Research Proposal

Journal of School Violence, 12:238–252, 2013 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1538-8220 print/1538-8239 online DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2013.792271

School and Community-Based Approaches for Preventing Bullying

MELISSA K. HOLT School of Education, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

KATHERINE RACZYNSKI College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA

KARIN S. FREY College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA

SHELLEY HYMEL Education & Counseling Psychology, and Special Education, University of British Columbia,

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

SUSAN P. LIMBER Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA

With an increasing focus on bullying among the public, educators, researchers, and policy makers, there is a need to delineate what we know works in bullying prevention and what areas might benefit from greater attention. The social-ecological framework provides a useful tool through which to consider what contexts and fac- tors within these contexts might yield promising results in bullying prevention. In this article we first provide an overview of bullying prevention program evaluations to date, and then highlight two salient components of the social-ecology that have received lim- ited attention to date. Specifically, we discuss the role of teacher implementation in influencing bullying program effectiveness, and consider how community-based bullying prevention efforts might serve to address factors relevant to bullying involvement that are outside the sphere of influence of educators.

KEYWORDS bullying, prevention, intervention, social-ecological framework, teacher implementation, communities

Received February 8, 2013; accepted April 1, 2013. Address correspondence to Melissa K. Holt, School of Education, Boston University,

2 Silber Way, Boston, MA 02215, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

238

Bullying Prevention in Schools and Communities 239

In the past decade there has been an increasing focus on bullying prevention in the United States and around the globe. With it, there has been a growing recognition that effective bullying prevention programs should be situated within a social-ecological framework (Furlong, Morrison, & Grief, 2003; Hong & Espelage, 2012; Orpinas & Horne, 2006; Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010), addressing the characteristics of the individual involved and the multiple contexts in which they are embedded. In support of this perspective is research documenting that factors at each level of the social- ecology contribute to bullying behavior, from peer group levels of aggression (e.g., Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003) to parenting styles (e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 2000) to classroom norms about aggression (Mercer, McMillen, & DeRosier, 2009).

Efforts to evaluate existing bullying prevention programs have yielded mixed results, however, and for schools and communities there is limited practical guidance about which programs or program components to imple- ment, even when bullying prevention is mandated by legislation (Srabstein et al., 2008). This article provides an overview of bullying prevention program evaluations to date, highlighting promising approaches and com- ponents, the importance of addressing issues of implementation integrity and fidelity, and possibilities for greater community involvement in bullying prevention efforts.

ARE BULLYING PREVENTION PROGRAMS EFFECTIVE?

The success of school-based antibullying programs has been documented in countries around the world, using very different approaches (e.g., Cross, Hall, Hamilton, Pinabona, & Erceg, 2004; Frey, Hirschstein, Edstrom, & Snell, 2009; Orpinas, Horne, & Staniszewski, 2003; Olweus, 1993, 2004; Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Voeten, & Sinisammal, 2004), yet initial reviews of the overall effectiveness of universal bullying prevention programs have yielded mixed results (for a review see Swearer et al., 2010). For example, a meta-analysis conducted by Smith, Schneider, Smith, and Ananiadou (2004), considered the impact of 14 schoolwide bullying prevention programs and concluded that there were only small program effects. Similarly, a meta-analysis of 16 studies from European and U.S. schools indicated that, although bul- lying prevention programs were associated with changes in knowledge, attitudes, and self-perceptions about bullying, actual decreases in bully- ing behaviors were less evident (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008). More recent meta-analyses of social-emotional learning programs in general (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011), and antibullying programs in particular (Polanin, Espelage, & Pigott, 2012; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011) have yielded more encouraging results. Indeed, Ttofi and Farrington’s (2011) meta-analysis of 44 evaluations of schoolwide antibullying programs

240 M. K. Holt et al.

indicated that these programs were generally effective overall, albeit with an average reduction in victimization of 17% to 23% and an average reduction in bullying perpetration of 20% to 30%.

How might we make sense of the mixed findings to date? One approach is to consider which specific bullying prevention programs and compo- nents seem to yield the most promising results and which factors might hinder program success. We outline a few such factors here. With respect to promising programs, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (and programs patterned after it) has perhaps received the greatest research attention (for a review see Olweus & Limber, 2010), owing in part to the fact that it was one of the first schoolwide programs developed and evaluated (see Olweus, 1993). With its focus on changing the social cli- mate of the school and school norms with regard to bullying, it has also been shown to be one of the more effective programs for reduc- ing school bullying (see Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). However, the Olweus program is not the only approach to reducing bullying. Researchers have also documented the success of other programs that reduce bullying by changing the school climate (e.g., Orpinas et al., 2003) or highlighting the salience of bystander behavior, such as the KIVA program in Finland (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, & Voeten, 2005; Salmivalli et al., 2004) and the Steps to Respect program in the United States (Frey et al., 2009). Reducing retaliation, which predicts increased victimization (Frey, 2013; Salmivalli & Helteenvuori, 2007), is another approach used in successful programs (Frey et al., 2009).

Although no program to date has been shown to eliminate bully- ing, significant reductions in bullying have been documented using diverse approaches. Different approaches may address different aspects of the prob- lem or may be effective with different segments of the student body, suggesting that multiple or combined approaches may be needed (see Rigby, 2012; Sullivan, 2010). Indeed, reviews to date have indicated that whole- school antibullying efforts that are longer in duration and more extensive in scope tend to be more effective (Rigby & Slee, 2008; Ttofi & Farrington 2011; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). Ttofi and Farrington (2011) have also identified several features of schoolwide programs that are associated with greater effectiveness, including parent meetings, firm disciplinary methods, bet- ter playground supervision, classroom management, teacher training, and cooperative learning. Evidence of success in one domain, however, is no guarantee of success in another. Aggressive retaliation, for example, appears to respond to intervention more slowly than the initial bullying (Frey et al., 2009; Hirschstein, Edstrom, Frey, Snell, & McKenzie, 2007). The effectiveness of bullying prevention programs can vary for a number of reasons, including differences in implementation fidelity and dosage (e.g., Olweus & Limber, 2010; Smith et al., 2004), and schools’ readiness to implement schoolwide programs (Olweus & Limber, 2010).

Bullying Prevention in Schools and Communities 241

In sum, despite mixed findings about the effectiveness of bullying prevention programs to date, recent research provides a more hopeful outlook for bullying prevention programs as a whole and for particularly efficacious program components. Despite the documented success of several schoolwide programs, overall reductions in bullying and victimization have been limited. More work is needed to enable greater reductions. To that end, we discuss two areas that have received less attention in the literature: teacher implementation and community involvement.

TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION

Many of the bullying prevention program evaluations to date have been efficacy studies in which educators receive material and technical resources from developers or researchers. In actual practice, effectiveness will vary widely. Effectiveness studies may yield poorer results than efficacy studies when resources, planning, and implementation are insufficient to the task (Durlak & DuPre, 2008) and may yield better results when educator ingenu- ity, local knowledge, and sense of ownership exceed what can be provided in an external evaluation. Given the critical role of implementation integrity, this section focuses on issues of teacher motivation, knowledge, and capac- ity; maintaining fidelity despite adaptation; and addressing teacher turnover by planning for long-term sustainability.

Building Teacher Capacity

There can be substantial differences between classrooms, even within the same school, in beliefs supporting bullying (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004) and in levels of victimization and reinforcing bystander behavior (Frey, Jones, Hirschstein, & Edstrom, 2011; Salmivalli, Voeten, & Poskiparta, 2011). Although some of these variations can be attributed to grade level differ- ences, research findings have also documented variability across classrooms of the same grade (e.g., for antibullying norms; see Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004). In addition, studies have found classroom differences in response- to-intervention (Brown, Low, Smith, & Haggerty, 2011; Frey et al., 2009). While student makeup of classrooms contributes to that variation, so does between-teacher variation. Teachers are more likely to address bullying if they believe the problem is serious, feel empathy for bullied students, per- ceive that they have key roles to play in reducing bullying (teacher efficacy), and believe that their intervention will be effective (Howard, Horne, & Jolliff, 2001; Kallistad & Olweus, 2003). Building capacity in teachers entails sup- porting teacher motivation and skills in both program-specific and general ways (Wandersman et al., 2008).

242 M. K. Holt et al.

BELIEFS, MOTIVATION, AND SKILL

The potential of teachers to provide emotional support, facilitate competent coping, and foster positive social norms is unrealized when teachers do not recognize or intervene in bullying behavior, or when they do not view it to be problematic (see Newman, Frey, & Jones, 2010). For instance, Bauman and Del Rio (2006) found that preservice teachers viewed relational bul- lying as less serious than physical or verbal manifestations, and were in turn less likely to intervene in relational bullying episodes. Training can increase teachers’ understanding of the harmful effects of indirect bullying and cyberbullying, and their role in fostering aggressive confrontations on school grounds (Xie, Swift, Cairns, & Cairns, 2002). Training that includes role-playing of intervention scenarios raises teachers’ self-efficacy for deal- ing with bullying (Bell, Raczynski, & Horne, 2010) and supports effective intervention.

FIDELITY AND ADAPTATION

Program effectiveness is enhanced with high fidelity, the extent to which implementation matches the original program’s design and procedures (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). For example, within the literature on schoolwide antibullying efforts, Salmivalli et al. (2004) found that student reports of being bullied in response to the KIVA program decreased from 14.9% to 10.5% in low implementation integrity classes (i.e., a relative reduction of 30%), but decreased from 21.7% to 6.7% (a relative reduction of 69%) in high implementation integrity classes. Particularly when programs include class- room lessons, educators often wish to adapt programs to fit specific teaching styles or perceived student needs. Some adaptations may enrich established programs, such as by providing images of people and situations typical of the student body. Others inadvertently delete core components (i.e., the elements that translate underlying theory into practical procedures), or add elements that obscure core learning goals and dilute their effectiveness (e.g., the addition of scare tactics). Given the emphasis on using evidence-based programs, educators may benefit from training on identifying core elements and undertaking a systematic process in implementing program adaptations (e.g., Escoffery, Carvalho, & Kegler, 2012).

A systematic approach supports faculty and program effectiveness. In order to knowledgeably assess a program, teachers need to adhere closely to program elements the first year. Problems and ideas for improvements can be discussed in weekly team meetings, with suggestions summarized for review at the end of the year. Some changes are unlikely to affect fidelity (e.g., using student-typical language in role-plays). Those that require more caution (e.g., changing lesson sequence or eliminating lessons) can be evaluated with the help of program developers. A coordinated approach

Bullying Prevention in Schools and Communities 243

among team members with respect to making changes allows for consistency in program implementation, and the team can then collect process data on the adapted program as the next year unfolds. Although it is important not to make changes to core program components, educators are hampered by a dearth of evidence identifying essential elements for program success. Researchers can provide more guidance by using factorial designs (Dziak, Nahum-Shani, & Collins, 2012) that estimate unique and joint effects of presumed core components.

RELATIONSHIPS AND INFLUENCE

Aspects of program delivery, such as teacher-student relationships, inte- gration of program elements into daily classroom routines, and extra support for students involved in bullying, also affect program effectiveness. Students are less aggressive when teachers are supportive (Merritt, Wanless, Rimm-Kaufman, & Cameron, 2012). Strong student-teacher relationships can improve outcomes (e.g., Darwich, Hymel, & Waterhouse, 2012). Further, when relationships are important to teachers, they may be more likely to actively foster empathy and inclusiveness among their students on a daily basis. Students with teachers who make such efforts are less likely to rein- force playground bullying or have attitudes that support aggression (Frey et al., 2011). Given these characteristics are associated with greater aggres- sion (Salmivalli & Voeten, 2004; Salmivalli et al., 2012), teacher efforts may reap rewards across the school year.

Despite best efforts, bullying will occur, and educators must be pre- pared to respond effectively with both perpetrators and targets. Planning for Tier 2 intervention—support of students already involved in bullying—can be a weak link in programs focused on prevention. There is considerable evidence, however, that specific strategies are related to program success. For instance, utilizing disciplinary methods that include firm sanctions has been found to be associated with reductions in bullying perpetration and victimization (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Research shows higher-than-average reductions in victimization and retaliatory aggression when teachers spend as little as 10 minutes a week coaching involved students and holding them accountable (Hirschstein et al., 2007). Teacher efforts to influence their stu- dents’ behavior are more successful in the context of positive student-teacher relationships, and effective behavior support practices enable teachers to influence their students with a minimum of disruption in relationships. These considerations indicate that professional development training needs to be more comprehensive than just learning a curriculum.

SUSTAINING EFFORTS IN THE FACE OF TURNOVER

Building administrator, teacher, and staff capacity to respond to changing conditions and achieve a lasting positive impact requires sustainability

244 M. K. Holt et al.

planning. As well-trained as any faculty may be, changes in staffing provide an ongoing challenge (Elias, Zins, Graczyk, & Weissburg, 2003). Yearly training of new faculty, playground monitors, and other staff may be an important element of sustainability. Ongoing data collection that documents changes over time may support motivation and spur improvement. What lit- tle research there is suggests this is the case (Hoglund, Hosan, & Leadbeater, 2012), but considerably more long-term evaluation is needed.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Although schoolwide efforts are essential, additional community-based efforts may be needed to address factors outside of the sphere of influ- ence of educators. Research is sparse on which community-level factors most affect bullying outcomes (Swearer et al., 2006). In the absence of such information, we focus here on resources that exist in almost any commu- nity: extracurricular programs, health care providers, and law enforcement officials. Some programs are conducted in the community without connec- tion to schools (e.g., Carney & Nottis, 2008; Wagman Borowsky, Mozayeny, Stuekel, & Ireland, 2004), but many community collaborations are launched as a component of school-based bullying prevention efforts.

Extracurricular Programs

Extracurricular programs offer many opportunities to prevent and address bullying. They have the benefit of providing supervised, structured activities for students without the accountability demands (e.g., raising achievement test scores) that are placed on schools. Antibullying content can be deliv- ered in many contexts, including after-school programs, city or county recreational department activities, summer camps, faith-based organizations, and community-at-large events (e.g., county festival). Bullying programs that were initially developed to be school-based may be implemented in extracur- ricular settings (e.g., Carney & Nottis, 2008), or programs may be selected or developed that are more targeted toward the specific extracurricular context. Within these programs, influential adults, such as coaches, have the ability to exert a strong positive influence on students. For example, Ehrenreich, Reeves, Corley, and Orpinas (2012) found that highly aggressive high school students identified a positive relationship with a coach as among the most important factors in their persistence toward graduation. One notable aspect of the coach/student relationship was that coaches held students to high standards. Students interpreted this vigilance as evidence of the coach caring for the student. Adult–student relationships play an important role in bully- ing prevention, as positive adult role models are a protective factor against bullying (Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2000). Extracurricular programs may be most conducive to developing positive adult–student relationships when

Bullying Prevention in Schools and Communities 245

they are time-intensive (e.g., high-school athletics) and when adults set high expectations for behavior.

Health Care Providers

Bullying has been identified as a public health problem (Pepler, German, Craig, & Yamada, 2011), and the negative health outcomes associated with bullying perpetration and victimization are well documented (e.g., Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010). The Society for Adolescent Medicine calls on health care providers to recognize signs of bullying, be prepared to discuss possible interventions, and to make appropriate referrals for patients in need of additional help (Eisenberg & Aalsma, 2005). Wagman Borowsky et al. (2004) describe one successful program set in a pediatric care set- ting. Children were screened for psychosocial problems during the course of a regular medical care visit; those who screened positive were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. For the intervention group, pri- mary care physicians were made aware of psychosocial problem scores, and parents were referred to a telephone-based education program that high- lighted core aspects of authoritarian parenting. Results indicated that youth in the intervention group demonstrated reductions in a range of problematic behaviors, including bullying.

Law Enforcement

School Resource Officers (SRO) and local law enforcement are regularly called on to respond to bullying situations, both in and out of schools. Law enforcement officers may be valuable partners for school and other com- munity antibullying efforts. However, research assessing strategies for and effectiveness of collaboration has been almost nonexistent. One example of a successful collaboration between police and a school district to reduce bullying is described by the South Euclid Police Department (2001). The SRO used student surveys and GIS mapping to identify bullying hot spots, and worked with educators to develop a comprehensive strategy to address bullying, including student, teacher, and parent education. Other activities involved staggering the bell schedule to reduce the number of students in the hallway at a given time and increased monitoring of hot spots, including establishing a SRO office in the cafeteria. Over the course of the intervention, a 40% drop in reported incidents of bullying was observed.

The WITS Rock Solid Primary Program (Leadbeater, 2008), designed to reduce peer victimization and enhance school climate at the elementary level, also involves collaboration with local police and other emergency ser- vices personnel. In addition to a classroom component led by teachers, the WITS program involves bringing emergency service personnel (police, fire fighters, and paramedics) and university athletes into schools to serve as

246 M. K. Holt et al.

positive role models and to reinforce the curriculum. In this component of the program, uniformed officers conduct an initial visit where students in Grades K–3 are “sworn-in” as WITS special constables to help keep the school safe and assist their peers. Officers conduct occasional follow-up visits to reinforce the curriculum. Evaluations indicated that the program is associ- ated with decreases in peer victimization, especially for high-poverty schools (Leadbeater & Hoglund, 2006), although lack of component-specific analy- ses hamper conclusions about the efficacy of the classroom, role model, and constable components.

Increasing Community Capacity to Prevent Bullying

In developing community-wide efforts, process steps can be borrowed from recommendations in the broader school-based literature. These include (a) forming a team that includes a wide variety of stakeholders, (b) defining the problem to be addressed, (c) identifying measurable objectives, (d) selecting a prevention/intervention approach, (e) implementing the approach, and (f) evaluating the outcomes (Orpinas & Horne, 2006). For practical assistance creating a community-wide response to bullying, we refer readers to the Community Action Toolkit at www.stopbullying.gov (n.d.).

Community efforts may make the greatest impact when they are com- prehensive and coordinated across multiple levels of service providers. Developing, coordinating, and sustaining partnerships, however, can be chal- lenging. The same types of issues that impact school-based intervention— building motivation, knowledge and capacity; maintaining fidelity despite adaptation; and planning for long-term sustainability—also apply to com- munity involvement in bullying prevention efforts. More research is needed on best practices for forming and sustaining successful partnerships (espe- cially in the face of changes to leadership or funding support) and how community-based bullying prevention programs can balance fidelity with the need for culturally appropriate adaptation. On an even more basic level, additional research is needed to help understand which community- level factors are most salient in reducing bullying, what components of community-based prevention efforts are most effective, and how these fac- tors vary across context. Despite these challenges and gaps in knowledge, comprehensive community-wide efforts hold much promise for bullying pre- vention and intervention. Bullying thrives when the community remains silent. With vigorous involvement of youth and adults in the community, we amplify our potential for creating a safe haven from bullying.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Over the past decade, along with a growing recognition of the deleterious effects of bullying there has been increasing emphasis on “evidence-based

Bullying Prevention in Schools and Communities 247

practice” in education, with efforts to adopt programs and practices with empirically demonstrated effectiveness. Such a focus makes considerable sense. However, as demonstrated in this review, research evaluating the effectiveness of bullying prevention programs has yielded mixed results. Although a more hopeful outlook is starting to emerge in more recent reviews of this literature, it is clear that there is as yet no single program or set of strategies that has been found to eliminate bullying. Rather, several differ- ent approaches have been shown to significantly reduce bullying, although reductions are far from extensive (e.g., 20%–30%; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Given this, it is important to encourage and support innovative efforts to address bullying, and to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of such innovations. Evaluation research, however, can be challenging for many program developers, especially given the hierarchy of evidence considered appropriate for demonstrating effectiveness (Biglan, Mrazek, Carnine, & Flay, 2003) and the “standards of evidence” set forth by professional organizations (e.g., Standards of Evidence, Society for Prevention Research 2004; www. preventionresearch.org/). Moreover, evidence of effectiveness in one context is no guarantee of effectiveness in another. Accordingly, it is imperative that schools and communities evaluate the impact of their efforts to address bul- lying, whatever they may be. Collaborations between university researchers, program developers, and schools can be especially useful in making such evaluations possible.

In this article we highlight some promising programs and program com- ponents, and point to teacher implementation and community involvement as salient issues that have received limited attention to date. Continued basic research on the processes and mechanisms involved in bullying, as well as applied research on the components of effective prevention programs are clearly needed. Finally, it is important to support knowledge translation and mobilization efforts, bringing research to lay audiences, especially parents, teachers, and community members as well as youth themselves. As one example, over the last five years, the online magazine Education.com has sponsored a special edition on bullying including over 60 short (2–4 page) articles and summaries of research, submitted by established scholars in lan- guage accessible to parents and teachers (Nickerson, Swearer, Hymel, & Paradise, 2013).

By way of future directions for knowledge mobilization, we recom- mend the creation of a central repository for evidence-based bullying prevention strategies, following examples of the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development (www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/) online resource, the online Safe and Sound Guide, or the 2013 CASEL Guide to Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs prepared by the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (www.casel.org/guide/). Such resources would provide valuable information for schools and commu- nities as they respond to increasing legislative mandates to implement

248 M. K. Holt et al.

bullying prevention programs, and would result in organizations selecting the programs that are most likely to result in bullying reductions.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

REFERENCES

Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: Much ado about nothing? Psychological Medicine, 40, 717–729. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991318

Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal charac- teristics and parental styles. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10, 17–31. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(200001/02)

Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying scenar- ios: Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 219–231. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.219

Bell, C. D., Raczynski, K. A., & Horne, A. M. (2010). Bully busters abbreviated: Evaluation of a group-based bully intervention and prevention program. Group dynamics: Theory Research and Practice, 14, 257–267. doi:10.1037/a0020596

Biglan, A., Mrazek, P. J., Carnine, D., & Flay, B. R. (2003). The integration of research and practice in the prevention of youth problem behaviors. American Psychologist, 58, 433–440, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.433

Brown, E. C., Low, S., Smith, B. H., & Haggerty, K. P. (2011). Outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of Steps to Respect: A bullying prevention program. School Psychology Review, 40, 423–443.

Carney, A. G., & Nottis, K. E. K., (2008). No vacation from bullying: A summer camp pilot study. Education, 129, 163–184.

Cross, D., Hall, M., Hamilton, G., Pinabona, Y., & Erceg, E. (2004). Australia: The Friendly Schools Project. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 187–210). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Darwich, L., Hymel, S., & Waterhouse, T. (2012). School avoidance and substance use among lesbian/gay, bisexual, and questioning youth: The impact of vic- timization and adult support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 381–392. doi:10.1037/a0026684

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affect- ing implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350. doi:10.111.j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432. doi:10.111.j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Bullying Prevention in Schools and Communities 249

Dziak, J. J., Nahum-Shani, I., & Collins, L. M. (2012). Multilevel factorial experiments for developing behavioral interventions: Power, sample size, and resource considerations. Psychological Methods, 17 , 153–175. doi:10.1037/a0026972

Ehrenreich, H., Reeves, P. M., Corley, S., & Orpinas, P. (2012). With graduation in sight: Perceptions of high- and low-aggression students of the jour- ney to high school completion. School Psychology Quarterly, 27 , 198–209. doi:10.1037/spq0000006

Eisenberg, M. E., & Aalsma, M. C. (2005). Bullying and peer victimization: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26 , 88–91. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.09.004

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Weissburg, R. P. (2003). Implementation, sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public schools. School Psychology Review, 32, 303–319.

Escoffery, C., Carvalho, M., & Kegler, M. C. (2012). Evaluation of the Prevention Programs That Work curriculum to teach use of public health evi- dence to community practitioners. Health Promotion Practice, 13, 707–715. doi:10.1177/1524839912437787

Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2000). Examining the social con- text of bullying behaviors in early adolescence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 326–333. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01914.x

Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74, 205–220. doi:10.1111/1467–8624.00531

Frey, K. S. (2013). The development of victimization in early adolescence dif- fers by form and function: Contributions of grade, time-of-year, and observed aggression. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrom, L. V., & Snell, J. L. (2009). Observed reduc- tions in school bullying, nonbullying aggression, and destructive bystander behavior: A longitudinal evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 466–481. doi:10.1037/a0013839

Frey, K. S., Jones, D. C., Hirschstein, M. K., & Edstrom, L. V. (2011). Teacher support of bullying prevention: The good, the bad, and the promising. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in North American schools (pp. 266–277). New York, NY: Routledge.

Furlong, M. J., Morrison, G. M., & Grief, J. L. (2003). Reaching an American consen- sus: Reactions to the special issue on school bullying. School Psychology Review, 32, 456–470.

Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrom, L. V., Frey, K. S., Snell, J. L., & MacKenzie, E. P. (2007). Walking the talk in bullying prevention: Teacher implementation vari- ables related to initial impact of the Steps to Respect program. School Psychology Review, 36 , 3–21.

Hoglund, W. L. G., Hosan, N. E., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2012). Using your WITS: A 6-year follow-up of a peer victimization prevention program. School Psychology Review, 41, 193–214.

Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17 , 311–322. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003

250 M. K. Holt et al.

Howard, N. M., Horne, A. H., & Jolliff, D. (2001). Self-efficacy in a new training model for the prevention of bullying in schools. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 181–191. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_11

Kallistad, J. H., & Olweus, D. (2003). Predicting teachers’ and schools’ implementa- tion of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: A multi-level study. Prevention & Treatment, 6 , 3–21. doi:10.1037/1522-3736.6.1.621a

Leadbeater, B. (2008). Engaging community champions in the prevention of bullying. In D. Pepler, & W. Craig (Eds.), Understanding and addressing bullying: An international perspective (pp. 16–182). Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse.

Leadbeater, B., & Hoglund, W. (2006). Changing the social contexts of peer victim- ization. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15, 21–26.

Mercer, S. H., McMillen, J. S., & DeRosier, M. E. (2009). Predicting change in chil- dren’s aggression and victimization using classroom-level descriptive norms of aggression and pro-social behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 47 , 267–289. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2009.04.001

Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26–42. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26

Merritt, E. G., Wanless, S. B., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Cameron, C. (2012). The contribution of teachers’ emotional support to children’s social behaviors and self-regulatory skills in first grade. School Psychology Review, 41, 141–159.

Newman, J. B., Frey, K. S., & Jones, D. C. (2010). Factors influencing teacher inter- ventions in bullying situations: Implications for research and practice. In B. Doll, W. Pfohl, & J. Yoon (Ed.), Handbook of youth prevention science (pp. 218–238). New York, NY: Routledge.

Nickerson, A., Swearer, S., Hymel, S., & Paradise, J. (2013, February). Bulling in school and online: Translating research to practice. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Seattle, WA.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (2004). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme: Design and imple- mentation issues and a new national initiative in Norway. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 13–36). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds), The handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 377–401). New York, NY: Routledge.

Orpinas, P., & Horne, A. H. (2006). Bullying prevention: Creating a positive school climate and developing social competence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Orpinas, P., Horne, A., & Staniszewski, D. (2003). School bullying: Changing the problem by changing the schools. School Psychology Review, 32, 432–444.

Pepler, D. J., German, J., Craig, W., & Yamada, S. (2011). Why worry about bullying? Healthcare Quarterly, 14, 72–79.

Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school- based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41, 47–65.

Bullying Prevention in Schools and Communities 251

Rigby, K. (2012). Bullying interventions in schools: Six basic approaches. Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell.

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (2008). Interventions to reduce bullying. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20, 165–183. doi:10.1515/IJAMH.2008.20.2.165

Salmivalli, C., & Helteenvuori, T. (2007). Reactive, but not proactive aggression pre- dicts victimization among boys. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 198–206. doi:10.1002/ ab.20210

Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Voeten, M. (2005). Anti-bullying intervention: Implementation and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 465–487. doi:10.1348/000709905X26011

Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen A., Voeten M., & Sinisammal M. (2004). Targeting the group as a whole: The Finnish anti-bullying intervention. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby, (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 251–274). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behavior in bullying situations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246–258. doi:10.1080/01650250344000488

Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter: Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 40, 668–676. doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.597090

Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effective- ness of whole school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 547–560.

South Euclid Police Department. (2001). The South Euclid school bullying project. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/library/awards/goldstein/ 2001/01-65(F).pdf

Srabstein, J., Paramjit, J., Pernille, D., Wright, J., Leventhal, B., Merrick, J., et al. (2008). Prevention of public health risks linked to bullying: A need for a whole community approach. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20, 185–199. doi:10.1515/IJAMH.2008.20.2.185

StopBullying.gov. (n.d.). Community action toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.stopbullying.gov/prevention/in-the-community/community-action- planning/community-action-toolkit.pdf

Sullivan, K. (2010). The anti-bullying handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Swearer, S., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done

about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39, 38–47. doi:10.3102/0013189X09357622

Swearer, S. M., Peugh, J., Espelage, D. L., Siebecker, A. B., Kingsbury, W. L., & Bevins, K. S. (2006). A social-ecological model for bullying prevention and intervention in early adolescence: An exploratory examination. In S. R. Jimerson & M. J. Furlong, (Eds.), The handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 257–273). New York, NY: Erlbaum.

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7 , 27–56. doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1

252 M. K. Holt et al.

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based inter- ventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78–88.

Wagman Borowsky, I., Mozayeny, S., Stuekel, K., & Ireland, M. (2004). Effects of a primary care-based intervention on violent behaviour and injury in children. Pediatrics, 114, e392–e399. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-0693

Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., et al. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The inter- active systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171–181. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z

Xie, H., Swift, D. J., Cairns, B. D., & Cairns, R. B. (2002). Aggressive behaviors in social interaction and developmental adaptation: A narrative analysis of inter- personal conflicts during early adolescence. Social Development, 11, 205–224. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00195

Copyright of Journal of School Violence is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.