U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

December 2011 Jeff Slowikowski, Acting Administrator 

 

 -

 - 

 

 

 ’ 

 -

 

 

 -

 -

 

 

 -

 

 

 

 

 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bullying in Schools 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin 

quency Prevention (OJJDP) is commit 

ted to preventing juvenile delinquency 

and child victimization. This bulletin is 

part of OJJDP s Bullying in Schools series, 

which summarizes findings from OJJDP 

funded research on peer victimization. 

Researchers from the National Center for 

School Engagement conducted a quantita 

tive study to examine the impact of bully 

ing on student engagement, attendance, 

and achievement and two qualitative 

studies to explore instructional, interper 

sonal, and structural factors at school that 

affect the connection between bullying 

and school attendance. The researchers 

found that a caring school community, in 

which students are challenged academi 

cally and supported by the adults, can 

serve as a powerful antidote to the process 

by which victimization distances students 

from learning and contributes to myriad 

other problems, including truancy and 

academic failure. 

The bulletins in the series provide an 

overview of the research project, a critical 

analysis of the literature, and an indepth 

look at the methodology and findings of 

each study. 

Bullying in Schools: An Overview 

By Ken Seeley, Martin L. Tombari, Laurie J. Bennett, and Jason B. Dunkle 

Highlights

Researchers from the National Center for School Engagement conducted a 

series of studies to explore the connections between bullying in schools, school 

attendance and engagement, and academic achievement. This bulletin provides an overview of the OJJDP-funded studies, a summary of the researchers’ 

findings, and recommendations for policy and practice. 

Following are some of the authors’ key findings: 

•	 Bullying is a complex social and emotional phenomenon that plays 

out differently on an individual level. 

•	 Bullying does not directly cause truancy. 

•	 School engagement protects victims from truancy and low academic 

achievement. 

•	 When schools provide a safe learning environment in which adults 

model positive behavior, they can mitigate the negative effects of 

bullying. 

•	 Any interventions to address bullying or victimization should be 

intentional, student-focused engagement strategies that fit the context 

of the school where they are used. 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention	 ojjdp.gov
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECEMBER 2011 

Bullying in Schools: An Overview 

By Ken Seeley, Martin L. Tombari, Laurie J. Bennett, and Jason B. Dunk

Introduction 

The harmful effects of bullying cannot be overstated. Reports of bullying in the 1990s show that, in extreme cases, 

victims may face shooting or severe beatings and may even 

turn to suicide (Rigby and Slee, 1999). These reports have 

triggered public action, such that more than 20 states currently have laws that require schools to provide education 

and services directed toward the prevention and cessation 

of bullying. 

A well-known meta-analysis of school-based antibullying 

programs, conducted by the Swedish National Council for 

Crime Prevention, found that these programs result in a 

17- to 23-percent reduction in bullying (Ttofi, Farrington, 

and Baldry, 2008). Ttofi and colleagues report that antibullying programs are less effective in the United States 

than in Europe in reducing the incidence and prevalence 

of bullying in schools that operate the bullying reduction 

programs. In response, the current study investigates how 

American schools can support victimized children and 

encourage them to graduate and thrive. 

To determine the causes of bullying in schools and to inform the development of effective intervention strategies, 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention funded a series of studies in 2007 at the National 

Center for School Engagement. The research focused on 

the connection between different types and frequencies of 

bullying, truancy, and student achievement, and whether 

students’ engagement in school mediates these factors. 

The researchers completed three studies. The first was a 

quantitative analysis of students that would support the 

development of a predictive model to explain the relationships among bullying (referred to in the study as peer 

victimization), school attendance, school engagement, 

and academic achievement. The second study was a qualitative study in which researchers interviewed victims about 

le 

their experiences to gain insight into how bullying in 

school affects attendance. The third study was a qualitative 

analysis of teachers’ experiences in working to ameliorate 

the impact of bullying in schools. 

In this bulletin, the authors compare the results of these 

studies with the results of the Swedish National Council 

for Crime Prevention report (Ttofi, Farrington, and 

Baldry, 2008), which is currently viewed as one of the 

most comprehensive studies on antibullying programs 

worldwide. Ttofi and her colleagues conducted a metaanalysis—Effectiveness of Programmes to Reduce School 

Bullying: A Systematic Review—that reviewed evaluations of 59 school-based antibullying programs in various countries, including the United States. In addition 

to their comparisons with the Swedish study, the authors 

recommend strategies and programs to combat bullying in 

schools that are based on the findings from the three studies described here and a literature review. 

Study Overview and Main Findings 

Following is an overview of each study and findings from 

the overall research project. 

Quantitative Study: School Engagement 

Is a Protective Factor for Victims 

This study examined how different types of peer victimization (i.e., bullying) impact school attendance. The 

underlying premise of this study was that truancy serves 

as a gateway to numerous negative outcomes for today’s 

youth—dropping out of school, using drugs, engaging in 

criminal activity, and more. 

The authors conducted a short-term longitudinal study 

in which they surveyed 1,000 students in the fall and the 

spring of their sixth-grade year. The survey participants answered two sets of questions: one set pertained to whether 

2 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

 

 

 

 

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the students were behaviorally, cognitively, and emotionally engaged in school; a second set pertained to whether 

students experienced specific kinds of bullying by their 

peers. The authors used structural equation modeling (a 

statistical technique to estimate cause-and-effect relationships between various factors) to determine the connections between being victimized, being engaged in school, 

school attendance, and school achievement (measured by 

grade point average). 

Although prior research suggests that student victimization has a significant impact on attendance (Banks, 1997; 

Fried and Fried, 1996; Hoover and Oliver, 1996), the 

findings from this study suggest that these relationships 

are weak, at least for the sixth-grade student sample used 

for data analysis. The study, however, is limited because 

it is a quantitative analysis that examined only sixth-grade 

students in a suburban Denver school district. In this 

study, although bullying does not directly relate to truancy 

or to school achievement, the authors observed a statistically significant relationship between bullying and school 

attendance when mediated by the factor of school engagement. In other words, if bullying results in the victim 

becoming less engaged in school, that victim is more likely 

to cease attending and achieving. If the victim can remain 

or become engaged in school, his or her attendance and 

achievement will be less affected. 

The PervaSIveneSS OF BullyIng: 

DInner WITh DIgnITarIeS 

A “Stop Bullying Summit” was convened in Denver, CO, 

in June 2006. The night before the summit, the sponsoring organizations (The Colorado Trust, Creating Caring 

Communities, and The Partnership for Families & Children) 

hosted a dinner that brought together 40 academicians 

and practitioners (teachers, school administrators, law 

enforcement, and bullying-prevention specialists) for a 

discussion about issues of note. The moderator asked the 

attendees a series of questions to kick off the discussion. 

The first question asked how many of the attendees had 

gone to grade school. All attendees raised their hands. The 

next query asked how many went to college—again, the 

response was overwhelming. When asked about graduate 

degrees, all but a handful responded in the affirmative. 

Then, the moderator proffered a definition of bullying that 

many researchers accept (Smith et al., 2002): 

•	 Intentional harm-doing, which can take a number of

forms, including: 

First Qualitative Study: Schools Can 

Mitigate the Ill Effects of Bullying 

Researchers conducted two qualitative studies to determine what factors cause some bullied students to remain 

in school and cause others to drop out or become 

delinquent. 

The first qualitative study examined what keeps bullied 

students engaged in school and away from negative behaviors such as truancy and criminal activity. The authors 

employed a retrospective study that randomly surveyed 

two groups of youth about their experiences with bullying 

in grade school. The survey sample consisted of: 

•	 A group of 35 high-achieving, advanced placement 

students in a suburban high school. 

•	 A group of 65 young men incarcerated for a variety of 

crimes. 

Researchers interviewed participants from both groups 

with the highest cumulative scores on the bullying scale 

about their victimization, their general experiences with 

school, and what they perceived as having brought them 

to this point in their lives. The researchers then analyzed 

the transcripts. 

o	 Physical victimization (contact or mean gestures). 

o	 Verbal victimization (name-calling or taunts). 

o	 Indirect victimization (such as intentional exclusion 

from a group). 

o	 Cyberbullying. 

•	 Carried out repeatedly over time.

•	 Within an interpersonal relationship characterized

by an imbalance of power. 

The moderator then asked how many attendees bullied 

others or faced bullying when they were in grade school. 

Out of this well-educated, highly accomplished group of 

adults, nearly everyone raised his or her hand. Bullying 

is a common experience for all people and not simply for 

“high-risk” populations typically identified among lowincome disenfranchised groups. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The data describe how schools help and hurt victims and 

what schools should do to support victimized students. 

Schools help bullying victims by engaging them in academics and/or in extracurricular activities and by providing them with caring adults who support them and model 

positive behavior. Schools hurt bullied students when they 

change the school structure—from more engaging learning environments at the elementary level to less engaging 

environments at the middle and high school levels. These 

changes tend to distance the students from caring adults, 

dilute effective behavioral supervision, and change instruction from a differentiated, interactive pedagogy focused 

on individual student needs to a mass instructional pattern 

of 50-minute periods with 6 different teachers who teach 

150 students per day. 

A changing school structure often results in a failure to intervene in bullying (or to assist or support victims) when it 

first occurs. These changes may also make victims feel even 

more isolated from the rest of the school community. This 

happens because the large numbers of students in secondary schools can create an impersonal climate of anonymity 

that provides no time in the daily schedule for students 

OTher BulleTInS In The SerIeS 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s) Bullying in Schools series provides a 

summary of research conducted by the National 

Center for School Engagement. Other bulletins in the 

series are as follows: 

Bullying, Victimization, and School Engagement: A 

Structural Model. This bulletin is a quantitative study of 

more than 1,000 sixth-grade students in 8 middle schools 

in an economically and ethnically diverse school district. 

The purpose of the study was to develop a predictive 

model that would explain the relationships among bullying, school attendance, school engagement, and school 

achievement. 

Bullying in Schools: A Critical Analysis of the Literature. In addition to designing and conducting three interrelated studies to explore the effects of bullying in schools, 

the authors conducted an extensive literature review to 

address some of the limitations of existing research on the 

topic, the results of which are presented in this bulletin. 

Experiences of Young Adults Bullied in School. This 

bulletin provides an overview of the authors’ qualitative 

retrospective study of the school experiences of eight 

to connect with adults and other students in the kinds of 

social interactions that would foster opportunities for them 

to discuss their victimization experiences. 

The interview data also highlighted what victims need 

from their schools— 

•	 A place of refuge where they can feel safe, appreciated, 

and challenged in a constructive way. 

•	 Responsible adults who can support and sustain them 

and provide them examples of appropriate behavior. 

•	 A sense of future possibility to persuade them that 

staying in school, despite the bullying, promises better 

things to come. 

These factors allow bullied students to overcome the effects of bullying. In contrast, the study participants agreed 

that superficial antibullying programs, grafted onto existing curriculums to fulfill a school district’s responsibility 

to address bullying concerns, are an ineffective way to 

combat bullying. 

young adults—some successful, high-achieving students and some incarcerated—who were bullied in grade 

school. The researchers conducted this study to gain 

insight into instructional, interpersonal, and structural 

factors that affect the bullying-attendance connection. 

What Teachers Have To Say About Bullying in 

Schools. This bulletin provides an overview of the authors’ qualitative study of the observations of 11 teachers, based on papers they authored for a graduate-level 

seminar, about efforts to ameliorate the impact of bullying 

in schools. 

The authors’ full report, Peer Victimization in Schools: A 

Set of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies of the Connections Among Peer Victimization, School Engagement, 

Truancy, School Achievement, and Other Outcomes, 

provides greater detail about the studies and how the 

authors developed their recommendations. The report 

includes an extensive literature review that provides 

timely and extensive information about current research 

on bullying. 

The bulletins can be accessed from OJJDP’s Web site, 

ojjdp.gov. The full report can be accessed from the 

NCJRS Web site (see “For More Information” on page 9). 

4 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Second Qualitative Study: What Teachers 

Say About Bullying in Their Schools 

The third study involved the adults to whom bullying 

victims look to support and sustain them in the school 

setting—the teachers. In this study, 11 teachers of kindergarten through 12th-grade students shared their observations about bullying in the school setting and described 

their opinions on what schools do to mitigate or exacerbate its effects. 

As part of their graduate-level coursework, the teachers submitted papers proposing an intervention plan or a 

research design to address bullying within their schools. 

They presented these plans in focus groups and through 

structured interviews with a researcher who worked to 

capture the essence of their ideas. According to the teachers, most students observe power differences and negative, 

domineering behaviors in the outside world, in the media, 

or at home. Students emulate these behaviors in the school 

setting and use their power to intimidate others by physical 

or verbal means. This abuse of power can be exploited on 

victims in the form of bullying. The sense of isolation that 

many students feel at school only increases their vulnerability to being bullied by their more powerful peers. 

A music teacher explained how power differences between 

students in school can lead to bullying, suggesting that 

students feel the need to “find something in their life at 

which they feel superior.” She said, “When students do 

not have something in their lives that makes them feel 

good, I think they turn to more negative ways to feel that 

sense of power, like bullying, drugs, and/or gangs.” Students observe how people misuse their power to dominate 

situations in the outside world, so they use bullying to 

seek a personal sense of power in their own lives. 

The teachers suggested that the antidote to these problems is to foster a sense of community in school. To create 

community, teachers recommended that students should 

be taught how to care. First, students should be engaged 

in schoolwork, extracurricular activities, and planning for 

their futures as a means to teach them how to care for 

themselves. Second, students should be taught how to 

care for others. Teachers should model caring behavior, 

and schools should offer opportunities for students to 

mentor other students. Finally, students should be taught 

how to care for their community. Community service 

projects are an excellent way to teach students how to 

care for the world around them. An added benefit of such 

projects is that they often remove students from existing 

classroom-based power relationships and place them in 

unfamiliar environments where all students feel vulnerable. These mutually supportive collaborations may allow 

bullies and victims to see themselves and their classmates 

in a new light.1 

The teachers also described two ways in which caring 

and community building are hindered. The first involved 

school administrators who “sweep bullying under the rug” 

(i.e., ignoring it or downplaying its significance). The 

second involved school districts’ attempts to address bullying issues by requiring educators to teach a prefabricated 

curriculum. The teachers viewed these approaches as ineffective substitutes for much-needed district and administration 

support and professional development. 

Study Implications 

The implications of the studies outlined above can best be 

understood when contrasted with the Swedish National 

Council for Crime Prevention’s report. The report, titled 

Effectiveness of Programmes to Reduce School Bullying: A 

Systematic Review, can be considered noteworthy because 

of the sample size and the rigorous study-selection procedures employed. 

Swedish researchers Ttofi and colleagues conducted a 

systematic review and meta-analysis of existing evaluations 

of antibullying programs. The study included only evaluations that compared experimental and control groups 

and relied on student self-reports for data; the researchers 

excluded evaluations that did not meet these criteria. 

Ttofi and colleagues reported that the programs reduced 

bullying overall and were most effective for older children. 

They recommend that the programs target children age 11 

and older. They suggest that the following actions encouraged program success: educating parents, communicating 

with parents, improving playground supervision, showing 

educational videos, and providing effective disciplinary 

methods, classroom rules, and classroom management. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although the authors of this bulletin generally agree with 

Ttofi and colleagues’ findings, the Swedish researchers 

operate from the assumption—one that many in the fields 

of bullying prevention and the social sciences share—that 

a problem can be most effectively addressed when its 

parameters can be cleanly measured and when experimental and control comparisons are clear. The “important” 

design elements of the programs covered in the Swedish 

report focused on variables, including management, rules, 

supervision, parent training, conferences, showing videos, 

and self-reports from older children—all factors that can 

be measured scientifically. 

The authors of this bulletin provide a more complex picture of bullying and its correlates. Bullying is a complicated issue that is neither consistently defined in schools nor 

easily quantified. Therefore, although researchers can learn 

much from the scientific meta-analyses (like the Swedish 

study), they can also learn from qualitative research and 

case studies that do not lend themselves to traditional 

experimental design research. For example, interest in 

antibullying efforts grew out of school shootings (such as 

Columbine) and suicides. Events of this sort would not be 

statistically significant in any quantitative study of school 

bullying. If statistical studies cannot accurately account for 

serious events, identify the needs of young children who 

may not recognize certain events as bullying, or report 

the effects of programs with elements that are not easily 

quantifiable, they need to be supplemented with qualitative studies that can add important context to the more 

optimal ways to reduce victimization in schools. 

For antibullying programs to provide long-term outcomes 

—not simply decrease victim numbers but help victims 

remain crime free as adults—researchers must look beyond 

narrow programs that produce statistically significant 

numbers, toward broader (and possibly less measurable) 

efforts that make a difference in the lives of the victims. 

Likewise, schools must continue to reach out to all bullying 

victims, using methods catered to the community’s 

specialized needs, not just programs that conform to a 

measurable standard. 

recommendations 

The authors make the following recommendations for 

antibullying programs in the United States. These recommendations are based on their findings and an extensive 

literature review:2 

•	 Increase student engagement. 

•	 Model caring behavior for students. 

•	 Offer mentoring programs. 

•	 Provide students with opportunities for service learning 

as a means of improving school engagement. 

•	 Address the difficult transition between elementary and 

middle school (from a single classroom teacher to teams 

of teachers with periods and class changes in a large 

school) (Lohaus et al., 2004). 

•	 Start prevention programs early. 

•	 Resist the temptation to use prefabricated curriculums 

that are not aligned to local conditions. 

Increase Student Engagement 

Bullied children who remain engaged in school attend 

class more frequently and achieve more. Challenging academics, extracurricular activities, understanding teachers 

and coaches, and a focus on the future help keep victimized children engaged in their education (Bausell, 2011). 

Schools, administrations, and districts that wish to stave 

off the negative effects of bullying must redouble their 

efforts to engage each student in school. Typical school 

engagement strategies include (Karcher, 2005): 

•	 Providing a caring adult for every student through an 

advisory program or similar arrangement. 

6 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Bullied children who remain engaged in school 


attend class more frequently and achieve more.”
 

•	 Carefully monitoring attendance, calling home each 

time a student is absent, and allowing students the 

ability to make up missed work with support from a 

teacher. 

•	 Adopting and implementing the National School 

Climate Standards from the National School Climate 

Council (2010). 

•	 Promoting and fostering parent and community engagement, including afterschool and summer programs. 

•	 Providing school-based mentorship options for 

students. 

Model Caring Behavior 

Human relationships populate students’ lives outside the 

school setting: in their parents’ workplaces, in families, in 

video games, on TV, and in the movies. In contrast, school 

provides a controlled environment where children can 

experience caring adults who can exercise power in a nonabusive, mentoring way. These adults can demonstrate that 

leadership, not abuse, is the appropriate way to use their 

positions of authority constructively. Schools should offer 

training programs on how to model appropriate caring 

and leadership behavior for teachers and administrators. 

This training should be consistent with the school engagement strategies mentioned above and incorporated into 

licensure programs and continuing professional development activities. 

lIFe BeyOnD vIcTIMIzaTIOn: 

anna* The SurvIvOr 

The following account illustrates the concepts discussed in 

this bulletin. 

The authors attended a brown-bag luncheon that was 

sponsored by a nonprofit foundation, where a high school 

girl, Anna, was one of the speakers. Family life had been 

difficult for Anna; she had faced abuse and endured the 

death of loved ones. She grew up with a single parent. 

Anna told the attendees the tale of the demeaning bullying 

that she suffered at the hands of her peers throughout middle and high school. She was ostracized, restricted to only 

certain bathroom stalls to avoid “contaminating” the others, slurred and degraded in hallway graffiti, and pushed 

or shoved on her way to school. The bullying was constant 

and unrelenting. She recounted that she felt driven, on 

occasion, to demonstrate that she was not entirely powerless, so she bullied those weaker than herself—hoping she 

would thereby escape her own victimization. She pondered 

suicide and wanted to harm her tormentors. 

Anna found little help from the adults in her school. Teachers and counselors ignored her situation unless Anna 

directly asked them to address it. Even then, they carelessly made her private travails public, which only made 

matters worse. Her mother tried to help, but the school 

staff would not listen to her. 

Even so, Anna told us, she was able to turn her life around. 

She confided in a Girl Scout leader, who began to take 

a continuing interest in her. Her mother supported her at 

home. She found two friends—a disabled girl, who was 

also a victim of bullying, and a popular girl, who saw Anna 

for the valuable person she was. Anna also pushed herself 

to get involved in school activities such as the student 

council, the prom committee, and grassroots bullyingprevention efforts. She began to stand up for herself and 

for others, and as she gained confidence, the victimization 

subsided. 

Today, Anna is a survivor who is doing quite well for 

herself. She has become confident and assertive and has 

engaged in school more. She is on track for graduation. 

*Name has been changed to protect the minor’s identity. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Offer Mentoring Programs 

Of the students interviewed for this study, those who felt 

that they had one or more adults to turn to tended to do 

well, even during the worst bullying. When those individuals did not exist or disappeared, the lives of the victimized 

children took a downward turn. Some looked elsewhere 

for support and, in certain cases, gangs became the most 

viable option. The authors recommend that schools make 

mentoring part of the job description of every adult in the 

school. (A sole school counselor with an excessive student 

load cannot provide effective mentorship.) Each student 

should know the specific adult in school to whom he or 

she can go for support, regardless of the issue, and that 

adult should be open and available. Substantial literature 

and research support for school-based mentoring exists 

(Cavell and Smith, 2005; Herrera et al., 2007; King et al., 

2002; Tierney, Grossman, and Resch, 1995). 

Students should also be given opportunities to mentor and 

lead other students to help them understand power-based 

relationships between students, faculty, or others. This 

allows them to practice being in a position of strength 

and to learn to use that authority in caring, productive, 

and enriching ways. Such opportunities can occur in the 

classroom, in cooperative learning situations, or as part of 

community service programs. 

Karcher (2005) comments on the effect of peer mentoring for students in summarizing the research on cross-age 

mentoring, suggesting that “small single-site randomized 

studies have revealed consistently positive findings.” He 

reports that the outcomes of these studies are consistent 

with adult-to-youth mentoring programs in school, suggesting that peer mentoring may improve youth’s school 

connectedness, attitudes toward peers, self-efficacy, academic achievement, social skills, and behavior problems. 

Provide Opportunities for Community 

Service 

Community service provides an optimum venue for 

mentoring to occur. It allows students to break out of the 

hierarchical student relationships within the classroom, 

demonstrate new strengths, collaborate, mentor others, 

and show leadership in ways that the classroom does not 

afford. Teachers report that such service helps community building and counteracts the isolation and pain of 

bullying. 

Address the Difficult Transition Between 

Elementary and Middle School 

For many youth, the transition from elementary to middle 

school is rough. Youth report that they lost a bond with 

their single classroom teacher, their class sizes ballooned, 

the instruction became more lecture and test based and 

less interactive, and they spent more time in hallways and 

other unsupervised places. The opportunities for isolation, 

alienation, and disengagement increased, and any schoolbased havens from being bullied disappeared. The authors 

recommend that schools explore the possibility of facilitating this difficult transition, for example, by creating K–8 

schools or other transition programs to better acclimate 

students to the new educational environment. 

Start Prevention Programs Early 

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention 

report demonstrates that current programs targeting older 

students provide a larger decrease in bullying than programs for younger children. However, the authors of this 

bulletin caution schools not to interpret those findings as 

evidence to limit antibullying efforts to older students. 

The youth interviewed in the OJJDP-funded studies reported here all experienced traumatic, victimizing behavior in school when they were very young. They reported 

thinking that they were weak, worthless, somehow at fault, 

and always at risk. One study participant confessed that he 

started bringing weapons to school and joined a gang at 

the age of 8 in an effort to protect himself. An antibullying 

program aimed at older children would have completely 

missed this student. Another young study participant pled 

for early intervention: 

When they see [bullying] happening in first, second,

third, fourth grade, even in fifth grade, they need to 

stop it; otherwise, it will just keep going and evolve 

into something more dangerous. They need to catch 

it [early] and try to stop it or they’re going to, like, 

ruin someone’s life. 

The teachers who took part in the second qualitative study 

agreed with this sentiment. Participating early elementary 

teachers described the effectiveness of mentoring activities 

between regular students and special education students 

and discussed how these activities increase collaboration 

and reduce abuse among classmates. The authors recommend that schools provide teachers and administrators 

with the training to recognize bullying and handle incidents, especially in the early grades. Schools may wish to 

begin by adopting and implementing the National School 

Climate Standards (National School Climate Council, 

2010). Specific ideas for handling bullying incidents can be 

found in resource books for school staff, such as the Bully 

Proofing Your School series (Bonds and Stoker, 2000; Garrity et al., 1994) and the Handbook of Bullying in Schools 

(Jimerson, Swearer, and Espelage, 2010). 

8 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resist the Temptation to Use 

Prefabricated Curriculums 

Too many teachers in the second qualitative study related 

stories of how busy administrators, hoping to eradicate 

bullying with minimal effort, handed canned antibullying 

materials to teachers and provided no training on how to 

implement antibullying programs. Antibullying programs 

should combine skill-building approaches with consistent 

schoolwide policies and practices that involve students, 

parents, and the community in setting social norms. As a 

result of their studies, the authors suggest that engaging 

students in schoolwork, using the engagement strategies 

suggested above, will help avoid and reduce victimization 

and bullying. 

conclusion 

Research has shown that bullying is a complex social and 

emotional phenomenon that affects victims in many different ways. The authors began this study with the hypothesis 

that bullying and truancy were directly related. However, 

evidence showed that bullying is not simply a matter of 

correlates among variables. Complex problems cannot be 

solved with simple, formulaic solutions. Rather, results 

showed that victimization can distance students from 

learning. Schools can overcome this negative effect if they 

adopt strategies that engage students in their work, creating positive learning environments that produce academic 

achievement.3 

For More Information 

The authors’ full report, Peer Victimization in Schools: A 

Set of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies of the Connections Among Peer Victimization, School Engagement, 

Truancy, School Achievement, and Other Outcomes, provides greater detail about the studies and how the authors 

developed their recommendations. The report includes an 

extensive literature review that provides timely and extensive information on current research on bullying. To read 

the report, visit www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract. 

aspx?ID=256074. 

endnotes 

1. For more information about community service and 

other afterschool programs that may help prevent bullying, visit www.stopbullying.gov/community/tip_sheets/ 

youth_programs.pdf. 

2. For more background information on these recommendations, see Bullying in Schools: A Critical Analysis of the 

Literature, in this series. 

3. See pages 6–7 for specific strategies for increasing 

student engagement. 

references 

Banks, R. 1997. Bullying in Schools. Champaign, IL: 

ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, ED407154. Available online at 

www.ericdigests.org/1997-4/bullying.htm. 

Bausell, R.B. 2011. Too Simple to Fail. Oxford, England: 

Oxford University Press. 

Bonds, M., and Stoker, S. 2000. Bully Proofing Your 

School: A Comprehensive Approach for Middle Schools. 

Longmont, CO: Sopris West Educational Services. 

Cavell, T., and Smith, A.M. 2005. Mentoring children. In 

Handbook of Youth Mentoring, edited by D.L. DuBois and 

M.J. Karcher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 

160–176. 

Fried, S., and Fried, P. 1996. Bullies and Victims: Helping 

Your Child Survive the Schoolyard Battlefield. New York, 

NY: Evans. 

Garrity, C., Jens, K., Porter, W., Sager, N., and ShortCamilli, C. 1994. Bully Proofing Your School: A Comprehensive Approach for Elementary Schools. Longmont, CO: 

Sopris West Educational Services. 

Herrera, C., Grossman, J.B., Kauh, T.J., Feldman, A.F., 

and McMaken, J., with Jucovy, L.Z. 2007. Big Brothers 

Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact Study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 

Hoover, J., and Oliver, R. 1996. The Bullying Prevention 

Handbook: A Guide for Principals, Teachers, and Counselors. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service. 

Juvenile Justice Bulletin 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jimerson, S.R., Swearer, S.M., and Espelage, D.L., eds. 

2010. Handbook of Bullying in Schools. New York, NY: 

Routledge. 

Karcher, M.J. 2005. The effects of school-based developmental mentoring and mentors’ attendance on mentees’ 

self-esteem, behavior, and connectedness. Psychology in the 

Schools 42:65–77. 

King, K., Vidourek, R., Davis, B., and McClellan, W. 

2002. Increasing self-esteem and school connectedness 

through a multidimensional mentoring program. Journal 

of School Health 72:294–299. 

Lohaus, A., Elben, C.E., Ball, J., and Klien-Hessling, J. 

2004. School transition from elementary to secondary 

school: Changes in psychological adjustment. Educational 

Psychology 24(2):161–173. 

National School Climate Council. 2010. National School 

Climate Standards. New York, NY: Center for Social and 

Emotional Education. 

Rigby, K. and Slee, P. 1999. Suicidal ideation among 

adolescent school children, involvement in bully-victim 

problems and perceived social support. Suicide Life Threat 

Behavior 29(2):119–130. 

Smith, P.K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R.F., and Liefooghe, 

A.P.D. 2002. Definitions of bullying: A comparison of 

terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteencountry international comparison. Child Development 

73(4):1119–1133. 

Tierney, J.P., Grossman, J.B., and Resch, N.L. 1995. 

Making a Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers/Big 

Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. 

Ttofi, M.M., Farrington, D.P., and Baldry, A.C. 2008. 

Effectiveness of Programmes to Reduce School Bullying: A 

Systematic Review. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish National 

Council for Crime Prevention. 

10 Juvenile Justice Bulletin 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 – 

– – 

– – 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention *NCJ~234205*

PRESORTED STANDARD
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

DOJ/OJJDP
 

PERmIT NO. G–91
 

Washington, DC 20531 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

Acknowledgments This bulletin was prepared under grant number 

Ken Seeley, Ed.D., and Martin L. Tombari, Ph.D., are the co-principal inves- 2005–AH–FX–K005 from the Office of Juvenile 

tigators of the study and work at the National Center for School Engagement. Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 

Laurie J. Bennett, J.D., Ph.D., is a senior research and policy analyst at the U.S. Department of Justice. 

National Center for School Engagement. Jason B. Dunkle is a research associPoints of view or opinions expressed in this docu­ ate at the University of Denver, College of Education. 

ment are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Share With Your Colleagues Please direct comments The Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinUnless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications and/or questions to: quency Prevention is a component of the 

are not copyright protected. We encourage you Office of Justice Programs, which also into reproduce this document, share it with your National Criminal Justice cludes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the 

colleagues, and reprint it in your newsletter Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Reference Service 

or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims P.O. Box 6000 

OJJDP and the authors of this bulletin. We are of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender Rockville, MD 20849 6000 

also interested in your feedback, such as how Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 800 851 3420 

you received a copy, how you intend to use the Registering, andTracking. 301 519 5600 (fax) 

information, and how OJJDP materials meet Web: tellncjrs.ncjrs.gov 

your individual or agency needs. 

ncJ 234205