research

article3.pdf

Nursing Academic Administrators’ Lived Experiences With Incivility and Bullying From Faculty Consequences and Outcomes Demanding Action Kathleen B. LaSala, PhD, RN, PNP, CNE & Vicki Wilson, PhD, RN & Elizabeth Sprunk, PhD, RN, CNE

There are an increasing number of nursing academic administrators who identify themselves as victims of faculty incivility. This study examined experiences that academic administrators encountered with faculty incivility using a phenomenological research design. Three major themes emerged: faculty inappropriate behaviors, consequences of faculty behaviors on administrator targets, and administrators call for action. Findings revealed that incivility had devastating effects on administrators personally and professionally.

Keywords: academic administrators; bullying; incivility; nursing education; nursing faculty incivility; workplace

I ncivility in the workplace has been identified as a problem in the nursing education setting, including student-to- student, student-to-faculty, faculty-to-student, faculty-to-

administrators, and administrators-to-faculty. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to gain an understanding of the experiences of and impact on nursing academic ad- ministrators who encountered nursing faculty incivility.

Relevant Scholarship Clark1 defined academic incivility as rude or disruptive be- havior, which often results in psychological or physiological distress for the victim and may progress into threatening sit- uations. Incivility has been attributed to the competitive and hierarchical nature of academia and stress from heavy work- loads.2 Examples of behaviors included exclusion, lack of support, rudeness, slurs, gossip and sharing falsehoods, verbal and physical attacks, name calling, vulgarity, or profanity.2,3

Bullying, a related concept, is more than the disrespect of incivility because it is intentional and focuses on particular individuals or groups.4 Bullying includes an actual or per- ceived sense of power of one over another.

5 Consequences

of incivility and bullying may be loss of work time and pro-

ductivity, loss of employees, decreases in feelings of team- work, work avoidance, lower job motivation, health care costs due to stress, legal costs from increased litigation, and loss of revenue due to loss of staff, faculty, and students.6

Work environments where incivility and bullying are present are detrimental to retention and recruitment of nursing ad- ministrators, an academic area that is already experiencing a significant shortage.

2 In addition, these work environments

may represent a systemic issue negatively affecting the over- all educational environment and relationships.7<10

Nursing incivility and bullying are reported in the liter- ature in both practice and educational settings. There is limited information, however, describing the consequences of inci- vility and bullying of nursing academic administrators and the organization. Therefore, there is a need for research to explore these negative lived experiences through the eyes of nursing academic administrators.

Purpose The purpose of the study was to understand the lived experi- ences and consequences of incivility and bullying as described by nursing academic administrators, thus guiding further re- search on this topic and development of policies, procedures, and interventions in the academic setting. The benefit gained from the study was an image of the experience, described by the individual participants, merged together to create a shared meaning of incivility and bullying as well as the con- sequences of these behaviors experienced by nursing aca- demic administrators.

Method A phenomenological research design was used for the study through semistructured interviews. Three researchers collected descriptive data from participants who experienced the

120 Volume 41 & Number 3 & May/June 2016 Nurse Educator

Nurse EducatorNurse Educator Nurse Educator

Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 120-124

Author Affiliations: Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and Professor (Dr LaSala), College of Nursing, University of South Carolina, Columbia; Professor (Dr Wilson), University of Northern Colorado, School of Nursing, Greeley; and Associate Program Chair and Associate Professor (Dr Sprunk), Mercy College of Ohio, Toledo. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Correspondence: Dr LaSala, College of Nursing, University of South Carolina, 1601 Greene St, Columbia, SC 29208 (lasala@mailbox.sc.edu). Accepted for publication: November 8, 2015 Published ahead of print: December 15, 2015 DOI: 10.1097/NNE.0000000000000234

mailto:lasala@mailbox.sc.edu

phenomenon of incivility and bullying by faculty as a nurs- ing academic administrator (dean, director, associate dean, chair, and/or department head). After institutional review board approval was received from the principal investiga- tor’s academic institution, the following steps were initiated. Potential participants received an e-mail letter inviting them to participate in the study along with a description of the study and informed consent process. After the participant responded to the e-mail invitation and informed consent, a mutually agreeable location and time were arranged for an interview, with telephone interviews as an option. Partici- pants completed a 10-question demographic questionnaire, and the researchers conducted hour-long audiotaped inter- views. Each interview began with an open-ended statement of ‘‘Tell me about your experience with incivility and bullying in the workplace aimed at you in your nursing administrative role.’’ Prompting was used to obtain clarification and depth.

Data Analysis Procedures Demographic data were analyzed by distribution and fre- quency for regional location, age, gender, marital status, years in nursing education and academic administration, and em- ployment. The audio-taped interviews were transcribed and analyzed by each researcher. Colaizzi’s11 phenomenological method was used to analyze the qualitative data. Significant quotes related directly to the phenomenon of incivility and bullying were highlighted, extracted, and numbered. For- mulated meanings were created by making general restate- ments of the significant statements extracted. Researchers met to achieve consensus with theme clusters created, assigning meanings into similar groups. The essence of the phenome- non of nursing academic administrators’ experiences of inci- vility and bullying was completed with a thorough analysis of the exhaustive descriptions.

Participants The target population was nursing academic administrators who self-identified experiences with incivility and bullying targeted against them in the workplace. A convenience, pur- posive sample of 14 administrators from nationally accredited nursing programs was obtained via an e-mailed letter with snowball sampling, allowing others to be identified as poten- tial participants. Demographic data revealed that the partici- pants were from all regions of the United States, all female, and primarily white with an average age of 59.4 years and varying marital status. Participants were experienced nurse educators with a mean of 26 years (range, 11-40 years) and administrators, having served in this role for an average of 13.5 years (range, 3-30 years). Currently, 5 participants re- mained in nursing academic administration (35%), 8 were no longer in nursing academic administration (57%), and 2 had left nursing education altogether (14%). One participant was retired. All but 1 participant was from a baccalaureate or higher degree educational program.

Results Three main theme clusters emerged: faculty inappropriate behaviors, consequences of faculty behaviors on administrator targets, and administrators call for action. The Table outlines the theme clusters and the behaviors/reactions associated with each.

Faculty Inappropriate Behaviors All participants described being subjected to inappropriate behaviors from nursing faculty that violated the American Nurses Association Code of Ethics.12 Behaviors ranged from rude and disrespectful behaviors such as eye rolling and non- verbal actions to verbal abuse, gossip, yelling, and violent arguing. Excerpts from participant interviews included ‘‘[fa- culty were] raising their voices and shouting at me’’ and ‘‘talk- ing over me in meetings, using computers with backs turned away, coming in late, having side conversations, and not- engaging.’’ Another person stated: ‘‘There was nasty gossip, snide remarks, and smirks.’’

Participants reported threatening and intimidating be- haviors, including verbal and written threats, stalking, and even shunning the individual. Examples of comments in- cluded, ‘‘They told lies about what was said and done,’’ ‘‘She was sending emails and letters with my name on them. I had to get legal recourse,’’ ‘‘I would receive anonymous phone calls of threats. Threatened to ruin my career or sue me,’’ and ‘‘One of the individuals told me that she dreamt she had beaten me with a baseball bat.’’ Participants shared distress over the false accusations and allegations made against them, often without recourse for accountability or the opportunity to respond. There was a belief that falsehoods that remained unchallenged were possibly believed by others. Several individuals shared that these situations made it difficult to accomplish their work. Comments included, ‘‘She would go around me to the provost, president, and even tried to con- vince the state board of nursing,’’ ‘‘The faculty wrote untrue, incorrect things in my evaluation, but there was no account- ability for the truth,’’ and ‘‘Some of the issues they falsely reported about were issues I had to address confidentially and therefore could not share a rationale.’’

A distressing behavior identified by many was a ganging up/mob behavior of specific faculty members. These were

Table. Theme Clusters and Behaviors/Reactions

Theme Cluster Behaviors/Reactions

Faculty inappropriate behaviors Rude and disrespectful Threatening and intimidating behaviors False accusations and allegations Ganging/mob behaviors Purposeful sabotage Manipulation Passive-aggressive behaviors

Consequences of faculty behaviors on administrator targets

Impact on professional relationships Tarnished reputation Lack of support from others Harm to physical health Harm to psychological health and well-being

Negative impact on professional career Administrators call for action Need for awareness and education

Need for organizational standards, policies and expectations

Need for consequences for uncivil behavior

Need for administrative action and support

Nurse Educator Volume 41 & Number 3 & May/June 2016 121

identified frequently as senior or tenured faculty who viewed themselves in positions of power, were resistant to change, or feared loss of control. Examples included, ‘‘Behavior was tolerated and even encouraged because results got doneI people left (up to 20)Ibut it was tolerated,’’ ‘‘I worked in a circle of powerful women—they did not want me,’’ and ‘‘There was a power differential (real or perceived)Ithey were threatened by new people.’’ Participants also identified behaviors including purposeful sabotage and manipulation, some outright egregious and other behaviors more passive- aggressive. Behaviors included not responding to e-mails or requests, cancelling meetings, not following policies, not putting items on the agenda or refusing to address items on the agenda, and often tabling items for future meetings to delayed action.

Consequences of Faculty Behaviors on Administrator Targets Many of the participants felt that the incivility experience had a negative impact on their professional relationships, specifically sharing concepts of loss of trust, distancing one’s self, strained relations, and lost confidence in interactions. Respondents reported, ‘‘It has made me more leery,’’ ‘‘I had no trust for senior faculty and a definite distrust of the people that should have been my mentors. I had a lot of bitterness. I had an edge to me,’’ and ‘‘I think for the faculty who knew me well and respected me and what I was doing, it didn’t have any effect, they were supportive. But other administrators began to look at me, I think, a bit askance.’’

Administrators shared experiences of seeking support from higher administration, sharing the details when it oc- curred. An equal counterpoint to receiving support was a feeling of frustration and abandonment when support was withheld or the situation was ignored. Concern existed that institutions did not have policies, procedures, or a willingness to deal with incivility issues. ‘‘Extreme behaviors were tol- erated by the university and had been for years. Human Re- sources personnel say they provide you with an opportunity to address conflict and issues, when in reality they don’t do anythingIthey tolerated the bad behaviors and allowed people who were trying to change and challenge that bad behavior to be dismissed because they become the ones con- sidered disruptive.’’ Administrators often found themselves as the scapegoats for the institution being blamed or ignored in the face of challenges.

All participants revealed negative physical and psycho- logical outcomes of the incivility experience. Consequences ranged from mild stress symptoms to major depression, chest pain, and cardiac problems. Example comments included, ‘‘My blood pressure was upII wasn’t sleeping, I was losing weight, just on edge, paranoid,’’ ‘‘I didn’t have the energy to take care of myself because of the stress at work was so high,’’ and ‘‘I had nightmares, I physically withdrew. I didn’t want to be near anyoneII felt physically nauseous, almost anxiety ridden during faculty meetings.’’ The impact was detrimental to their health and mental well-being. Several required medication and hospitalization.

In addition to physical and emotional consequences, participants also shared how incivility had an impact on their professional careers. They reported questioning their desire to be in nursing academic administration and education and

the need to move on to other positions. More than half of the participants left academic administration, and several left nursing education altogether. Individuals reported threats and actual harm to their reputation and credibility. Individuals sabotaged their efforts to do their work after they went to faculty roles or tried to assume positions elsewhere. For example, an administrator asserted, ‘‘I think it was the be- ginning of my wondering whether I really needed to stay in administration’’ and ‘‘After I left, people were send- ing information outside of the institution to purposely destroy meIthey tried to block my career opportunities. I am think- ing about whether I want to venture back into the world of academic administrationIit has been a pretty wounding ex- perience, and the abuse has been none that I could have ever envisioned undergoing.’’ Leaders described the incred- ible amount of time incivility issues took away from getting the work done, lost work time due to defending themselves, even litigation costs and the financial and emotional costs of having to relocate their lives. A few individuals reported the incivility prodded them to move on, and they found much satisfaction in a new role and place. One participant stated, ‘‘I left the institution. The positive side of that is it made me carefully evaluate the new leadership opportunities, carefully evaluating the players involved and a place that values inte- grity. I think it shapes how I want to be as a leader.’’

Administrators Call for Action The final theme voiced by all participants was a call to action to deal with incivility and bullying. This call included a need for awareness, education, and identification of incivility and organizational standards, policies, and a commitment from all levels of administration to address incivility behaviors. One participant summarized it clearly, ‘‘Don’t tolerate bad behav- ior. We must have courage to stand up and be an advocate for ourselves and others. Culture standards and expectations must be in place.’’ Another called for actions similar to those used in her Magnet designated institution. She stated,

Adopt the practices we now use in hospital administra- tion, we have policies that address incivility, we have a just culture, which is a specific approach to how you work with people with set expectations for behaviors. If one deviates from what is acceptable, the behavior is called out; it is identified and dealt with in a prescribed mannerI. It is an organizational commitment to the expectation that is standard. This is something I never had in academia.

There was unanimous agreement with this call for action from the administrators.

Discussion Study findings were consistent with the definition and expe- riences of incivility and bullying addressed in the literature. Administrators described experiences of being exposed to inappropriate behaviors and actions, threats and intimida- tion, shunning and isolation, false accusations and allegations, ganging/mobbing behaviors, purposeful sabotage/manipulation, and passive aggressive activities. In studies examining faculty- to-faculty interactions, participants reported more senior or tenured faculty bullying,13 reflecting a differentiation in power of the more senior members.

5 Even when the administrator

122 Volume 41 & Number 3 & May/June 2016 Nurse Educator

occupied an assumed higher position, participants reported ganging up/mobbing by more senior faculty who felt their power status was threatened. There seemed to be a sense of power in numbers that may supersede the power of position or rank.

Mobbing behaviors, defined as a process of systematic and repeated aggression toward someone,14 were associated with stress and negatively associated with group support and group identity. The literature referred to perceived stress in nursing practice and education as a primary factor associated with academic incivility.2 Incivility increased when levels of stress were high and opportunities to resolve conflict were missed avoided or poorly managed.13 Participants identified change and workload as stressors indicating that individuals did not want things to change and were not happy with ad- ministrators who tried to alter the status quo or workload. Poor or inappropriate communication was another consis- tent finding in which administrators identified uncivil faculty members as those who were resistant to change and unyield- ing or unwilling to negotiate.13

Participants identified behaviors that paralleled those in the literature, including overt rude or disruptive behavior, hazing, intimidation, unsupportive, setting up others to fail, exerting superiority or rank over others, refusing to listen or communicate, gossip and passive-aggressive behaviors, and engaging in clandestine meetings.13 They also found that when incivility and bullying were ignored, the problems expanded.

Dzurec and Bromley 15

explained that victims of more subtle incivility and bullying can usually provide descriptions of the event but are less able to define the significance of what happened to them, which was clearly evident in this study. The individuals responsible for these negative behav- iors continued to feel control and power for themselves. As the behaviors continued, incivility and bullying became a tolerated norm for the workplace. Without the language to define the behaviors experienced, the victims themselves were often seen as the ones who cannot manage the situa- tion or communicate with difficult people.

16 The victim of

the behavior can become the scapegoat when the organiza- tional structure chooses not to address the issue,15,17 result- ing in dysfunction at the individual and organizational levels. When incivility has gone unaddressed over time and becomes a cultural workplace norm,15 it is defined as a toxic work- place. Sadly, in these environments, productivity is often stifled, morale is low, and retention becomes a problem.2,18 The themes found in this study supported the literature that con- cluded that cultures of incivility existed, were propagated by those who had learned these behaviors in their workplace, and flourished when ignored; many of the administrators found themselves as the organizational scapegoats.

Heinrich 18

reported that the impact of incivility in the workplace included loss of work, work avoidance, lower job motivation, health care issues and costs, and retention issues. Incivility negatively affected the overall education environ- ment and relationships10 and resulted in feelings of betrayal and shame in the victim.16 The study participants reported similar consequences of faculty incivility and bullying, includ- ing negative impacts on professional relationships, reputa- tions, and professional careers. The most alarming finding in the study revealed that only 35.7% of the participants re- mained in nursing academic administration.

The cost of incivility not only affects administrators per- sonally and professionally but also has an impact on the en- tire academic environment and profession. Nursing leaders who choose to step down because of incivility in the work- place or are bullied out of administrative roles leave a void that is not easily filled.

The financial impact on the institution of higher edu- cation when an administrator leaves can be viewed from 2 perspectives. First, there might be exit costs, including a negotiated exit package to include moving costs, severance pay, health insurance, and unused vacation payout required for the employer to pay. Litigation costs also might be an expense for both the employer and ex-employee, as was identified by participants in the study. Second, replacing a dean or director of nursing is expensive. Nationally, it is es- timated that roughly $150,000 to $200,000 salary dollars is required to advertise, recruit, hire, and relocate a new dean or director. Although expensive, some employers also hire a search firm because of the shortage of nursing academic administrators.

There also is a loss of productivity for the institution during a transition period of administrators, which may be an intentional or unintentional consequence of a leadership change. Research findings indicated that 68% of faculty re- ported incivility in their units, including resisting change, fail- ing to perform job requirements, poor communication related to work issues, and negative comments and behaviors.19 As reported by the participants, frequently a major issue was the faculty’s desire not to change. Once a new leader is found, there is always a period of establishing an agenda, determin- ing actions, and developing academic relationships to move the agenda forward. These activities can take a year or more depending on how long the search process endured. In an environment of incivility, the productivity of the workplace is already hampered and may decrease more during transition.

Experts encourage nurse leaders to manage the environ- ment by acknowledging incivility and bullying behaviors, establishing education and interventions to support a trust- ing workplace, and developing a zero tolerance for negative behaviors.5 Education should include conflict resolution, prob- lem solving, open communication, collaboration, and team- work. In some cases, nurse leaders ignore negative behaviors because of their inability to deal with the behaviors. A positive workplace environment must be restored through group in- tervention and ownership of establishing a safe and sup- portive workplace. The participants all suggested that the profession needs to deal with this issue, calling for leaders to ‘‘label it [the behavior], call it out [identify when incivility and bullying occur], address it [counsel the individual], develop a no tolerance policy/culture, and have consequences [required education, remediation, and dismissal if necessary].’’ Most notably was a call for a change in academic organizational cul- ture and a support system for nursing academic administrators.

Absent from the study findings was a personal call to action. Most participants did not identify their role in man- aging the behavior and environment. Transformational change led by strong leaders using shared governance has resulted in successful redesign and shaping of healthy organizational cul- ture in nursing education.20 Experts recommended starting with a culture/climate assessment to help identify areas of strength, concerns, and general perceptions of the organizational

Nurse Educator Volume 41 & Number 3 & May/June 2016 123

culture.21 An organizational unit’s shared commitment to a culture of civility is essential. Another measure to help provide skills to deal with incivility include cognitive rehearsal, an intervention that allows individuals to acquire the skill set necessary to address incivility in a safe environment through role playing.22 Workshops can engage team members in a con- versation and help develop civility contracts and establish norms for behaviors.9 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation developed a toolkit to help guide individuals and institutions to estab- lish cultures of civility. Respectful conversations for difficult situations, managing difficult conversations, incivility and bully- ing code words, and the language of collaboration are topics in the toolkit.23 Finally, the American Nurses Association24 has developed a toolkit for communication and collaboration that focuses on factors for developing healthy interactions.

Implications for Nursing Education and Administration This study calls for courage from nursing leaders and aca- demic institutions to establish a shared vision and culture of civility, with specific expectations, policies, and consequences for behaviors, and to provide ongoing education to promote positive behaviors.2 This change is more difficult in a setting with an established negative culture but must be addressed. Nursing academic administrators need backing of institutional administration and policies. Otherwise, they are vulnerable when they are alone in addressing incivility or become the victims of negative behaviors. Everyone needs to practice role modeling civility and reinforce positive behaviors.

Limitations The study had several limitations. First, there are many nurse academic administrators who were not part of this study, some who may have had no experiences with incivility and bullying and others who may have more or less severity of experiences or may have been unwilling to ‘‘name’’ the issue. Second, all participants were female; thus, the male percep- tive is missing. Third, there was no significant ethnic diversity in the sample to address any racial differences.

Conclusions This study contributed unique information to the body of knowledge on incivility and bullying in nursing education. Specifically, nursing faculty incivility and bullying toward academic administrators resulted in potentially devastating effects on administrators’ health and emotional well-being, professional relationships, career trajectory, and institutional effectiveness. The problem requires that academic adminis- trators proactively role model civil behaviors, develop organi- zational policies and structures, and immediately manage issues as they arise. In a time of critical faculty shortage and financial challenges, the loss of qualified nursing administra- tors is detrimental to the profession. Incivility and bullying should be a component of nurse leadership programs to bet- ter equip leaders with tools and skills to manage problems. Finally, the authors call for compassion for our nursing aca- demic leaders, who are willing to take on the challenge of working with difficult situations.

References 1. Clark CM. Creating and Sustaining Civility in Nursing Education.

Indianapolis, IN: Sigma Theta Tau International; 2013. 2. Clark CM. National study on faculty-to-faculty incivility: strategies

to foster collegiality and civility. Nurs Educ. 2013;38(3):98-102. 3. Clark CM, Olender L, Kenski D, Cardoni C. Exploring and address-

ing faculty-to-faculty incivility: a national perspective and literature review. J Nurs Educ. 2013;52(4):211-218.

4. Lachman VD. Ethical issues in the disruptive behaviors of inci- vility, bullying, and horizontal/lateral violence. Urol Nurs. 2015; 35(1):39-42.

5. Roberts SJ. Lateral violence in nursing: a review of the past three decades. Nurs Sci Q. 2015;28(1):36-41.

6. Heinrich KT. An optimist’s guide form cultivating civility among academic nurses. J Prof Nurs. 2010;26(6):325-331.

7. Condon BB. Incivility as bullying in nursing education. Nurs Sci Q. 2015;28(1):21-26.

8. Burger KG, Kramlich D, Malitas M, Page-Cutrara K, Whitfield- Harris L. Application of the symphonological approach to faculty- to-faculty incivility in nursing education. J Nurs Educ. 2014;53(10): 563-568.

9. Clark CM. Pursuing a culture of civility: an intervention study in one program of nursing. Nurs Educ. 2011;36(3):98-102.

10. Clark CM, Davis Kenaley BL. Faculty empowerment of students to foster civility in nursing education: a merging of two concep- tual models. Nurs Outlook. 2011;59(3):158-165.

11. Colaizzi P. Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In: Valle RS, King M, eds. Existential Psychological Alternatives for Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1978.

12. American Nurses Association. Code of Ethics With Interpretive Statements. Silver Springs MD: Nursebooks.org; 2015.

13. Clark CM, Springer PJ. Academic nurse leaders’ role in fostering a cul- ture of civility in nursing education. J Nurs Educ. 2010;49(6):319-325.

14. Topa G, Moriano JA. Stress and nurses’ horizontal mobbing: moderating effects of group identity and group support. Nurs Outlook. 2013;61(3):e25-e31.

15. Dzurec LC, Bromley GE. Speaking of workplace bullying. J Prof Nurs. 2012;28(4):247-254.

16. Dzurec LC, Kennison M, Albataineh R. Unacknowledged threats proffered ‘‘in a manner of speaking’’: recognizing workplace bul- lying as shaming. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2014;46(4):281-291.

17. Dzurec LC. Status limbo: analysis of nurse faculty member reports of administrator response to workplace bullying complaints. J Prof Nurs. 2013;29(5):el-e9.

18. Heinrich KT. Joy stealing games. Reflect Nurs Leadersh. 2006; 32(2):1-4.

19. Clark CM. National study on faculty-to faculty incivility: strategies to foster collegiality and civility. Nurs Educ. 2013;38(3):98-102.

20. Springer PJ, Clark CM, Strohfus P, Belcheir M. Using transforma- tional change to improve organizational culture and climate in a school of nursing. J Nurs Educ. 2012;51(2):81-88.

21. Clark CM, Belcheir M, Strohfus P, Springer PJ. Development and description of the culture/climate assessment scale. J Nurs Educ. 2012;51(2):75-80.

22. Griffin M, Clark CM. Revisiting cognitive rehearsal as an inter- vention against incivility and lateral violence in nursing: 10 years later. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2014;45(12):535-542; quiz 543-544.

23. RWJF Executive Nurse Fellows Program. Foundation, Courage Bucket, Difficult Conversations. Available at http://www. stopbullyingtoolkit.org. Accessed September 9, 2015.

24. American Nurses Association. Communication, Collaboration and You: Tools, Tips, and Techniques for Nursing Practice. Washington, DC: Author.

124 Volume 41 & Number 3 & May/June 2016 Nurse Educator

http://Nursebooks.org

http://Available at: http://www.stopbullyingtoolkit.org