the public schools, law enforcement, juvenile and family
courts, and state mental health agencies (Abrams, 2009). Abrams focused
his remarks primarily on the public school system, because, he said, most
aggressors know their victims through attending school and do not foresee
that anyone but classmates will pay much attention.
Abrams highlighted the three P’s of school anti-bullying efforts: per-ceptions,
prevention, and potential legal constraints. Public policy often
depends on perceptions, he said. Bullying victimization can be perceived as
imposing a learning disability on child victims, he said, because it creates
barriers to education similar to those identified by the Individuals with Dis-abilities
Education Act (IDEA) (Abrams, 2012, 2013). “Bullying victimiza-

tion jeopardizes the state’s obligation to provide a free public education to
all children,” he added. The IDEA recognizes disabilities that arise from
external circumstances that are very similar to bullying victimization: “Stu-dents
cannot learn effectively when they are scared stiff in school,” Abrams
said. Such a perception of bullying’s effects could motivate legislatures to
act effectively; even though 49 states have anti-bullying laws, amendments
are still necessary to ensure that policies work effectively, he said.
Legal Constraints
Turning to potential constraints, Abrams cautioned that when it comes
to bullying, “we need to be wary of legal solutions, which are often not use-ful
solutions at all.” States cannot prosecute, adjudicate, or discipline their
way out of the bullying problem, he said, because “there is just too much
bullying going on.” Prosecution and juvenile court adjudication are reactive
measures invoked only after somebody is already hurt. Public authorities
serve children best when they can modify behavior in a preventive mode
without turning to formal processes except in the most serious cases, he said.
Abrams offered three conclusions on potential legal constraints. First,
he said, “the law can sometimes present major challenges to protecting
bullied children.” Schools may face strong professional and financial dis-incentives
against enforcing state anti-bullying laws. Second, when bully
perpetrators or their parents file lawsuits, they typically assert constitu-tional
rights or other legal rights. Third, existing law puts school districts
in a potentially strong position if they present a good case on the facts in
student-on-student bullying cases, he said, but lawsuits will occur and vic-tory
is not assured.
All enforcement of state anti-bullying laws is ultimately local and
depends on teachers, administrators, and others in the school building,
Abrams explained. For one thing, statewide anti-bullying laws are almost
always unfunded mandates, he said, so the question becomes, Who pays
for implementation and enforcement? To conform with state anti-bullying
laws, cash-strapped school districts have to pay to hire and train faculty,
Abrams said, but he added that he nonetheless thinks that such endeav-ors
can be cost effective. The greatest cost that school districts must bear
related to anti-bullying efforts is defending against the litigation that can
arise in reaction to those efforts, he said. It is not always easy for courts to
determine who did what to whom, which means that judges tend to have a
great deal of discretion in deciding such lawsuits. As a result, Abrams said,
teachers and administrators may find that “sometimes the path of least
resistance is to turn their backs on student misconduct.”
Concerning the legal authority to implement anti-bullying efforts,
Abrams said that public schools are in a potentially strong position. In

the court’s eyes, he said, schools are “special places” when it comes to
discipline: The constitutional rights of elementary and secondary students
inside public schools are less than their constitutional rights outside school
because courts must weigh the need to protect students in school.
The seminal decision regarding students’ constitutional rights in school,
Abrams said, was from the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District in which the plaintiffs wore black armbands to
school to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court held that a school
may discipline students for speech that “materially or substantially dis-rupts
school activities” or that creates a “collision with the rights of other
students to be secure and to be let alone,” Abrams explained. Another
relevant decision, Bethel School District v. Fraser in 1986, involved a high
school student who delivered a lewd speech in a school assembly program
and later filed suit claiming that his resulting suspension violated his First
Amendment speech rights. The Supreme Court held, Abrams said, that
schools may regulate student speech to teach “the shared values of a civi-lized
social order” and fundamental values, which include consideration
of “the sensibilities of fellow students” and “the boundaries of socially
appropriate behavior.”
Many cases of bullying, including cyberbullying, also involve physical
assaults, Abrams noted, and these are not protected under the law. The First
Amendment does not protect true threats of violence, even verbal ones.
Assaults, Abrams explained, may include pushing, shoving, spitting, and
throwing a pencil at someone.
Anti-bullying legislation cannot protect school districts from lawsuits,
Abrams said, but schools can prevail if they present the right kind of evi-dence.
He emphasized that anti-bullying legislation and policies are not
particularly valuable if schools are reluctant to exercise their disciplinary
authority. School districts must be willing to fight lawsuits to protect stu-dents,
he said.
Although 49 states have anti-bullying laws, some legislatures still have
much work to do in the arena of cyberbullying, Abrams said. Most states
require school districts to have policies banning cyberbullying, for example,
but these statutes typically apply only to discipline imposed for what a
child does in the school building, on school grounds, or on a school bus or
school-sponsored trip. However, Abrams said, almost all cyberbullying is
done off campus. Still, many perpetrators of cyberbullying eventually end
up committing physical assaults, so schools may discipline them for those
actions, he said.

LEGAL RESPONSES TO BULLYING
During the discussion period, one questioner asked how attorneys can
work with schools to encourage the implementation of new anti-bullying
policies. Abrams suggested that lawyers can assure that procedures for
handling
bullying situations meet constitutional and nonconstitutional
guidelines and that administrators carefully document their actions against
bully perpetrators. In addition, he said that while school districts gener-ally
tend to lose many student free-speech cases outside the bullying area,
courts do not actually require much evidence to establish that a disruption
in school has been material and substantial. “If two students fight or assault
one another in a classroom, that is Tinker-type disruption, which ought to
win for the school district if the perpetrator can be identified,” he said. If
lawyers put on a good case, showing how much time teachers and schools
spend dealing with animosities arising from bullying and how hurtful bul-lying
is to students, he said, “I think the judges would be receptive.” How-ever,
he added, school districts often fail to put on a proper case.
Jonathan Todres of Georgia State University College of Law asked if it
is possible to address social harms such as bullying in ways that incentiv-ize
positive behavior rather than just punish bad behavior. Hatzenbuehler
replied that anti-bullying policies that enumerate specific protected groups
encourage better behavior by fostering more diverse, inclusive environ-ments
in schools. Researchers do not have a good handle on which types
of policies—punitive versus positive reinforcement—are better at deterring
bullying; that is an empirical question that needs examination, he said.
Dorothy Espelage of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
asked the speakers what advice they could give for parents who call in
saying that their child is being chronically victimized, beyond telling them
to document everything carefully or to move their child out of the school?
Espelage noted that in a number of cases where bullied children committed
suicide, parents sued school districts and lost; the districts had hired psy-chologists
who testified that the child’s suicide was due to having depression
and not due to any harassment by bullies or negligence by the schools.
Abrams replied that it is hard to know what to tell parents, especially
because it is not always clear to school administrators and teachers what
the appropriate remedy is in a particular case. Parents may have to choose
from among some bad alternatives to try to make a victimized child’s life
better, Abrams said. Hatzenbuehler added that judges in some cases involv-ing
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth have been open to hearing
social science research data on how bullying can affect these teens. Abrams
also noted that federal civil rights statutes might apply if the bullying victim
was targeted because of religion, race or ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Part III
Future Directions and Overall Themes

10
Translating Bullying Research
into Policy and Practice
• The adoption, implementation, sustainability, and scalability
of an intervention receive much less study than efficacy, yet
these are the factors that will determine whether an evidence-based
intervention has a large-scale impact on a population.
• Even when implementing an evidence-based program, the fidel-ity
of implementation varies greatly. (Rohrbach)
• Interventions designed to achieve multiple outcomes can pro-duce
both immediate and long-term positive outcomes, but
monitoring and feedback to practitioners are needed to ensure
fidelity of implementation. (Fagan)
As Denise Gottfredson, University of Maryland, said in introducing
the panel on translating bullying research into policy and practice, devel-oping
effective interventions is just the first step in achieving high-quality
implementation of effective practices on a large enough scale that they can
make a substantial difference. Research on efficacy needs to be translated
into effective policies and practices, as the three presenters on the panel
observed. Although their talks were not necessarily specific to bullying
prevention, by drawing more broadly from what has been learned about
91
(Rohrbach)

sustainability and high-quality implementation of prevention practices in
general, their observations can be applied to bullying prevention.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PREVENTION PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS
Research on interventions has a characteristic lifecycle (see Figure 10-1),
noted Luanne Rohrbach, associate professor of preventive medicine and
director of the Master of Public Health program at the University of South-ern
California Keck School of Medicine. The initial stages of this lifecycle—
pre-intervention studies, efficacy studies, and effectiveness studies—tend to
receive considerable resources and emphasis, she said, while studies of the
adoption, implementation, sustainability, and scalability of an intervention
tend to receive much less attention. Yet, she said, these latter factors are
the ones that will determine whether an evidence-based intervention has a
large-scale impact on a population.
Prevention
Research
Cycle
Going to scale
Sustainability
Implementation
Adoption
Pre-adoption
Effectiveness
Studies Translation (T2)
(Dissemination and Implementation)
FIGURE 10-1 Prevention research tends to focus on efficacy and effectiveness, but
dissemination and implementation are the steps that have the greatest impact on
populations.
SOURCE: Rohrbach presentation, 2014. Data from NRC and IOM, 2009, and
Spoth et al., 2013.
Population
Impact
Translational
Research
Feedback Loop
Efficacy
Studies
Pre-intervention
(Epidemiology/etiology)

TRANSLATING BULLYING RESEARCH INTO POLICY AND PRACTICE 93
Efficacy has been established for an increasing number of empirically
validated prevention interventions, Rohrbach said, but less is known about
the effectiveness of these interventions when implemented under real-world
conditions. In addition, reviews of evidence-based programs are available,
best-practice guidelines have been published, and local communities are
encouraged to implement only these “proven programs,” yet a gap persists,
she said, between the development and testing of interventions and the
implementation of those interventions.
As an example of this gap, Rohrbach briefly described a study by
Ringwalt et al. (2009) that asked middle schools about their use of
evidence-
based programs for substance use prevention. The percentage
of the schools that reported using an evidence-based program grew from
less than 35 percent in 1999 to about 42 percent in 2005, but a greater
increase had been expected over that period because of the implementation
of a new policy that gave schools guidance in using proven programs when
applying for funds for substance use prevention programs.
Challenges in Implementing Prevention Programs
As discussed by previous presenters, schools face many challenges in
implementing prevention programs, including a focus on academic achieve-ment,
limited time and resources, school reform measures, staff turnover,
and a limited capability to monitor implementation and collect outcome
data. Schools also have complex decision-making processes that are used
to determine which interventions will be implemented and how, Rohrbach
said, and the decisions have stakeholders at many levels. Furthermore,
many schools have inadequate access to tools for decision making about
prevention. Finally, Rohrbach said, schools have inequitable resources and
limited funding for sustained prevention efforts.
Rohrbach and other researchers have examined the factors that influ-ence
the adoption and use of evidence-based programs in schools, and those
factors can be divided into three categories, Rohrbach said: program-related
factors, organizational factors, and the characteristics of implementers
(Rohrbach and Dyal, in press; Rohrbach et al., 2006).
The first category, she said, includes factors related to the program
itself. Is it attractive and user-friendly, easy to use, and flexible? Are
the methods familiar? Do they offer a perceived advantage over cur-rent
practice?
Does a program fit with an organization’s goals and work
practices?
The second category includes organizational factors, including leader-ship,
administrative support, the presence of program champions, a positive
school climate, organizational norms, effective communication, openness to
change, and existing capacity, Rohrbach said.

The third category includes the characteristics of the implementer.
Those who are motivated, have a positive attitude toward the program, are
comfortable with the approach, have the skills to implement the program,
and have a strong sense of self-efficacy are more likely to adopt and imple-ment
a new evidence-based prevention program than those without those
characteristics, Rohrbach said.
Several frameworks have been published that bring these categories
together, Rohrbach said. One such framework includes barriers and facili-tators
at multiple levels of influence (see Figure 10-2). Complex interac-tions
occur among the factors at the various levels that influence whether
the implementation will be effective, Rohrbach said. The framework also
emphasizes the importance of infrastructure and the capacity for preven-tion
program delivery, she noted. For example, the training of implementers
and other school personnel is extremely important. It can result in greater
self-efficacy and confidence, a higher level of skill, more motivation, and
more positive attitudes toward the program. There is clear evidence that
training is associated with stronger implementation fidelity. Some evidence
Systems Framework for Effective
• Funding Program Implementation
• Policy
• Climate Community Context
Provider Factors
Evidence-Based Program Factors
+ Prevention Support
Effective
Prevention Delivery
System
System
IMPLEMENTATION
FIGURE 10-2 Effective implementation is a product of multiple interactions among
programs, providers, and the community.
SOURCE: Rohrbach presentation, 2014. Data from Durlak and DuPre, 2008.

also suggests that ongoing training, or technical assistance, enhances imple-mentation,
Rohrbach said.
Organizational capacity, which is part of the delivery system, includes
resources (e.g., funds and staffing), managerial and administrative support,
effective partnerships with other organizations, and data systems for con-tinuous
quality improvement, Rohrbach said. All of these factors increase
the chances that a program will be implemented effectively and in a way
that faithfully reflects the intentions of the program’s developers, she said.
Implementing Interventions with Fidelity
Fidelity to the intentions of a program can be measured in several ways,
Rohrbach said, and adherence, dosage, and engagement are all important
factors to consider. Fidelity varies greatly in school settings, she said. Some
schools implement interventions with high fidelity, while others do so with
much less fidelity. Teachers have reported eliminating key modules, not
using interactive materials, and otherwise deviating from the program as
written, she said, and combining lessons from more than one program is a
common practice.
Many studies have demonstrated that fidelity is important and is associ-ated
with outcomes. As an example, Rohrbach cited the Adolescent Alcohol
Prevention Trial from the 1990s (Rohrbach et al., 1993). The degree of
fidelity to which the program was implemented had a substantial impact
on program acceptance, substance use attitudes, program-specific knowl-edge,
behavioral intentions, and resistance skills, she said, with high-fidelity
implementations being associated with more positive outcomes.
Despite such findings, the tension between fidelity and adaptation
persists, Rohrbach said. Unintentionally and intentionally, implementers
modify programs in various ways in order to increase their cultural rel-evance,
address participants’ cognitive-information processing and motiva-tion,
and improve the fit between program and context, she said. It is also
the case that more flexible programs are more likely to be implemented
and sustained. However, little is known about the effects of adaptation on
outcomes, she said, and some evidence indicates that it can result in poorer
outcomes.
Guided or planned adaptation can overcome some of these problems,
Rohrbach said. Ideally, the process of guided adaptation involves an inter-action
with the program developer. It needs to be theory based, to provide
options within or among program components, to conceptualize a program
as a process rather than a standardized set of activities, and to develop and
adhere to guidelines for cultural adaptations, Rohrbach said.

Implications for Practice and Research
Rohrbach concluded by providing several implications that her obser-vations
have for practice. Implementers should
• Conduct readiness assessments
• Develop a broad base of supporters for programs and involve
stakeholders in planning
• Establish leadership
• Implement strategies to build capacity
• Integrate prevention programs with the school’s primary mis-sion
(learning) and ongoing prevention delivery systems in the
community
• Develop systems for collecting data that will guide implementation
and continuous quality improvement
• Develop better systems of information about what is available and
how it might fit locally
• Increase the understanding of what program implementation
involves
She also listed several implications for researchers. They should
• Develop assessments of prevention program outcomes that can
easily be used by schools as part of their accountability process
• Evaluate the implementation of evidence-based programs under
real-world conditions
• Investigate how varying models of training and technical assistance
affect implementation and student outcomes
• Ground programming in the realities of the school setting
• Conduct more cost–benefit analyses
• Investigate the effects of adaptations
• Conduct research on how evidence-based programs work to iden-tify
key ingredients
THE COMMUNITIES THAT CARE SYSTEM
Communities That Care is a prevention system rather than a program,
explained Abigail Fagan, an associate professor at the University of Florida.
It is designed to build the capacity of communities to do evidence-based
prevention regardless of the behaviors being prevented or promoted, and
it is a community-driven approach that takes into account the differences
among communities and the problems they are facing. “A one-size-fits-all
approach may not be the best model,” she said. “We want something that

can be community specific.” For example, communities differ in levels of
youth delinquency, levels of risk and protective factors related to delin-quency,
resources, capacity, norms, and values, and, as noted in Chapter 7,
youth behavior is affected by the community context.
Communities That Care emphasizes a comprehensive and coordinated
approach to prevention, Fagan said. It relies on local practitioners and
stakeholders to take ownership for what they want to see change in their
community and then to work together collaboratively to get there. It is
driven by the use of science to assess the needs and behaviors in a com-munity,
to match those needs with evidence-based practices, and to make
sure that those new practices are implemented with fidelity so that they can
achieve their intended outcomes, she said.
The system has five phases, which Fagan reviewed in the context of a
randomized controlled study that tested the effectiveness of Communities
That Care in reducing delinquency, substance use, violence, and other prob-lem
behaviors (Hawkins et al., 2014). Twenty-four communities located
in small to medium-size towns in seven states were randomly assigned to
carry out either the Communities That Care approach or prevention as
usual, and key leaders came together in the getting-started phase to create
a coalition of stakeholders. The organizations represented by community
board leaders in the 12 communities participating in Communities That
Care represented businesses, citizen advocacy organizations, community
coalitions, health agencies, human service agencies, the juvenile justice
system, law enforcement, local philanthropies, the media, parents, religious
groups, schools, substance abuse prevention organizations, local govern-ments,
youth, and youth recreation programs. Communities That Care is
not just a school program, Fagan said; it involves many participants and
contributors. “Everybody has a role to play, . . . and individuals in the com-munity
are there to support those efforts,” she said.
Once the coalition has passed through the getting-organized phase,
Fagan explained, it enters the third phase, which involves collecting infor-mation
about the specific issues that need to be addressed in a community.
This is done primarily through a school-based survey called the Communi-ties
That Care Youth Survey, which is designed to be done in middle and
high schools. Youth self-report their exposure to risk factors and protective
factors in their communities, families, and schools and among their peers.
The results of the surveys can vary substantially from community to com-munity,
Fagan said, reflecting different levels of risk and protective factors.
Once the data are collected, she continued, the coalition uses them
to create a community action plan aimed at reducing the specific risk
factors that are elevated in their communities and at increasing the pro-tective
factors that are depressed. Coalition members have a menu of effec-tive
evidence-based prevention programs, drawn from the Blueprints for

Healthy Development website, that have already been tested and shown
to meet evaluation criteria and to significantly improve youth health and
behavior (see Chapter 7). Because the number and range of programs
selected are based on community needs, they can differ from community
to community, Fagan said.
Schools are often the hardest organizations to convince to adopt new
programs, Fagan said, for the reasons cited by Rohrbach and other pre-senters.
But over the 4 years that communities were funded to implement
programs, all of them did adopt school programs, she said. Schools were
part of the coalitions, and they were partners in efforts to determine what
the communities could do, she said.
Communities That Care also helps communities adopt a fidelity-monitoring
system that includes training for all program implementers,
fidelity “checklists” used by implementers to rate their adherence to the
program guidelines, observations to rate the adherence and quality of
delivery, documentation of attendance, local monitoring and quality assis-tance
by community coalitions, and external monitoring, Fagan said. “The
broad-based implementation monitoring system was not easy to imple-ment,”
she said. “There was a lot of paperwork, a lot of moving parts, a
lot of resistance on the ground. But the upshot was that we had high rates
of implementation fidelity across the board” (Fagan et al., 2009).
As an example of how Communities That Care can be scaled up,
Fagan briefly described an experience in Pennsylvania where the system was
adopted as a statewide initiative beginning in 1994. More than 120 com-munities
have been trained in the system, and there are about 60 coalitions
currently active, Fagan said. Nearly 200 evidence-based programs have
been replicated, and technical assistance is being provided to the coalitions
to support healthy coalition functioning, to ensure high-quality implemen-tation
of evidence-based programs, and to promote the sustainability of the
coalitions and programs. Fidelity is enhanced by requiring that the program
developer visit the site and provide a stamp of approval, Fagan said, and
external monitoring keeps the coalitions on track.
In summarizing the effects of Communities That Care, Fagan said that
the approach has helped communities identify what works: increase local
support for and use of effective prevention services; create an integrated
and coordinated system of services; ensure high-quality implementation
via structured protocols, continuous quality improvement, and community
“pressure”; sustain prevention efforts over time; and realize community-wide
reductions in problem behaviors.
The most recent evaluation of sustained changes in youth behaviors
showed that communities using the Communities That Care system have
substantially increased the number of youth abstaining from alcohol and
avoiding delinquency compared to the control communities, Fagan said

(Hawkins et al., 2014). “Those are good outcomes that we hope to con-tinue
to see as we follow the kids who have grown up in these communities
over time,” she said.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
OF BULLYING SCHOOL PREVENTION PROGRAMS
Dissemination and implementation studies can be divided into four cat-egories,
said Hendricks Brown, a professor in the Department of Psychiatry
and Behavioral Sciences and the Department of Preventive Medicine in the
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. These four catego-ries
of studies are exploration, adoption and preparation, implementation,
and sustainment. “It is really about making a program work,” Brown said.
“How do you do that on the ground?”
From a scientific perspective, an important question surrounding imple-mentation
is whether it can produce generalizable knowledge. “Is it some-thing
that you can take from that particular study and extend and expand
to other projects?” Brown asked. The other pertinent question involves
local implementation: Can a given program be done locally?
Challenges to Program Implementation
Brown discussed three challenges in implementing prevention programs
in schools. The first was making prevention an integral part of the school
mission so that it is sustainable from the very beginning rather than as a
last step.
He began by discussing a model developed by Russell Glasgow and his
colleagues (1999). The model is known as RE-AIM in reference to its five
dimensions:
Reach—What proportion of a population is exposed?
Effectiveness—Does a program work on outcomes?
Adoption—Do organizations take it up?
Implementation—Is a program delivered with fidelity?
Maintenance—Is a program sustained over time?
One or all of these dimensions can be the subject of research, but all
must come together for successful implementation, Brown said. Trying
to achieve all five of these aims simultaneously is one of the reasons why
implementation can be so difficult, he said.
As an example of making prevention an integral part of the school
mission, Brown cited a partnership model developed by Sheppard Kellam
(2012) for use in the mental health field. The partnership includes school

districts, community organizations, researchers, and policy makers. In these
partnerships, Brown said, the intervention program leader serves as the
head of the technical and scientific staff. A community board serves as an
overseer and adviser to ensure that community values and service agency
guidelines are protected, he added.
Kellam developed several steps that need to be taken in establishing
these partnerships, and Brown cited three in particular:
1. Analyze which agencies’ and community organizations’ support is
required.
2. Determine the order of engaging with each leader.
3. When trust has been established with each leader, suggest bringing
together the needed partners around their determined mutual self-interests
in a mutually agreed on site.
An important aspect of this approach, Brown said, is that it does not
begin with a research program in search of a school willing to do an inter-vention.
Rather, it takes the form of a collaboration between a school and
researchers, with the goal of learning how a prevention program fits into
a school’s context.
The second challenge that Brown discussed was how best to deliver
programs that address multiple prevention targets. To illustrate, he dis-cussed
the Good Behavior Game and Familias Unidas. Both of these pro-grams
seek to affect drug use, HIV risk behaviors, depressive symptoms,
and suicide attempts, he said, and both have produced immediate and long-term
positive outcomes, including a reduction in aggression.
The third challenge Brown discussed was building and maintaining a
fidelity monitoring system. Schools are normative organizations—that is,
they are set up for everybody to attend and are usually not set up to do
the detailed work of fidelity assessments, he said. Furthermore, schools
generally do not have the resources to develop or maintain fidelity monitor-ing
or feedback systems. However, he said, interventions need both high
fidelity and participation by the target audience. Monitoring of fidelity, in
turn, has to produce information that is delivered to those delivering the
intervention, he said.
To explore this issue, Brown looked again at Familias Unidas, which
is a parent-training intervention for middle-school Hispanic youth that is
delivered in parent groups in schools and in family visits at home. Cur-rently,
school counselors are performing an effectiveness study, with a
research team providing monitoring and feedback. But full-scale implemen-tation
will require an assessment system for costs, effectiveness, reliability,
and fidelity. Given the resource limitations in the school, a decision was
made to focus on the issue of joining. This engagement is a key part of

the intervention and is common to all interventions. Using computational
linguistics with videotapes of sessions, ratings are produced for the training
and supervision of counselors. In this way, Brown explained, counselors can
learn about, for example, the importance of asking open-ended question.
This is just a “a proof of concept,” he said. “It is not the whole thing, but
it is one of the kinds of ideas that we think ultimately can help.”
Brown concluded with several lessons that follow from his research.
Prevention needs to further a school’s primary mission, he said, with trust
and mutual self-interest being established before the research agenda. In
addition, he said, programs that have outcomes across multiple dimensions
can be prioritized, and monitoring and feedback of a complex behavioral
intervention is essential to ensure fidelity.
FIDELITY VERSUS ADAPTATION
During the discussion session, the conversation continued to center on
the issue of whether programs need to be implemented with strict fidelity
or can instead be adapted to local circumstances.
One aspect of Communities That Care that promotes fidelity is the
amount of planning that goes on before programs are implemented, Fagan
said. In choosing programs, one consideration is whether a program can
be implemented with fidelity. That way, she said, programs are fitted for a
setting so that it is not discovered after implementation that a program is a
bad fit for local circumstances. “Communities do not always take the time
upfront to think about what they are getting into, and then you are stuck
trying to reactively fix the problem and cut corners,” she said. “This is one
way of trying to avoid the problem.”
Rohrbach pointed to an approach in which, after a program is imple-mented,
information is gathered from the implementers about adaptation
and ideas for improvement of the program. These data then can be rated
according to how consistent they are with a theory of the program. Con-clusions
that are consistent with the theory can be provided as options for
people interested in adapting an intervention, she said. “There are probably
a lot of smaller things that we could do in programs to make them more
flexible in a planned and strategic way,” Rohrbach said. Furthermore, she
added, researchers would be interested in such an approach, given their
interests in seeing their programs implemented, and such an approach
could help researchers identify the aspects of their programs that are most
important.

11
Reflections of School Personnel
and Student Perspectives
Key Points Made by the Individual Speakers
• Additional attention to the definition of bullying and policies
related to the reporting of bullying could improve preventive
efforts. (Cafasso, Dockrey, Dolan, Donlin, Myers)
• Improving school climate and social norms can be powerful
ways to prevent bullying. (Cantave, Farkas, Myers, Shaw)
• Parents, teachers, and legislators were stakeholders who were
missing from the workshop presentations and discussions.
(Dockrey, Donlin)
• Other issues that deserve attention include sibling aggres-sion,
self-esteem and self-worth, and recognizing teachers and
adults as perpetrators of bullying. (Cafasso, Cantave, Dockrey,
Farkas)
One of the final sessions of the workshop included a panel of three
school personnel and a second panel of five students who offered their
reflections on the workshop presentations and discussions, as well as their
thoughts on possible future work on bullying prevention. The panelists
were selected to provide a range of viewpoints.
Among the school personnel, the panelists included a high school prin-cipal,
a coordinator of behavioral supports and interventions for a large
103

public school system, and a program supervisor for a state superintendent’s
office:
• Virginia Dolan, the coordinator of behavioral supports and inter-ventions
for Anne Arundel County Public Schools in Maryland,
which is a large system of approximately 120 schools and 80,000
students;
• Mike Donlin, the program supervisor for the School Safety Cen-ter
of the Office of the Washington State Superintendent of Pub-lic
Instruction, who works with superintendents, administrators,
teachers, parents, and students from 295 school districts and
roughly 2,300 individual schools in the state; and
• William Myers, the principal at South River High School, which is
the largest high school in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, with
about 2,250 students.
Among the student panelists, speakers included current high school
students and recent high school graduates from both public and private
schools in rural and urban settings:
• Alexa Cafasso, a high school senior at Sacred Heart Academy in
Hamden, Connecticut, who instituted a Cyber-Ally Program at her
private, all-girls high school to teach leaders how to transition from
silent bystanders to local allies;
• Glenn Cantave, a junior at Wesleyan University in Middletown,
Connecticut, who was trained as a peer leader in high school to
help facilitate anti-bullying activities in local middle schools;
• Whitney Dockrey, a junior at Georgetown University in Washing-ton,
DC, who became passionate about bullying prevention when
it started to affect people in her school and in her community and
was not being addressed;
• Asher Farkas, a sophomore at New York University’s Tisch School
of the Arts, who was bullied in middle school and transferred to a
high school where the environment was more accepting; and
• Rebecca Shaw, a senior at the Horace Mann High School in New
York City, who founded an organization called the Anti-Bullying
Leadership Network to connect students who care about bullying
prevention to researchers who study the issue.
Both panels brought a breadth of experiences and a range of per-spectives
on bullying prevention that complemented the presentations of
research and enriched the overall workshop discussion. Following is a
summary of their remarks.

REFLECTIONS OF SCHOOL PERSONNEL AND STUDENT PERSPECTIVES 105
Definitions
Several of the panelists, including school personnel and students, com-mented
on the need for continued attention to the definition of bullying.
Despite the existence of the recently developed uniform definition of bul-lying
(see Chapter 2), definitions and the interpretation of definitions still
vary from state to state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Furthermore, as
Cornell noted, the definitions of bullying used in evidence-based programs
may not line up with the definitions of bullying used by schools. Schools
would be eager to consider “a clearly publicized, central definition of bul-lying,”
said Myers. A common definition could create a starting line for
jurisdictions across the country. It also would support accountability, he
said, because “what gets checked gets done.”
Cafasso pointed out that she goes to a private school, which may inter-pret
and handle bullying in a very different manner than would a public
school. A universal definition would make it easier to educate younger
children about what bullying is and how to stop it. In addition, a definition
that distinguishes cyberbullying from online harassment would be useful,
she said.
Dockrey added that youth need information about bullying so they
can recognize it for what it is. She explained that bullying may be easy to
recognize when a jock is doing it to a nerd, but it can be harder to identify
when two girls of the same social class are bullying each other. “That is
called ‘drama,’ but in reality that can become bullying too,” she said.
Dolan pointed to a disconnect between parents’ understanding and
definition of bullying and what school personnel understand to be bullying.
Students tend to say that bullying is much more common than is usually
reported, she said, which is partly a matter of definitions.
Finally, Donlin talked about the distinctions among harassment, intimi-dation,
and bullying. The three are similar but not the same, he said. They
have different impacts and raise different legal implications. To meet state
and federal requirements, schools are forced to decide whether a given
incident was bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, racial harassment,
or something else. Clear understandings are needed to distinguish among
different kinds of aggressive acts, he observed.
Reporting of Bullying
Issues related to reporting bullying were raised by the school personnel
panelists. For example, Washington state, which has 295 school districts
and about 2,300 individual school buildings, requires a mandated policy
on bullying prevention and procedures on prevention and intervention.
But how that policy is implemented may vary from school to school, said

Donlin. Every school district writes its own policies and procedures, with
guidance provided by the school board association. One exception to this
is a state requirement to adopt the state model policy and procedures on
harassment, intimidation, and bullying. Although information is annu-ally
gathered on programs and trainings provided, there is no process for
collecting detailed information on bullying events, anti-bullying program
implementation, or investigations of reports of bullying, he said. Although
Washington state has a definition, a code of conduct, and a set of responses,
an act of bullying can be interpreted as an aggressive fight or disrespect.
Dolan also raised a question about the accuracy of the statistics on
bullying. Are elements of bullying masked by other aggressive behaviors?
When a school or district has an increased number of bullying incidents,
communities can become roused. How can bullying be made a priority for
everyone, she asked. In her school system, “soft offenses” such as defiance
and disrespect can lead to harder offenses such as fights and attacks. Bul-lying
may be subsumed in different parts of this spectrum of aggressive
behaviors, she said.
As Dolan noted, Maryland has a policy regarding reporting of inci-dents
of bullying. However, the system has found inconsistencies between
reported incidents and those that have resulted in some sort of disciplinary
sanction. It also has found disconnects between what youth are reporting
and what adults are reporting, how bullying is perceived and identified, and
what is done about it.
Reporting of bullying incidents can create sanctions against schools,
noted Dolan, which creates an incentive not to report occurrences. Schools
that implement reporting requirements most aggressively can end up with
a black eye. In addition, Myers raised the issue of inhibitions for the shar-ing
of information because of legal guidelines. However, he added that his
school is very transparent. “We share the data that we collect. It is not a
mystery what is happening in our building. That is a model that should flow
throughout the county. As we are made more aware of where the challenges
are, we can address them,” he said.
School Climate
Several of the student and school personnel panelists focused their
remarks on the importance of school climate on bullying prevention. From
the student perspective, Farkas said that policies directed toward bullying
typically try to put out the fire, but what if steps were taken so that the
fires did not get started in the first place? If children could be taught to
empathize with others before they even begin elementary school, schools
would have far more students who have no need to bully. Research on this
topic could point the way to effective programs, he said.

In addition, the environment of schools needs to change, Farkas
observed. There is no reason why the social structure of a school needs
to resemble a pyramid, with just a few students on top. As noted at the
beginning of this workshop summary, Farkas went to both kinds of schools,
and the high school he went to was not structured like a pyramid. “There
were no popular kids. There were no nerds.” If empathy were taught in
the classroom by teachers and reinforced by other students, schools would
be a better place. “Building from the ground up instead of trying to fix the
problems from the surface is a much more effective way of going about
things,” he said.
Cantave said that teachers should be encouraged to consider why
someone is being targeted. If teachers become aware of the vulnerabilities
that are being exploited, then they may be able to do something to stop
bullying. In addition, the observation that having even one friend reduces
the chance of being bullied was “really poignant,” said Cantave. Integrating
that observation into curricula might help targets become less introverted. If
the targets of bullying could be humanized, then other people might step up
to defend them when they are being bullied. Cantave also noted that many
targets of bullying have low self-esteem, which can have long-term impacts
on their lives. Studying these effects could motivate change.
Shaw emphasized the importance of evaluating a school’s climate and
changing social norms. Empowering a bystander to stand up against bullying
can make a big difference, even though it requires social capital. How-ever,
the entire system cannot depend on an awkward sixth grader standing
up to the cool kid in school. It “is amazing when it happens,” she said, “but
we cannot build a society on that.”
If the norm is to be supportive and not to engage in bullying behavior,
then bullying will decrease, said Shaw. In that respect, the examples set by
teachers and students leaders are critical. “We must be thinking about the
kind of society we are creating.” This role modeling cannot come just from
teachers and administrators. It needs to be a grassroots movement that
resonates with students to become part of the students’ norms, she said.
The effect of a heterogeneous social population was interesting, said
Shaw, in that it provided a target of bullying with a way of processing an
aggressor’s actions. More broadly, adjusting the cognitive framework of
students might enable many more students to realize why they are being
bullied and not blame themselves. “If we can give all students the tools to
process it in that way, we can, hopefully, reduce the risks of depression
down the line and even cutting down on suicides.”
Shaw also pointed to the transition point in late middle school and high
school where many anti-bullying programs cease to be effective and can
actually be counterproductive. “That makes a lot of sense to me, and it is
something that is quite worrisome. It really speaks to changing normative

behavior.” Teenagers resist being told what to think, she noted. Unless activi-ties
like poster campaigns and assemblies are paired with efforts to change the
climate, “it ends up coming across as more disingenuous.” Given the tools
and the facts, students can draw their own conclusions, especially when they
are led by adults who know and care about an issue, said Shaw.
From the school perspective, Myers emphasized that bullying cannot
and should not be siloed. “It cannot be taken out of context of the total
school culture.” Creating social norms for peer groups within the school-house
is extremely important, he said. Donlin agreed. He said that the
school climate is a fundamental consideration. “When I am doing my work
in bullying prevention with districts or schools or families or parents, one
of the first things I tell people is that bullying is a community event and
it takes a community to deal with it.” Preventive activities can help create
that climate and need to be done upfront, with awareness as the first step
in prevention, he said.
Program Implementation
School personnel often feel what Myers called “implementation anxi-ety”
over getting a program accepted and then implemented with fidelity
at the school level. School personnel face many barriers in implementing
programs, as pointed out by several presenters, including the number
of mandated “must-dos” that have to be taken into consideration. Fur-thermore,
the county does not have a systemic program for all schools
to follow, Myers said, so each school individually considers what would
work best.
A difficult question that school personnel face is what to do after a
bullying incident, Myers observed. What can be done for a bullied child,
and what should be done to a child exhibiting bullying behaviors? How can
prevention be maintained going forward? Not having such interventions
can have long-lasting and costly impacts, he said.
Dolan also noted that schools can implement programs without fidelity
and then wonder why they do not work. Planning is required to implement
a program successfully, she said. In particular, the climate of a school is a
strong determinant of what can and cannot be done. Schools need to be
more accountable for the implementation of programs, Dolan continued.
One positive aspect of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, a
bullying prevention program used in the Anne Arundel school system, is
that it does hold schools accountable. Schools are given a score around
implementation, and the scores have been tied to incentives for the school,
she noted.
Dealing with bullying also requires training, Donlin said, even though
no separate, dedicated funding is available in his state to provide training.

In addition, training tends to focus on policies and procedures rather than
on prevention or best practices. But educators need help developing the
skills to create safe and secure learning environments for all students in all
settings, he noted.
Legislators need to hear what works, how programs can be imple-mented,
and how they can be taken to scale, observed Donlin. They also
need to know that implementing such programs at scale requires time,
funding, people, and other resources.
The Biological Evidence
The biological evidence was mesmerizing, Myers observed. Research
shows that long-term stress can have dramatic effects on the adolescent
brain, but recovery is also possible if the right interventions are available,
he noted. The biological findings help avoid a tendency to blame the victim,
Dolan added.
The students, like the school personnel, were impressed by the poten-tial
of the biological evidence on bullying to influence opinions. Cantave
pointed out, for example, that the biological observations could keep stu-dents
from being marginalized, because others might realize that they have
undergone traumatic experiences, as reflected by changes in their brain.
More research on the long-term damages of bullying could greatly increase
the potential impact of these observations, Dockrey added.
Technology and Other Resources
In a highly technological culture, a variety of technologies can influ-ence
the attitudes and knowledge of students. For example, Cafasso noted
that public service notices can be a powerful way of influencing school
climates. The MTV commercials that point to the thin line between words
and wounds are an example of messages that can make “a huge difference,”
she said.
Students of different ages use different social media and technologies,
Dockrey noted, which requires that anti-bullying messages travel through
different outlets. Messages also need to be paired with what teens want and
need to hear, she noted.
Technologies offer a possible way of encouraging and supporting stu-dents
to make friends, said Dockrey. “Even if they do not have a friend at
their school, they are at least going to be able to know that they have a
friend in that organization one county over and they can text and talk and
Facebook with that person all they want.”
To reduce cyberbullying, some schools encourage their teachers and
administrators to be online, Farkas noted. Having a teacher to whom a

student can reach out for help can be very valuable during stressful periods,
he said.
The http://www.stopbullying.gov website has been a “tremendous
resource” to Shaw in her capacity as the president of the Anti-Bullying
Leadership Network. She often receives e-mails and Facebook messages
from parents or students asking how they can respond to bullying. The
website is respectful to students, has pages directed toward students of dif-ferent
ages, provides important facts, and presents the options for different
locations, Shaw said.
Until 10 or 15 years ago, bullying did not get much attention, she
continued. Its increased visibility means that more ideas and materials are
available, and it can be hard to sort through those materials. The push
toward data-driven methods and programs that have been rigorously tested
helps greatly in that regard, and more evidence-based programs are needed.
“It really does seem like we are on the precipice of making a big difference,”
Shaw said.
Myers agreed with the student panelists that technology is a major
influence on the lives of children and adolescents. But schools still do not
have technology-enabled programs available to them that could deliver the
message of bullying to parents in the community. “That would be invalu-able
to have,” he said. Another valuable resource would be a program
beginning at the elementary level to teach students about the appropriate
use of technology and about some of the pitfalls that can occur.
Myers also asked whether parents can be provided with concrete guide-lines
for help with a bullied child. A program or even a pamphlet about
what they can do in such a situation would be very helpful, he said.
Missing Stakeholders
School personnel and student panelists were asked to reflect on stake-holders
and issues that they felt were missing from the workshop presenta-tions
and discussions. Donlin identified legislators as a stakeholder group
not represented at the workshop. In his job, he deals often with legislators,
whether at a local level or a state level. “We have a very good state law and
good policy,” he said, “but the challenge is to make sure that everything is
practical and practicable.”
Another group missing from the workshop was school personnel
involved in special education and 504 plans under the Rehabilitation Act
and the Americans with Disabilities Act, he noted. The students who are
covered by those programs also need to be protected, Donlin said.
Dockrey said that one group missing from the conversation at the
workshop was parents. Parents need to be equipped to respond well when
their children come to them with bullying problems, she said. Some parents

look for their own identity and status in the accomplishments of their chil-dren.
They may not want to hear that their children are having problems
with bullying, because it implies that they have done something wrong.
Parents can build their children’s self-esteem by getting them involved
in organizations and supporting their activities. Dockrey suggested that
parents can help their children establish relationships, especially because
parents are the first people with whom children experience love. “If they
don’t get these skills at home, then they are not going to be able to take
them into schools to make that one friend or the relationships that they
need,” Dockrey said.
Other Issues
Finally, the student and school personnel panelists were asked to con-sider
issues that were not raised during the workshop presentations and
that were missing from the overall discussion. This section summarizes
several topics that were raised.
Teachers and Adults as Bullies
Several of the student respondents pointed out that, as Farkas said,
“teachers can be bullies, too.” The definition of bullying should not limit
itself just to youth, Farkas continued. In his high school, students did not
bully each other, but teachers did bully students. “We had chemistry teach-ers
calling their kids ‘stupid.’ We had English teachers calling out racial
slurs, sexual orientation slurs. . . . That is straight-up bullying.” When
Farkas complained to administrators about a particular teacher, the teacher
was not disciplined and Farkas was sent to another classroom. “I was glad
to no longer be in the classroom. But the way that looked to the rest of the
school population is that I was being punished for being bullied.”
Teachers have their own biases, and they can act as models for bully-ing
among students. “If teachers are giving the impression that this kind of
behavior is okay, the kids are going to think this kind of behavior is okay.”
Teachers need the same kind of bullying prevention training that students
receive, Farkas said.
Dockrey observed that bullying may take the form of a teacher who
only acknowledges the jocks and popular students at school. What teachers
think about students is going to shape their self-identity, she added. “We
cannot be having teachers and coaches being okay with bullying kids in
addition to the students who are doing so.” The research on changes in
the brain can help them recognize the damage they are doing to students.
When teachers or administrators label a student a “drama queen,” that
is just an easy way not to address a problem, Dockrey said. Cafasso also

mentioned the importance of adults bullying youth. Research on teachers,
coaches, family members, or other adults involved in bullying youth could
help explore this largely overlooked behavior, she said.
Sibling Aggression
Sibling aggression can be a factor in bullying, Dockrey noted, because
how a child feels at home is how he or she is going to act in the wider
world. If children are loved and confident at home, then they will feel
confident and loved at school. Dockrey has three younger sisters, and if
something bad happens to one of them at school, “they are going to come
back to three other best friends. I think if we can instill that into families,
that could significantly help them as they are going out into schools and
having to deal with these issues.”
Self-Esteem and Self-Worth
Finally, an issue largely overlooked by the workshop, according to
Cantave, was the importance of self-esteem and confidence on the part of
victims. As adolescents spend more time with computers than with fam-ily
or friends, sources of reinforcement, such as “likes” on Facebook, can
become extremely important in the social life of teens. “But those who are
targeted, those who are marginalized, they are not getting those Facebook
likes. . . . Where are you getting that validation? Where are you getting
that self-worth? That is a really big issue.” A self-worth campaign could
change the environment, he suggested. “Quirks seen as oddities to some
could be passions for others. Somehow, somewhere, we need to eliminate
the importance of external validation and have people really recognize their
self-worth,” Cantave said.

12
Final Thoughts
In the final session of the workshop, the members of the planning
committee discussed themes from the workshop sessions and individual
presentations as well as promising areas for future research and policy
action. Their comments are summarized here not as the conclusions of the
workshop but as an overview of the issues discussed.
BULLYING AND VICTIMIZATION AND
THE TARGETS OF BULLYING
Perspectives on bullying and the approaches taken to prevent and
respond to it can differ from place to place because of competing priorities,
issues related to accountability, and differences in the implementation of
policies and programs, as Catherine Bradshaw observed. A uniform defini-tion
of bullying has recently been developed, but that definition has not
necessarily been incorporated at the local level, she added. Bradshaw also
mentioned that bullying prevention is often imposed as an unfunded man-date.
“Until we are able to dedicate the funding and set this issue of bullying
prevention as a priority, we are not going to get a lot of traction,” she said.
Many presentations had emphasized the importance of context,
Bradshaw observed, including such contextual factors as cultural differ-ences,
dating relationships, urban-versus-rural settings, cyberbullying, and
families, to name just a few. Developmental factors are also important,
given that the types of effective interventions will vary across the lifecourse,
Bradshaw said. Another theme that came up repeatedly over the course of
113

the 2 days was the importance of connectedness, whether that takes the
form of a relationship with a peer or an adult who can act as a buffer to
bullying. Researchers need a better way of operationalizing and incorporat-ing
such contextual factors into their studies, Bradshaw said. “Rarely are
we able to walk away with a good statistical model that maps on to what
people actually are seeing in real life.”
Bradshaw also brought up the issue of diversity, whether ethnic, cul-tural,
physical, or sexual. As noted in Chapter 1, this issue was intended to
be integrated in presentations throughout the workshop rather than being
addressed in a single session, because it is a major consideration in bullying
prevention.
Several planning committee members commented on the neurobiologi-cal
underpinnings of responses to bullying that researchers are starting to
uncover, as presented by Vaillancourt (see Chapter 2). These biological
studies help to explain the idea of allostatic load, Bradshaw said, in which
prior experiences with stress and trauma make it more challenging for
someone to rebound from additional stress. Megan Moreno also pointed to
the power of the demonstrated biological changes to motivate an interven-tion
platform with parents and teachers.
SCHOOL-BASED INTERVENTIONS
There is still no solid base of evidence for many of the bullying pre-vention
interventions being implemented in schools, Denise Gottfredson
pointed out. Randomized controlled trials are difficult to conduct in
schools, but some results from school-based studies have been very posi-tive.
School policies sometimes diminish the significance of bullying, she
added, which makes bullying issues harder to address. Also, high-profile
media events tend to dominate the public’s and administrators’ attention,
which can result in resources being diverted into school security measures
and zero-tolerance policies, even though homicides in schools are actually
very rare, she noted.
Gottfredson and several other planning committee members called
attention to the importance of school climate in bullying prevention. For
example, the student-to-teacher ratio can have an effect on bullying, as
can the role of other stakeholders in the school setting and the norms held
by students and adults for that school. Presentations by Dodge and Faris
highlighted that how schools are engineered and organized can have an
influence on peer interactions and aggressive peer behaviors. Anti-bullying
campaigns, role modeling, peer relationships, and positive approaches all
can make a big difference by shaping school climates, Gottfredson said.
Presentations by Bradshaw and Juvonen pointed to examples from the
research of how to develop a climate of inclusion and support. In addition,

FINAL THOUGHTS 115
Moreno called attention to the fact that the young people who spoke at
the workshop (see Chapter 11) identified the school climate as a contribut-ing
factor to whether bullying takes place. For example, student panelists
Farkas and Shaw suggested that school climate can have a major impact
on how students experience or intervene in bullying behavior. Finally, sev-eral
presenters noted that even one friend or supporter, whether a peer or
teacher, can make a difference to a victimized young person.
Gottfredson suggested that a working group could identify the most
promising components of a multi-component approach to bullying pre-vention
in schools. Important components of such an approach could be
involving more people in the school community, especially high-status
students, as part of the solution; starting with the adults in schools to
clarify norms about bullying; promoting meaningful connections among
individuals within schools; and reorganizing the way students are grouped
for instruction. Todres also emphasized the need to focus on structural
issues, especially contextual factors, and on the importance of incentives
for schools.
FAMILY-FOCUSED INTERVENTIONS
Todres emphasized that parents and other caregivers are essential part-ners
in successful interventions. However, the rates of bullying reported
by parents are less than the rates their children report. Parents also think
that their children will tell them if they are being bullied, whereas children
report that they are less likely to report bullying than their parents believe.
Finally, children report more social and health impacts than parents per-ceive.
“That suggests an area of need both for research and for further
interventions,” Todres said.
Families can serve as sources of risk, protection factors, or managers
of contextual risk, Todres continued. Nurturing parenting skills, fostering
stable family relationships, ensuring appropriate supervision of children,
encouraging parental involvement in school, and connecting families with
neighborhoods and social supports all can increase the ability of parents to
deal with bullying, he said.
TECHNOLOGY-BASED INTERVENTIONS
The vast majority of youth today are online, along with ever growing
populations of adults, Moreno said. These online communities can be both
a source of interventions and preventive measures and a place where bul-lying
can occur. Many youth access health information online, especially
information about topics that they might find stigmatizing or embarrassing
to ask about in public. “This may be a place where youth who have been

bullied would feel more comfortable seeking help or support,” Moreno
said.
As in other areas of bullying prevention, little evidence exists demon-strating
the efficacy of online bullying intervention. But the knowledge base
about school-based interventions in general could guide thinking about
how to structure and test an online intervention. Young people themselves
can partner with adults in understanding what might and might not work,
Moreno suggested.
COMMUNITY-BASED INTERVENTIONS
Other programs and frameworks, such as the Big Brothers and Big
Sisters program and Communities That Care, have demonstrated the
potential of community-based programs to improve health, Nina Fredland
observed. Pediatricians and other health care professionals can make impor-tant
contributions to bullying prevention efforts while also identifying and
providing assistance to students who are suffering from negative health
outcomes related to bullying. For example, the American Academy of Pedi-atrics
has identified injury prevention, including bullying prevention, as a
public health issue. The role of primary health care providers in this area
could be even greater if it were possible to share information between pro-viders
and key school personnel such as school nurses, social workers, and
school psychologists, within the context of confidentiality, Fredland said.
Moreno emphasized the importance of community and stakeholder
buy-in. “These are people we should be bringing to the table at every stage
of our research projects and not waiting until the implementation stage,”
she said. “We could get so much more information about what might work
and what theoretical models are resonating with the people who are going
to be implementing these and affected by these.”
PEER-LED AND PEER-FOCUSED PROGRAMS
Bullying is a proactive rather than reactive form of aggression, Todres
observed, and youth often use it to try to achieve higher status within social
groups. This is one reason why it can be counterproductive for interven-tions
to place youth who bully with each other in groups, because these
groups can exacerbate rather than reduce bullying. Instead, interventions
that support adult involvement, positive relationships, self-regulation, and
group management skills are most likely to have positive effects on problem
behaviors, Todres said. Preventing the formation of gangs, early interven-tion,
and a peer culture of nonaggression also can prevent bullying, he
observed.

FINAL THOUGHTS 117
LAWS AND PUBLIC POLICIES
Most state legislatures have passed anti-bullying laws over the past
15 years, Todres pointed out. However, these laws vary greatly from state
to state and also within states, because many of the laws delegate authority
to school boards and schools to establish policies.
Inclusive anti-bullying policies are associated with a reduced risk of
peer victimization for all youth, and laws and policies can support training
programs, improvements in school culture, and other positive interventions.
However, laws and policies also can hinder enforcement, because schools
fear that they will be sued by the parents of students accused of bullying,
and legislation can run afoul of privacy laws. As in many areas of bullying
prevention, more research is needed both on the effectiveness of laws and
policies and on their successful implementation, Todres said.
TRANSLATING BULLYING RESEARCH
INTO POLICY AND PRACTICE
“All of our good work to develop effective bullying prevention inter-ventions
will be for naught if we cannot ensure that they are implemented
with reasonable fidelity on the ground and are sustained over a long period
of time,” Gottfredson said. Particular characteristics of programs or poli-cies
can increase the likelihood that they could be implemented with high
fidelity; these characteristics include clear messages, solid technical training,
and technical assistance. More challenging but equally important is build-ing
a local infrastructure in the community to select evidence-based prac-tices
and deliver them with fidelity. Key aspects of this infrastructure are
strong leadership, administrative support, and the presence of a program
champion at the local level, Gottfredson said. Such an infrastructure also
can increase the capacity to monitor implementation and feed that informa-tion
back to local implementers.
Interventions that address risk factors for a variety of different problem
behaviors often receive more local support than more narrowly focused
programs, Gottfredson observed. For example, programs to improve school
climate by increasing the clarity of norms at the school level and enhancing
discipline management can be beneficial across the board and not just for
bullying, she said.
The field of bullying prevention can learn from other fields of research
and practice, Todres said, and some of the research that was reviewed and
discussed drew on work from related topics (e.g., violence and aggression).
However, Limber and other presenters were careful to note that while
bullying overlaps with these other constructs, it is also distinct in impor-tant
respects. Consequently, the extent to which this research on related

topics applies to bullying is an open question. Another gap in the research,
Gottfredson added, is how to scale up programs effectively and produce
benefits in real-world settings. Bradshaw added that researchers need to
devote increased attention to the mediators and moderators of bullying
and anti-bullying interventions. Partnerships between researchers who are
fielding randomized trials and methodologists can yield better and more
information about what works under different conditions, she noted.
As Frederick Rivara, chair of the planning committee for the workshop,
said during his introductory remarks, he bases his actions and beliefs on the
premise that all injuries are preventable. Bullying is not just something that
children and adolescents always have done and always will do. Bullying and
the consequences of bullying to the victim, the perpetrators, schools, and
society can be prevented. “It is up to us to act,” he said.

Appendixes

A
References
AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics). 2014. Connected kids: Safe, strong, secure. http://
www2.aap.org/connectedkids (accessed May 21, 2014).
Abrams, D. E. 2009. A coordinated public response to school bullying. In M. R. Dyson and
D. B. Weddle (Eds.), Our promise: Achieving educational equity for America’s children
(pp. 399–423). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Abrams, D. E. 2012. Bullying as a disability in public elementary and secondary education.
Abrams, D. E. 2013. School bullying victimization as an educational disability. Temple Politi-cal
Civil Rights Law Review 22:273–290.
APA (American Psychological Association) Zero Tolerance Task Force. 2008. Are zero tol-erance
policies effective in the schools?: An evidentiary review and recommendations.
Basile, K. C., D. L. Espelage, I. Rivers, P. M. McMahon, and T. R. Simon. 2009. The theo-retical
and empirical links between bullying behavior and sexual violence perpetration.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 14(5):336–347.
Bellmore, A. D., M. Witkow, S. Graham, and J. Juvonen. 2004. Beyond the individual:
The impact of ethnic context and classroom behavioral norms on victims’ adjustment.
Developmental
Psychology 40:1159–1172.
Benjet, C., R. J. Thompson, and I. H. Gotlib. 2010. 5-HTTLPR moderates the effect of re-lational
peer victimization on depressive symptoms in adolescent girls. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 51(2):173–179.
Borum, R., D. Cornell, W. Modzeleski, and S. R. Jimerson. 2010. What can be done about
school shootings? A review of the evidence. Educational Researcher 39:27–37.
Bradshaw, C. P., W. M. Reinke, L. D. Brown, K. B. Bevans, and P. J. Leaf. 2008. Imple-mentation
of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) in el-ementary
schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education and Treatment of
121
Missouri Law Review 77:781–804.
American Psychologist 63:852–862.
Children 31(1):1–26.

Buhs, E. S., G. W. Ladd, and S. L. Herald. 2006. Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes
that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engage-ment
and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology 98:1–13.
Buhs, E. S., G. W. Ladd, and S. L. Herald-Brown. 2010. Victimization and exclusion: Links to
peer rejection, classroom engagement, and achievement. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer,
and D. L. Espelage (Eds.), The handbook of school bullying: An international perspective
(pp. 163–172). New York: Routledge.
Caspi, A., K. Sugden, T. E. Moffitt, A. Taylor, I. W. Craig, H. Harrington, J. McClay, J. Mill,
J. Martin, A. Braithwaite, and R. Poulton. 2003. Influence of life stress on depression:
Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science 301(5631):386–389.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2012. Suicide: Facts at a glance. http://
www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/Suicide_DataSheet-a.pdf (accessed May 21, 2014).
CDC. 2014a. National Center for Health Statistics. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs (accessed May
21, 2014).
CDC. 2014b. School Associated Violent Death Surveillance Study. http://www.cdc.gov/violence
prevention/youthviolence/schoolviolence/savd.html (accessed May 21, 2014).
Chen, Z., K. D. Williams, J. Fitness, and N. C. Newton. 2008. When hurt will not heal: Explor-ing
the capacity to relive social and physical pain. Psychological Science 19(8):789–795.
Cohen, J. 2009. Transforming school climate: Educational and psychoanalytic perspectives.
Schools: Studies in Education 6:99–103.
Cohen, J., L. McCabe, N. M. Michelli, and T. Pickeral. 2009. School climate: Research, policy,
practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record 111:180–213.
Cohen, M. A., and A. R. Piquero. 2009. New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high
risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 25:25–49.
Cohen, M. A., A. R. Piquero, and W. G. Jennings. 2010. Estimating the costs of bad out-comes
for at-risk youth and the benefits of early childhood interventions to reduce them.
Criminal
Justice Policy Review 21(4):391–434.
Cook, C. R., K. R. Williams, N. G. Guerra, and T. E. Kim. 2010a. Variability in the prevalence
of bullying and victimization: A cross-national and methodological analysis. In S. R.
Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, and D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools:
An international perspective (pp. 347–362). New York: Routledge.
Cook, P. J., D. C. Gottfredson, and C. Na. 2010b. School crime control and prevention. Crime
and Justice 39(1):313–440.
Copeland, W. E., D. Wolke, A. Angold, and E. J. Costello. 2013. Adult psychiatric outcomes
of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry
70:419–426.
Cornell, D. 2006. School violence: Fears versus facts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cornell, D., and J. Cole. 2011. Assessment of bullying. In S.R. Jimerson, A. B. Nickerson,
M. J. Mayer, and M. J. Furlong (Eds.), The handbook of school violence and school
safety: International research and practice, 2nd edition (pp. 289–303). Mahwah, NJ:
Routledge.
Crowley, M. J., J. Wu, C. A. Bailey, and L. C. Mayes. 2009. Bringing in the negative rein-forcements:
The avoidance feedback-related negativity. Neuroreport 20(17):1513–1517.
Dahlberg, L., and E. Krug. 2002. Violence: A global health problem. In E. Krug, L. Dahlberg,
J. Mercy, A. Zwi, and R. Lozano (Eds.), World report on violence and health (pp. 3–21).
Geneva: World Health Organization.
DeAngelis, K. J., B. O. Brent, and D. Ianni. 2011. The hidden cost of school security. Journal
of Education Finance 36:312–337.
Dijkstra, J. K., S. Lindenberg, R. Veenstra, C. Steglich, J. Isaacs, N. A. Card, and E. V. Hodges.
2010. Influence and selection processes in weapon carrying during adolescence: The roles
of status, aggression, and vulnerability. Criminology 48(1):187–220.

APPENDIX A 123
Dishion, T. J., S. E. Nelson, and M. Yasui. 2005. Predicting early adolescent gang involvement
from middle school adaptation. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology
34:62–73.
Dodge, K. A., and M. R. Sherrill. 2006. Deviant peer-group effects in youth mental health
interventions. In K. A. Dodge, T. J. Dishion, and J. E. Lansford (Eds.), Deviant peer influ-ences
in programs for youth: Problems and solutions (pp. 97–121). New York: Guilford.
DoSomething.org. 2014. Bully text. https://www.dosomething.org/bullytext (accessed May
23, 2014).
Durlak, J. A., and E. P. Dupre. 2008. Implementation matters: A review of research on the
influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting the imple-mentation.
American Journal of Community Psychology 41:327–350.
Eaton, D. K., L. Kann, S. Kinchen, S. Shanklin, J. Ross, J. Hawkins, W. A. Harris, R. Lowry,
T. McManus, D. Chyen, C. Lim, L. Whittle, N. D. Brener, and H. Wechsler. 2009. Youth
risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
Surveillance Summaries 59(5):1–142.
Eaton, D. K., L. Kann, S. Kinchen, S. Shanklin, K. H. Flint, J. Hawkins, W. A. Harris, R.
Lowry, T. McManus, D. Chyen, L. Whittle, C. Lim, and H. Wechsler. 2012. Youth risk
behavior surveillance—United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report
Surveillance Summaries 61(4):1–162. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/
ss6104a1.htm (accessed May 19, 2014).
Eliot, M., D. Cornell, A. Gregory, and X. Fan. 2010. Supportive school climate and student
willingness to seek help for bullying and threats of violence. Journal of School Psychol-ogy
48(6):533–553.
Espelage, D. L., and S. M. Swearer. 2010. A social-ecological model for bullying prevention
and intervention: Understanding the impact of adults in the social ecology of youngsters.
In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, and D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in
schools: An international perspective (pp. 61–72). New York: Routledge.
Espelage, D. L., K. Bosworth, and T. R. Simon. 2000. Examining the social context of bully-ing
behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling Development 78:326–333.
Espelage, D. L., K. C. Basile, and M. E. Hamburger. 2012. Bullying perpetration and subse-quent
sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent
Health 50:60–65.
Espelage, D. L., S. Low, M. A. Rao, J. S. Hong, and T. Little. 2013. Family violence, bully-ing,
fighting, and substance use among adolescents: A longitudinal transactional model.
Journal of Research on Adolescence 24(2):337–349. doi: 10.1111/jora.12060.
Espelage, D. L., S. K. Low, C. Anderson, and L. De La Rue. 2014. Bullying, sexual, and dat-ing
violence trajectories from early to late adolescence. Report submitted to the National
Institute of Justice Grant #2011-MU-FX-0022.
Espelage, D. L., K. C. Basile, M. E. Hamburger, and L. De La Rue. In press. Longitudinal
associations among bully, homophobic teasing and sexual violence perpetration among
middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Espinoza, G. Under Review. Daily Cyberbullying Experiences: Links with Emotional, Physical
and School Adjustment.
Fagan, A. A., K. Hanson, J. D. Hawkins, and M. Arthur. 2009. Translational research in ac-tion:
Implementation of the Communities That Care Prevention System in 12 communi-ties.
Journal of Community Psychology 37(7):809–829.
Faris, R. 2012. Aggression, exclusivity, and status attainment in interpersonal networks. Social
Forces 90:1207–1235.
Faris, R., and S. Ennett. 2012. Adolescent aggression: The role of peer group status motives,
peer aggression, and group characteristics. Social Networks 34(4):371–378.

Faris, R., and D. Felmlee. 2011. Status struggles network centrality and gender segregation in
same- and cross-gender aggression. American Sociological Review 76(1):48–73.
Faris, R., and D. Felmlee. 2014. Casualties of social combat: School networks of peer vic-timization
and their consequences. American Sociological Review 79(2):228–257. doi:
10.1177/0003122414524573.
Farmer, T. W., J. V. Hamm, K. L. Lane, D. Lee, K. S. Sutherland, C. M. Hall, and R. A.
Murray. 2013. Conceptual foundations and components of a contextual intervention to
promote student engagement during early adolescence: The Supporting Early Adolescent
Learning and Social Success (SEALS) model. Journal of Educational and Psychological
Consultation 23:115–139.
Farrington, D., and M. Ttofi. 2009. School based programs to reduce bullying and victimiza-tion:
A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 5(6).
Fekkes, M., F. I. Pijpers, and S. P. Verloove-Vanhorick. 2005. Bullying: Who does what, when
and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health
Education Research 20(1):81–91.
Finkelhor, D., H. Turner, R. Ormrod, and S. L. Hamby. 2009. Violence, abuse, and crime
exposure in a national sample of children and youth. Pediatrics 124:1411–1423.
Foshee, V. A., K. E. Bauman, S. T. Ennett, C. Suchindran, T. Benefield, and G. F. Linder. 2005.
Assessing the effects of dating violence prevention program “Safe Dates” using random
coefficient regression modeling. Prevention Science 6(3):245–257.
Gini, G., and T. Pozzoli. 2013. Bullied children and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis.
Pediatrics 132:720–729.
Gladden, R. M., A. M. Vivolo-Kantor, M. E. Hamburger, and C. D. Lumpkin. 2014. Bullying
surveillance among youth: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data
elements, version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education. http://
www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullying-definitions-final-a.pdf (accessed May 19,
2014).
Glasgow, R. E., T. M. Vogt, and S. M. Boles. 1999. Evaluating the public health impact of
health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM Framework. American Journal of Public
Health 89:1322–1327.
Glasgow, R. E., E. Lichtenstein, and A. C. Marcus. 2003. Why don’t we see more translation
of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy–effectiveness transition.
American Journal of Public Health 93(8):1261–1267.
Gottfredson, D. C. 1986. An empirical test of school-based environmental and individual
interventions to reduce the risk of delinquent behavior. Criminology 24:705–731.
Gottfredson, D. C. 1990. Changing school structures to benefit high risk youths. In P. E.
Leone (Ed.), Understanding troubled and troubling youth: Multidisciplinary perspectives.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gottfredson, D. C., and S. M. DiPietro. 2011. School size, social capital, and student victim-ization.
Sociology of Education 84:69–89.
Gottfredson, G. D., and D. C. Gottfredson. 1985. Victimization in schools. New York:
Plenum.
Gottfredson, G. D., D. C. Gottfredson, A. A. Payne, and N. C. Gottfredson. 2005. School
climate predictors of school disorder: Results from the national study of delinquency
prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 42(4):412–444.
Graham, S., A. Bellmore, A. Nishina, and J. Juvonen. 2009. “It must be me”: Ethnic context
and attributions for peer victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38:487–499.
Gregory, A., D. Cornell, X. Fan, P. Sheras, and T. Shih. 2010. Authoritative school discipline:
High school practices associated with lower student bullying and victimization. Journal
of Educational Psychology 102:483–496.

APPENDIX A 125
Gross, E. F. 2009. Logging on, bouncing back: An experimental investigation of online com-munication
following social exclusion. Developmental Psychology 45:1787–1793.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., and K. M. Keyes. 2013. Inclusive anti-bullying policies and reduced
risk of suicide attempts in lesbian and gay youth. Journal of Adolescent Health 53(1
Suppl):21–26.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., K. M. Keyes, and D. S. Hasin. 2009. State-level policies and psychiatric
morbidity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. American Journal of Public Health
99(12):2275–2281.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., K. A. McLaughlin, K. M. Keyes, and D. S. Hasin. 2010. The impact of
institutional discrimination on psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual popula-tions:
A prospective study. American Journal of Public Health 100(3):452–459.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., C. O’Cleirigh, C. Grasso, K. Mayer, S. Safren, and J. Bradford. 2012.
Effect of same-sex marriage laws on health care use and expenditures in sexual minority
men: A quasi-natural experiment. American Journal of Public Health 102(2):285–291.
Hawkins, J. D., S. Oesterle, E. C. Brown, K. C. Monahan, R. D. Abbott, M. W. Arthur, and
R. F. Catalano. 2012. Sustained decreases in risk exposure and youth problem behaviors
after installation of the Communities That Care prevention system in a randomized trial.
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 166(2):141–148.
Hawkins, J. D., S. Oesterle, E. C. Brown, R. D. Abbott, and R. F. Catalano. 2014. Youth prob-lem
behaviors 8 years after implementing the communities that care prevention system:
A community-randomized trial. JAMA Pediatrics 168(2):122–129.
HBSC (Health Behavior in School-Aged Children). 2013. 2009–2010 Student survey. Analysis
ran on 2014-03-11 using SDA 3.5: Tables. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/
studies/34792 (accessed March 11, 2014).
Henry, D. 2013. Multisite Violence Prevention Project. The moderating role of developmental
microsystems in selective preventive intervention effects on aggression and victimization
of aggressive and socially influential students. Prevention Science 14(4):390–399.
Hertz, M., I. Donato, and J. Wright. 2013. Bullying and suicide: A public health approach.
Journal of Adolescent Health 53(1):S1–S3.
Hogeveen, J., M. Inzlicht,, and S. S. Obhi. 2014. Power changes how the brain responds to
others. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 143(2):755.
Holt, M. K., G. Kaufman Kantor, and D. Finkelhor. 2008. Parent/child concordance about
bullying involvement and family characteristics related to bullying and peer victimization.
Journal of School Violence 8(1):42–63. doi: 10.1080/15388220802067813. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/15388220802067813 (accessed May 20, 2014).
Houndoumadi, A., and L. Pateraki. 2001. Bullying and bullies in Greek elementary schools:
Pupils’ attitudes and teachers’/parents’ awareness. Educational Review 53(1):19–26.
doi:10.1080/00131910120033619.
Iannotti, R. J. 2014. Health behavior in school-aged children (HBSC), 2009–2010.
ICPSR34792-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Re-search
[distributor], 2013-11-20. doi:10.3886/ICPSR34792.v1. http://www.icpsr.umich.
edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/34792 (accessed May 19, 2014).
IOM (Institute of Medicine) and NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Deadly lessons:
Understanding lethal school violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Juvonen, J., A. Nishina, and S. Graham. 2006. Ethnic diversity and perceptions of safety in
urban middle schools. Psychological Science 17:393–400.
Karch, D. L., J. Logan, D. D. McDaniel, C. F. Floyd, and K. J. Vagi. 2013. Precipitating cir-cumstances
of suicide among youth aged 10–17 years by sex: Data from the National
Violent Death Reporting System, 16 states, 2005–2008. Journal of Adolescent Health
53:51–53.

Kellam, S. G. 2012. Developing and maintaining partnerships as the foundation of implemen-tation
and implementation science: Reflections over a half century. Administration and
Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 39(4):317–320.
Kellam, S. G., A. C. L. Mackenzie, C. H. Brown, J. M. Poduska, W. Wang, H. Petras, and
H. C. Wilcox. 2011. The good behavior game and the future of prevention and treat-ment.
Addiction Science and Clinical Practice 6:73–84.
Kerner, J. F., and K. L. Hall. 2009. Research dissemination and diffusion: Translation within
science and society. Research on Social Work Practice 19(5):519–530.
Kerr, D. C. R., L. D. Leve, and P. Chamberlain. 2009. Pregnancy rates among juvenile justice
girls in two RCTs of multidimensional treatment foster care. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology 77(3):588–593. doi: 10.1037/a0015289.
Klomek, A. B., M. Kleinman, E. Altschuler, F. Marrocco, L. Amakawa, and M. S. Gould.
2013. Suicidal adolescents’ experiences with bullying perpetration and victimization dur-ing
high school as risk factors for later depression and suicidality. Journal of Adolescent
Health 53(1 Suppl):S37–S42.
Leff, S. S., D. E. Thomas, N. A. Vaughn, N. A. Thomas, J. Paquette MacEvoy, M. A.
Freedman, S. Abdul-Kabir, J. Woodlock, T. Guerra, A. S. Bradshaw, E. M. Woodburn,
R. K. Myers, and J. A. Fein. 2010. Using community-based participatory research to
develop the PARTNERS youth violence prevention program. Progress in Community
Health Partnerships 4(3):207–216. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2010.0005.
Limber, S. P., and M. A. Small. 2003. State laws and policies to address bullying in schools.
School Psychology Review 32(3):445–455.
Limber, S. P., D. Olweus, and H. Luxenberg. 2013. Bullying in U.S. schools: 2012 status
report. Center City, MN: Hazelden Foundation. http://www.violencepreventionworks.
org/public/index.page (accessed May 19, 2014).
Lipsey, M. 2006. The effects of community-based group treatment for delinquency: A meta-analytic
search for cross-study generalizations. In K. A. Dodge, T. J. Dishion, and J. E.
Lansford (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: Problems and solutions
(pp. 162–184). New York: Guilford.
Lochman, J., T. Dishion, C. Boxmeyer, and N. Powell. 2013. Preliminary findings from
NIDA-funded Study of Group versus Individual Intervention Format for the Coping
Power Child Component. Presented at the American Psychological Association meeting,
Honolulu, Hawaii. July 31–August 4, 2013.
Lovegrove, P. J., A. D. Bellmore, J. Greif Green, K. Jens, and J. M. Ostrove. 2013. My voice is
not going to be silent: What can parents do about children’s bullying? Journal of School
Violence 12(3):253–267. doi:10.1080/15388220.2013.792270.
Masten, C. L., N. I. Eisenberger, L. A. Borofsky, J. H. Pfeifer, K. McNealy, J. C. Mazziotta,
and M. Dapretto. 2009. Neural correlates of social exclusion during adolescence: Un-derstanding
the distress of peer rejection. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
4(2):143–157.
Merrell, K., B. Gueldner, S. W. Ross, and D. Isava. 2008. How effective are school bullying
intervention programs?: A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology
Quarterly 23(1):26–42.
Miller, S., J. Williams, S. Cutbush, D. Gibbs, M. Clinton-Sherrod, and S. Jones. 2013. Dating
violence, bullying, and sexual harassment: Longitudinal profiles and transitions over
time. Journal of Youth Adolescence 42(4):607–618.
Mitchell, K. J., M. L. Ybarra, and J. D. Korchmaros. 2013. Sexual harassment among ado-lescents
of different sexual orientations and gender identities. Child Abuse and Neglect
38(2):280–295.

APPENDIX A 127
Modzeleski, W., T. Feucht, M. Rand, J. E. Hall, T. R. Simon, L. Butler, A. Taylor, M. Hunter,
M. A. Anderson, L. Barrios, and M. Hertz. 2008. School-associated student homicides—
United States, 1992–2006. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 57(2):33–36. http://
www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5702a1.htm (accessed May 21, 2014).
Molcho, M., W. Craig, P. Due, W. Pickett, Y. Harel-Fisch, M. Overpeck, and the HBSC
Bullying Writing Group. 2009. Cross-national time trends in bullying behaviour 1994–
2006: Findings from Europe and North America. International Journal of Public Health
54:S225–S234.
Multisite Violence Prevention Project. 2009. The ecological effects of universal and selective
violence prevention programs for middle school students: A randomized trial. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 77(3):526–542.
Musher-Eizenman, D. R., P. Boxer, S. Danner, E. F. Dubow, S. E. Goldstein, and D. M. I.
Heretick. 2004. Social-cognitive mediators of the relation of environmental and emotion
regulation factors to children’s aggression. Aggressive Behavior 30:389–408.
NRC (National Research Council) and IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2009. Preventing mental,
emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
O’Connell, P., D. Pepler, and W. Craig. 1999. Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and chal-lenges
for intervention. Journal of Adolescence 22:437–452.
Odgers, C. L., T. E. Moffitt, L. M. Tach, R. J. Sampson, A. Taylor, C. L. Matthews, and A.
Caspi. 2009. The protective effects of neighborhood collective efficacy on British chil-dren
growing up in deprivation: A developmental analysis. Developmental Psychology
45(4):942–957. doi:10.1037/a0016162.
Olweus, D. 1991. Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a
school based intervention program. In D. J. Pepler and H. Rubin (Eds.), The development
and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Olweus, D. 1993. Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Olweus, D. 1997. Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal
of Psychology of Education 12:495–510.
Olweus, D. 2012. School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology 9:751–780.
Olweus, D., S. P. Limber, V. Flerx, N. Mullin, J. Riese, and M. Snyder. 2007. Olweus Bullying
Prevention Program: Schoolwide guide. Center City, MN: Hazelden.
Ouellet-Morin, I., A. Danese, L. Bowes, S. Shakoor, A. Ambler, C. M. Pariante, A. S.
Papadopoulos, A. Caspi, T. E. Moffitt, and L. Arseneault. 2011. A discordant monozy-gotic
twin design shows blunted cortisol reactivity among bullied children. Journal of
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 50(6):574–582.
Payne, A. A., D. C. Gottfredson, and G. D. Gottfredson. 2003. Schools as communities: The
relationships among communal school organization, student bonding, and school disor-der.
Criminology 41:749–777.
Polanin, J. R., D. L. Espelage, and T. D. Pigott. 2012. A meta-analysis of school-based bully-ing
prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology
Review 41:47–65.
Rao, M. A., D. L. Espelage, and T. D. Little. In press. Links between family conflict and
substance-use in early adolescence: The mediating role of peer victimization. Develop-mental
Psychology.
Reijntjes, A., J. H. Kamphuis, P. Prinzie, and M. Telch. 2010. Peer victimization and inter-nalizing
problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse
Neglect 34:244–252.

Rigby, K., and P. T. Slee. 1993. Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian
children and implications for psychological well-being. British Journal of Educational
Psychology 133:33–42.
Ringwalt, C. L., A. A. Vincus, S. T. Ennett, S. Hanley, J. M. Bowling, and L. A. Rohrbach.
2009. The prevalence of evidence-based substance use prevention curricula in U.S. middle
schools in 2005. Prevention Science 10:33–40.
Rivers, I., and N. Noret. 2013. Potential suicide ideation and its association with observing
bullying at school. Journal of Adolescent Health 53:S32–S36.
Robers, S., J. Zhang, J. Truman, and T. D. Snyder. 2010. Indicators of school crime and safety:
2010. (NCES 1001-002/NCJ 230812.) Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice
Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Robers, S., J. Zhang, J. Truman, and T. D. Snyder. 2012. Indicators of school crime and safety:
2011. (NCES 2012-002/NCJ 236021). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Robers, S., J. Kemp, J. Truman, and T. D. Snyder. 2013. Indicators of school crime and safety:
2012. (NCES 2013-036/NCJ 241446). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Rohrbach, L. A., and S. Dyal. In press. Scaling up prevention programs in schools. In
K. Bosworth
(Ed.), Prevention science in school settings: Complex relationships and
processes. New York: Springer Publishers.
Rohrbach, L. A., J. W. Graham, and W. B. Hansen. 1993. Diffusion of a school-based sub-stance
abuse prevention program: Predictors of program implementation. Preventive
Medicine 22(2):237–260.
Rohrbach, L. A., R. Grana, T. W. Valente, and S. Sussman. 2006. Type II translation: Trans-porting
prevention interventions from research to real-world settings. Evaluation and the
Health Professions 29(3):302–333.
Salmivalli, C., A. Kärnä, and E. Poskiparta. 2011. Counteracting bullying in Finland: The
KiVa program and its effects on different forms of being bullied. International Journal
of Behavioral Development 35(5):405–411.
Saul, J., A. Wandersman, P. Flaspohler, J. Duffy, K. Lubell, and R. Noonan. 2008. Research
and action for bridging the gap between prevention research and practice. American
Journal of Community Psychology 41:3–4.
Schacter H. L., S. J. White, V. Y. Chang, and J. Juvonen. 2014. “Why me?”: Characterologi-cal
self-blame and continued victimization in the first year of middle school. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 43(3):1–10.
Shalev, I., T. E. Moffitt, K. Sugden, B. Williams, R. M. Houts, A. Danese, J. Mill, L. Arseneault,
and A. Caspi. 2013. Exposure to violence during childhood is associated with telo-mere
erosion from 5 to 10 years of age: A longitudinal study. Molecular Psychiatry
18(5):576–581.
Smith, E. P., D. Gorman-Smith, W. H. Quinn, D. L. Rabiner, P. H. Tolan, and D. M. Winn.
2004. Community-based multiple family groups to prevent and reduce violent and
aggressive behavior: The GREAT Families Program. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine 26(1):39–47.
Smokowski, P. R., and K. H. Kopasz. 2005. Bullying in school: An overview of types, effects,
family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children Schools 27(2):101–110.

APPENDIX A 129
Snyder, H. N., and M. Sickmund. 2006. Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national re-port.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/
downloads/NR2006.pdf (accessed May 22, 2014).
Sourander, A., J. A. Rönning, H. Eloheimo, S. Nimelä, H. Helenius, K. Kumpulainen, J. Piha,
T. Tamminen, I. Moilanen, and F. Almqvist. 2007. Childhood bullies and victims and
their risk of criminality in late adolescence: The Finnish from a Boy to a Man Study.
Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 161(6):546–552.
Spoth, R., L. A. Rohrbach, M. Greenberg, P. Leaf, C. Brown, A. Fagan, R. Catalano, M. Pentz,
Z. Sloboda, and J. Hawkins. 2013. Addressing core challenges for the next generation of
Type 2 translation research and systems: The Translation Science to Population Impact
(TSci Impact) framework. Prevention Science 14(4):319–351.
Srabstein, J. C., B. E. Berkman, and E. Pyntikova. 2008. Antibullying legislation: A public
health perspective. Journal of Adolescent Health 42:11–20.
Swearer, S. M., J. Peugh, D. L. Espelage, A. B. Siebecker, W. L. Kingsbury, and K. S. Bevins.
2006. A socioecological model for bullying prevention and intervention in early adoles-cence:
An exploratory examination. In S. R. Jimerson and M. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook
of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 257–273). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Tierney, J. P., J. B. Grossman, and N. L. Resch. 1995. Making a difference: An impact study
of Big Brothers Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Tolan, P. H., D. Gorman-Smith, D. B. Henry, and M. Schoeny. 2010. The effects of a booster
prevention program on child behavior and family functioning: The SAFE Children pro-gram.
Prevention Science 10:287–297.
Ttofi, M. M., and D. P. Farrington. 2011. Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce
bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology
7(1):27–56.
Ttofi, M. M., D. P. Farrington, F. Lösel, and R. Loeber. 2011a. Do the victims of school bullies
tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitu-dinal
studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 3:63–73.
Ttofi, M. M., D. P. Farrington, F. Lösel, and R. Loeber. 2011b. The predictive efficiency of
school bullying versus later offending: A systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal
studies. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health 21(2):80–89.
Unnever, J. D., and D. G. Cornell. 2003. The culture of bullying in middle school. Journal of
School Violence 2:5–27.
U.S. Department of Education. 2010. Dear colleague letter. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/
list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.html (accessed May 19, 2014).
U.S. Department of Education. 2011. Analysis of state bullying laws and policies. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Develop-ment,
Policy and Program Studies Service.
U. S. Department of Education. 2013. Dear Colleague Letter. http://www.ed.gov/blog/2013/08/
keeping-students-with-disabilities-safe-from-bullying (accessed June 19, 2014).
U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education. 2002. The final report and findings of
the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United
States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Vaillancourt, T., E. Duku, S. Becker, L. A. Schmidt, J. Nicol, C. Muir, and H. Macmillan.
2011. Peer victimization, depressive symptoms, and high salivary cortisol predict poorer
memory in children. Brain and Cognition 77(2):191–199.
Voisin, D. R., and J. S. Hong. 2012. A conceptual formulation examining the relationship
between witnessing domestic violence and bullying behaviors and victimization among
youth. Educational Psychology Review 24(4):479–498.

Waasdorp, T. E., C. P. Bradshaw, and P. J. Leaf. 2012. The impact of School-Wide Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) on bullying and peer rejection: A ran-domized
controlled effectiveness trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine
116(2):149–156.
Woolf, S. H. 2008. The meaning of translational research and why it matters. JAMA 299(2):
211–213.
Wright, J., R. Sege, and the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Injury Violence
and Poison Prevention. 2009. Role of the pediatrician in youth violence prevention.
Pediatrics 124(1):393–402, doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0943.
Ybarra, M. L., A. T. Bağci Bosi, J. Korchmaros, and S. Emri. 2012. A text messaging-based
smoking cessation program for adult smokers: randomized controlled trial. Journal of
Medical Internet Research 14(6):e172.
Ybarra, M. L., S. S. Bull, T. L. Prescott, J. D. Korchmaros, D. R. Bangsberg, and J. P.
Kiwanuka. 2013a. Adolescent abstinence and unprotected sex in CyberSenga, an Inter-net-
based HIV prevention program: Randomized clinical trial of efficacy. PLoS ONE
8(8):e70083.
Ybarra, M. L., J. S. Holtrop, T. L. Prescott, M. H. Rahbar, and D. Strong. 2013b. Pilot RCT
results of stop my smoking USA: A text messaging–based smoking cessation program for
young adults. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 15(8):1388–1399.
Yeager, D. S., C. J. Fong, H. Y. Lee, and D. L. Espelage. In press. Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying
programs among older adolescents: A developmental theory and a three-level
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology.
Zimmerman, F. J., G. M. Glew, D. A. Christakis, and W. Katon. 2005. Early cognitive
stimulation, emotional support, and television watching as predictors of subsequent
bullying among grade-school children. Archive of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine
159(4):384–388.

B
Workshop Agenda
BUILDING CAPACITY TO REDUCE BULLYING AND ITS IMPACT
ON YOUTH ACROSS THE LIFECOURSE: A WORKSHOP
April 9–10, 2014
National Academy of Sciences Building
2101 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC
Lecture Room
AGENDA
Workshop Goals and Objectives
The overall objective of the workshop is to highlight current research
on bullying prevention. More specifically, workshop presentations and
discussions will address the following questions:
• What is the underlying knowledge base and conceptual models that
guide the design, delivery, and evaluation of bullying prevention
and intervention efforts?
• Are there specific interventions that are effective in decreasing bul-lying
• What programs designed to address other negative adolescent
behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, delinquency, etc.) are also effec-tive
at preventing or reducing bullying?
• Are there specific models and interventions that increase protective
factors and mitigate the negative health impact of bullying?
• What are the key sectors involved in bullying prevention and
intervention? How does involvement or lack of involvement by
key sectors influence opportunities and barriers to implementing a
131

blueprint for bullying prevention and intervention? What are some
appropriate roles for each of the key sectors in preventing bullying?
DAY 1: April 9, 2014
8:30–8:45 a.m. Welcome and Overview of Agenda
Frederick P. Rivara (Planning Committee Chair),
University of Washington School of Medicine
8:45–9:00 a.m. Perspectives from the Sponsor
Michael C. Lu, Health Resources and Services
Administration
9:00–9:30 a.m. Introduction and Role of Youth Panelists
Moderator: Megan Moreno, University of
Washington
Alexa Cafasso, Student at Sacred Heart Academy
Glenn Cantave, Student at Wesleyan University
Whitney Dockrey, Student at Georgetown
University
Asher Farkas, Student at New York University
Rebecca Shaw, Student at Horace Mann School
9:30–9:50 a.m. Introduction and Role of School Personnel Panelists
Moderator: Catherine Bradshaw, University of
Virginia and Planning Committee
Virginia L. Dolan, Anne Arundel County Public
Schools
Mike Donlin, State of Washington Office of
Superintendent of Public Instruction
William Myers, South River High School
9:50–10:20 a.m. Overview of Bullying and Victimization
Session Objectives:
• Provide an overview of key issues relevant to
bullying and victimization (including Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention definition,
frequency, and consequences [immediate, long-term
effects on health, school, quality of life]).
Discuss types of bullying (physical, verbal, rela-tional,
damage to property, and cyber).

APPENDIX B 133
• Discuss roles in bullying (bully, victim, bully–victim,
bystander).
Susan Limber, Clemson University
10:20–11:20 a.m. Session 1: Targets of Bullying and Bullying
Behavior
Session Objective:
• Highlight current research on risk factors, pro-tective
factors, and resiliency associated with
targets of bullying and bullying behavior at the
individual, family, school, and community levels.
Virginia
Jaana Juvonen, University of California,
Los Angeles
Tracy Vaillancourt, University of Ottawa
Dorothy Espelage, University of Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign
Robert Faris, University of California, Davis
11:20–11:50 a.m. Discussion and Audience Q A
Discussant: Catherine Bradshaw
11:50 a.m.– Lunch
12:50 p.m.
12:50–1:35 p.m. Session 2: School-Based Interventions
Session Objective:
• Highlight current research on school-based
interventions including school policies, school
climate, and preventive interventions.
Moderator: Nina Fredland, Texas Woman’s
University College of Nursing
Denise Gottfredson, University of Maryland
Catherine Bradshaw, University of Virginia
Dewey Cornell, University of Virginia
1:35–2:05 p.m. Discussion and Audience Q A
Discussant: Nina Fredland

2:05–2:50 p.m. Session 3: Family-Focused Interventions
Session Objective:
• Highlight current research on family-level inter-ventions
including parenting, responses to bul-lying
behavior, and parental awareness of kids’
online presence.
Moderator: Jonathan Todres, Georgia State
University College of Law
Melissa Holt, Boston University
Deborah Gorman-Smith, University of Chicago
Discussant: Jonathan Todres
3:20–3:35 p.m. Break
3:35–4:05 p.m. Session 4: Technology-Based Interventions
Session Objective:
• Highlight current research on technology-based
interventions, including social media–based
campaigns and using technology to disseminate
interventions.
Washington
Michele Ybarra, Center for Innovative Public
Health Research
Faye Mishna, University of Toronto
Discussant: Megan Moreno
4:35 p.m. Adjourn Day 1
DAY 2: April 10, 2014
8:30–8:40 a.m. Welcome and Overview of Agenda
Frederick P. Rivara, Planning Committee Chair

APPENDIX B 135
8:40–9:10 a.m. Session 5: Community-Based Interventions
Session Objective:
• Highlight current research on community-based
interventions including the role of health care
providers.
Moderator: Angela Diaz, Mount Sinai Hospital and
Chair, Board on Children, Youth, and Families
Asha Goldweber, SRI International
Joseph L. Wright, George Washington University
Schools of Medicine and Public Health
Discussant: Angela Diaz
9:40–10:10 a.m. Session 6: Peer-Led and Peer-Focused Programs
Session Objective:
• Highlight current research on peer-led programs
related to bullying prevention and related areas
of research.
Tom Dishion, Arizona State University
Kenneth A. Dodge, Duke University
Discussant: Jonathan Todres
10:40–11:00 a.m. Break
11:00–11:30 a.m. Session 7: Laws and Public Policies
Session Objectives:
• Provide an overview of anti-bullying laws and
policies.
• Discuss opportunities provided by legal frame-work,
constraints, and challenges.
Mark Hatzenbuehler, Columbia University
Douglas E. Abrams, University of Missouri School
of Law

11:30 a.m.– Discussion and Audience Q A
12:00 p.m. Discussant: Jonathan Todres
12:00–1:00 p.m. Lunch
1:00–1:45 p.m. Session 8: Translating Bullying Research into Policy
and Practice
Session Objective:
• Highlight the current research on the science of
implementation, increasing capacity, and sustain-ability,
including implementing community-wide
systems interventions.
Moderator: Denise Gottfredson, University of
Maryland
Abigail Fagan, University of Florida
Luanne Rohrbach, University of Southern
California
C. Hendricks Brown, Northwestern University
Discussant: Denise Gottfredson
2:15–2:45 p.m. School Personnel Reaction Panel
Session Objectives: Comment on the workshop
presentations and discussions, including
• What seemed particularly important and/or
useful?
• What important issues were missing from the
workshop discussion?
Virginia
Virginia L. Dolan, Mike Donlin, and
William Myers
2:45–3:30 p.m. Youth Reaction Panel
Session Objectives: Comment on the workshop
presentations and discussions, including
• What seemed particularly important and/or
useful?

APPENDIX B 137
• What important issues were missing from the
workshop discussion?
Washington
Alexa Cafasso, Glenn Cavante, Whitney Dockrey,
Asher Farkas, and Rebecca Shaw
3:30–4:30 p.m. Future Directions and Next Steps
Session Objectives:
• Synthesize and discuss key highlights from the
workshop presentations and discussions.
• Identify key promising areas for future research
and policy, key challenges, key opportunities.
Moderator: Frederick P. Rivara, Planning
Committee Chair
Catherine Bradshaw, Nina Fredland,
Denise Gottfredson, Megan Moreno, and
Jonathan Todres
4:30 p.m. Adjourn

C
Workshop Statement of Task
An ad hoc planning committee will plan and conduct a 2-day public
workshop that highlights relevant information and knowledge that can
inform a multi-disciplinary road map on next steps for the field of bully-ing
prevention. Content areas that will be explored include the identifica-tion
of conceptual models and interventions that have proven effective
in decreasing bullying and the antecedents to bullying, while increasing
protective factors that mitigate the negative health impact of bullying. Key
sectors that are involved in bullying prevention will be identified in order to
understand the opportunities and barriers to implementing a blueprint for
bullying prevention. An individually authored workshop summary will be
prepared based on the information gathered and the discussions held during
the workshop session. The workshop will feature invited presentations and
discussions that address the following questions:
• What is the underlying knowledge base and conceptual models that
guide the design, delivery, and evaluation of bullying prevention
and intervention efforts?
• Are there specific interventions that are effective in decreasing bul-lying
• What programs designed to address other negative adolescent
behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, delinquency, etc.) are also effec-tive
at preventing or reducing bullying?
• Are there specific models and interventions that increase protective
factors and mitigate negative health impact of bullying?
139

• What are the key sectors involved in bullying prevention and
intervention? How does involvement or lack of involvement by
key sectors influence opportunities and barriers to implementing a
blueprint for bullying prevention and intervention? What are some
appropriate roles for each of the key sectors in preventing bullying?
This activity constitutes Phase 1 of a three-part effort directed toward
examining, analyzing, and synthesizing information and knowledge about
policy, education, and behavioral strategies aimed at decreasing bullying
behavior.

Building capacity to reduce bullying (2014); NAP-IOM

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Building capacity to reduce bullying (2014); NAP-IOM (20)

More from University of New Mexico (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Building capacity to reduce bullying (2014); NAP-IOM