School Bullying: Extent of Legal Protections for Vulnerable Groups Needs to Be More Fully Assessed
Released: 2012-06-07T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Although definitions vary, including definitions used by federal agencies, many experts generally agree that bullying involves intent to cause harm, repetition, and an imbalance of power. The pioneering research of Dr. Dan Olweus in Norway has defined being bullied or victimized as when a student “is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other youths” with an intent to harm.bullying is distinct from general conflict or aggression, which can occur absent an imbalance of power or repetition. For example, a single fight between two youths of roughly equal power is a form of aggression, but may not be bullying. When bullying occurs it may take many forms that can also be associated with conflict or aggression, including physical Notably, harm, such as hitting, shoving, or locking inside a school locker; verbal name calling, taunts, or threats; relational attacks, such as spreading rumors or isolating victims from their peers; and the use of computers or cell phones to convey harmful words or images, also referred to as cyberbullying. Often bullying occurs without apparent provocation and may be based on the victim’s personal characteristics. For example, youth may be bullied based on the way they look, dress, speak, or act.

There are several federal efforts under way to bring together federal resources that can be used to identify and address bullying. In particular, given their focus on education, health, and safety issues, Education, HHS, and Justice, along with other federal agencies, have been involved in efforts to help coordinate federal resources to identify and address bullying. Additionally, several bills have been introduced in the 112th Congress that relate to bullying. Among the various issues addressed in these bills are bullying policies, the collection and reporting of bullying data, and the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Some of the bills would authorize federal grants to states and school districts for antibullying-related purposes. Although there is not presently a federal law directly targeted to address school bullying, several federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics of individuals may, under certain circumstances, be used to address particular incidents of bullying.

With respect to states’ efforts to address bullying, Education commissioned a two-part study that examines the elements of state bullying laws and the manner in which school districts are implementing the laws. The first part of Education’s study, issued in December 2011, included a review of all state bullying laws and model policies in effect as of April 2011, including those of the eight states we reviewed, as well as policies from 20 large school districts. The second part of Education’s study is scheduled for completion during fall 2012. It will include case studies of how 24 schools, selected from four states, implement their states’ bullying laws.

Reported Levels of Bullying and Related Effects Are Significant

Federal Survey Data

Being bullied is a serious problem, as evidenced by four federally sponsored nationally representative surveys conducted from 2005 to 2009. Estimates of the national prevalence of bullying ranged from approximately 20 to 28 percent of youth reporting they had been bullied during the survey periods, which ranged from a couple of months to a year. However, differences in definitions and survey methods make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding trends and affected demographic groups. Our analysis and similar work from HHS’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), one of the sponsors of two of the surveys, showed that the surveys vary in the way they pose questions about being bullied and how bullying is defined, if at all.Education, the sponsor of one of the surveys, and HHS also told us that different survey questions and definitions of bullying lead to different results in estimates of prevalence.

While it is clear that bullying is a serious problem, it is unclear from the surveys the extent to which bullying affects certain groups of youths relative to other groups. Specifically, the surveys collected information on the percentage of youths bullied based on gender and race. However, the information showed varying results. For example, there was no significant difference in the percentage of boys and girls that reported being bullied, according to two surveys, while one noted that girls were bullied at a higher percentage. In two of the three surveys, white youths reported being bullied at a higher percentage than African-American youths, while one other survey found no significant difference.

In addition, the four national surveys we identified did not consistently collect information about other demographic characteristics, making it impossible to determine percentages of bullying for these groups. For example, none of the surveys collected demographic information for youths by sexual orientation or gender identity. Researchers noted various challenges to obtaining such information, such as some schools may not permit questions on sexual orientation or gender identity status, potentially resulting in a sample that would not be nationally representative. Also, questions about sexual orientation or gender identity may be sensitive for youth respondents to complete, and researchers noted that such questions may not yield accurate information. Additionally, the surveys varied in whether or not they collected demographic information to allow for analysis based on religion, disability, or socioeconomic status, and two of the surveys did not include any questions asking specifically if youths had been bullied based on specific demographic characteristics. (See table 1.)

While federal agencies have not collected information on some demographic groups, other researchers have attempted to fill the void. For example, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) conducted a survey in the 2008-2009 school year and received responses from more than 7,000 students between the ages of 13 and 21 who self-reported as not heterosexual. Although not nationally representative, the results found, among other things, that 85 percent of students who responded to the survey said they were called names or threatened at some point in the past school year based on their sexual orientation, and 64 percent based on their gender expression; for example, for not acting “masculine enough” or “feminine enough”. Forty percent of students who responded said they were pushed or shoved based on their sexual orientation, and 27 percent based on their gender expression.

In addition to the fact that there are voids in information about demographic groups, Education and HHS officials said that researchers need a uniform definition to measure bullying. To better understand the prevalence of bullying, and given the different definitions used by bullying research instruments, CDC is leading an interdepartmental project to develop a uniform definition of bullying for research purposes. According to CDC officials, a report is expected to be issued in 2012 that contains a uniform definition along with information on other data elements to measure bullying, such as the frequency or types of bullying behavior. According to CDC, the project on the uniform definition is still under review, but may contain data elements for a number of demographic characteristics, including sex, race, ethnicity, disability status, religion, and sexual orientation.

Negative Outcomes from Bullying

Research, spanning more than a decade, has demonstrated that bullying is associated with a variety of negative outcomes for victims, including psychological, physical, academic, and behavioral issues. For example, a 2000 analysis of 23 bullying research studies found that youth who were bullied experienced higher levels of depression, loneliness, low self- esteem, and anxiety than their peers who had not been bullied. Similarly, a 2010 analysis of 18 research studies found that being bullied was linked to increased psychological issues later in life. A third analysis, of 20 studies, published in 2011, found that being bullied was associated with greater likelihood of being depressed later in life.

A 2009 analysis of 11 research studies found that bullying victims had a higher risk for such physical health outcomes as headaches, backaches, sleeping problems, and bad appetite, as compared with their peers who had not been bullied. Additionally, a 2010 analysis of 33 research studies on bullying and academic achievement found that bullying is related to concurrent academic difficulties for victims. Academic achievement was assessed based on such measures as grade point averages, standardized test scores, or teacher ratings of academic achievement. Researchers have also linked bullying to increases in behavioral problems for victims over time, such as aggression, delinquency, and truancy.

While researchers point out that the causes of suicide and violence are varied and complex, bullying has been identified as one risk factor associated with violent actions against oneself and others. For example, one 2011 analysis of 18 studies found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and teased or physically and sexually victimized than heterosexual youth, and more likely to experience detrimental outcomes, such as suicidal thoughts and attempts. According to a federally sponsored website on bullying, specific groups have an increased risk of suicide, including American Indian and Alaskan Native, Asian-American, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youths. Their risk of suicide can be increased further by bullying. Bullying has also been linked to acts of violence against others. For example, a 2002 study by Education and the Secret Service reviewed 37 incidents of school attacks and shootings occurring between 1974 and the end of the 2000 school year, and reported out 10 key findings that could be used to develop strategies to address targeted school violence. One of those 10 findings was that nearly three-quarters of attackers were bullied, persecuted, or injured by others prior to the attack, and that in several cases the bullying was severe and long-standing.

Selected State Legislatures and Educational Agencies Are Taking Various Approaches to Reduce Bullying

State Laws Vary in How They Address Bullying

According to Education, 49 states had school bullying laws as of April 2012, including the 8 states that we reviewed. These 8 states’ laws vary in several ways, including who is covered and the requirements placed on state agencies and school districts. For example, the 8 states’ laws that we reviewed vary in whether and the extent to which they cover specific demographic groups, referred to as protected classes. Five states— Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, and Vermont—identify race, color, sex or gender, national origin or nationality, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion as protected classes. California includes all of these groups, except for color. Some states also prohibit bullying of other protected classes. For example, Illinois also includes as protected classes ancestry, age, and marital status. Virginia and Massachusetts do not include protected classes in their state bullying laws. According to Massachusetts officials, protected classes were intentionally omitted from the state’s law to ensure that all youths were equally protected. Within Massachusetts’ state educational agency (SEA), a specific office is designated to receive complaints, including from youths who have been bullied for any reason, such as obesity or socioeconomic status. Additionally, four of the states that identify protected classes—Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, and New Mexico—provide that the list of classes is not exhaustive, so protection can be afforded to youths with characteristics not explicitly listed. For example, Iowa prohibits bullying “based on any In contrast, actual or perceived trait or characteristic of the student.”California’s bullying law is more exclusive and limits protection to only those groups that are listed in the law.

We also found that state laws impose various requirements on SEAs. For example, laws in California, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Virginia require that SEAs develop model bullying policies as a resource for school districts. Also, we found that while SEAs in Arkansas, California, and Illinois are required by law to review or monitor school district’s bullying policies, the approach taken to do so is different from state to state. For example, officials in Arkansas reported that as part of a broader effort to ensure that school districts’ policies align with federal and state laws, they conduct on-site reviews every 4 years, and require school districts to forward information to the Department of Education for review every year, including information about discipline and bullying policies. Conversely, an Illinois official reported that little meaningful oversight is occurring, in part because of resource constraints.

In each of the states we reviewed, the laws require school districts to adopt bullying policies or plans, but the states differed in the specific requirements of what must be included in these policies or plans. For example, of the 8 states’ laws we reviewed, 6 states require school districts to set forth a process for receiving and investigating complaints, and 2 do not. Similarly, we found that 6 states’ laws require district policies to identify the consequences for bullies, while 2 do not. Table 2 provides information about commonly required school district provisions in state bullying laws.

States are also making changes to their bullying laws, as evidenced by 4 of our 8 selected states amending or enacting bullying laws since we began our study in the spring of 2011.other things, amended its law to include protected classes based on actual or perceived characteristics. Vermont amended its law to include protections against cyberbullying and incidents that do not occur during the school day on school property, or at school-sponsored events.

Selected School Districts’ Antibullying Policies and Programs

The six school districts we reviewed in New Mexico, Virginia, and Vermont have all adopted policies, plans, or rules, and implemented a range of approaches, to combat bullying. Among other components of the bullying policies and rules, each prohibits bullying and describes potential consequences for the behavior. Also, the school districts in New Mexico and Vermont developed policies and procedures covering the reporting and investigation of bullying behavior.

School district officials explained that they have developed several approaches to prevent and respond to bullying. For example, in five of the six school districts we visited, central administrators or principals said they conduct student surveys that include questions about bullying to determine the prevalence of the behavior, and two administrators said the surveys are used to develop strategies to address the behavior. Also, officials from four of the six school districts said that several or all of their schools utilize the prevention-oriented framework Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) to improve overall behavior in schools (see text box). Additionally, several school districts and schools use curricula that help youths develop interpersonal skills and manage their emotions, such as Second Step, a classroom-based social skills program for youths 4 to 14 years of age, and Steps to Respect, a bullying prevention program developed for grades three through six. Several central administrators and principals mentioned that antibullying-focused events have been held at their schools, such as Rachel’s Challenge and Ryan’s Story. Rachel’s Challenge is a program that seeks to create a positive culture change in schools and communities and begins with video/audio footage of Rachel Scott, the first person killed during the 1999 Columbine High School incident. Ryan’s Story is a presentation that recounts the factors that led to the 2003 suicide of Ryan Halligan, a victim of both bullying and cyberbullying.

The Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports framework utilizes evidence-based, prevention-oriented practices and systems to promote positive and effective classroom and school social cultures. According to Education’s Office of Special Education Programs, PBIS steps to addressing bullying behavior at school include the following: examining discipline data to determine, for example, the frequency, location, and timing of specific bullying behaviors; examining the extent to which staff members have, for example, actively and positively supervised all students across all school settings, had high rates of positive interactions and contact with all students, and arranged their instruction so all students are actively engaged, successful, and challenged ; and teaching students and staff common strategies for preventing and responding to bullying behavior, such as intervening and responding early and quickly to interrupt bullying behavior, removing what triggers and maintains bullying behavior, and reporting and recording when a bullying behavior incident occurs.

Students whose bullying behavior does not improve are considered for additional supports. For example, on the basis of the function of a student’s behavior, students would (1) begin the day with a check-in or reminder about the daily expectations; (2) be more overtly and actively supervised; (3) receive more frequent, regular, and positive performance feedback each day; and (4) conclude each day with a checkout or debriefing with an adult.

In addition to mentioning efforts focused on youths, several central administrators and principals said that teachers receive some bullying prevention guidance or training. Information about bullying prevention is also shared with parents during workshops and forums. For example, one official mentioned that Rachel’s Challenge includes a session with parents and community leaders. A parent said that his school district hosted a national speaker to share information with parents about bullying.

State and Local Officials Cited Concerns That Hinder Antibullying Efforts

Both state and local officials expressed concerns about various issues associated with implementing state bullying laws, regulations, and local policies and codes of conduct. For example, administrators and principals reported that determining how to respond to out-of-school incidents, such as cyberbullying, is challenging. Administrators and principals said that sometimes they are not informed of incidents in a timely manner, resulting in a delayed response. Additionally, some parents discourage school officials’ involvement in out-of-school incidents. However, administrators and principals agreed that when out-of-school incidents affect school climate, the behavior has to be addressed.

Another issue of concern for both state and local officials is that parents and youths can confuse conflict with bullying. According to the state and local officials that we spoke with, they spend a lot of time on nonbullying behavior and more could be done to educate parents and youths on the distinction between bullying behavior and other forms of conflict. On a related matter, state and local officials said that it is important to train teachers and staff to prevent, identify, and respond to bullying behavior. However, according to these officials, because of state budget cuts and the elimination of some federal funding that could be used for bullying prevention activities, there is little funding available for training. State officials specifically cited the loss of funding from Title IV, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, which among other things could be used to prevent violence in and around schools. According to federal officials, funding for this program was eliminated in 2009.

Federal and State Civil Rights Laws Offer Some Protections against Bullying, but Vulnerable Groups May Not Always Be Covered

When bullying rises to the level of discrimination, federal civil rights laws may be used to provide redress to individuals in legally protected groups. Federal civil rights laws protect against discrimination based on sex, race, color, national origin, religion, or disability. However, federal agencies generally lack jurisdiction to address discrimination based on classifications not protected under federal civil rights statutes. For example, federal agencies lack authority to pursue discrimination cases based solely on sexual orientation.

Additionally, federal civil rights laws do not cover all youths in all educational settings, and as a result, where a student goes to school could affect the student’s ability to file a claim of discrimination with the federal government. For example, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title IV) prohibits discrimination in public schools and institutions of higher learning. Since Title IV is the only federal civil rights law addressing religious discrimination in educational settings, only youths at public schools and public institutions of higher learning, where Title IV applies, could file such a claim. Youths who attend public schools or other schools receiving federal education funding and who belong to other federally protected classes may have the option to file a complaint with Education, Justice, or both departments, depending on which agency has enforcement authority.laws, protected classes, and agency enforcement authority.

According to OCR’s case processing manual, a complaint must be filed within 180 calendar days of the date of the alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by Education’s Office for Civil Rights for good cause shown under certain circumstances. complaints is partly due to Education’s greater staff resources. Education’s Office for Civil Rights has roughly 400 staff, and Justice’s Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, has about 20 attorneys. According to departmental officials, Education investigates all complaints it receives for which it has jurisdiction. Conversely, Justice selects a limited number of complaints to review based on such factors as the severity of the complaint and whether the federal government has a special interest in the case. Additionally, officials from Education and Justice told us that they collaborate closely. Generally, Justice and Education share information about complaints because they may have overlapping jurisdiction, and try to coordinate efforts where feasible.

Education and Justice do not currently have a systematic approach for tracking information about the number of cases related to various demographic groups that they do not have jurisdiction to address. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in a 2011 report on the protections of federal anti-discrimination laws relating to school bullying, recommended that Justice and Education, among other things, track dismissed civil rights claims by various demographic characteristics. However, Education and Justice officials told us that as part of their complaint review processes, they focus on collecting information to establish federal jurisdiction, and as a result neither department collects information in a way that would allow them to routinely assess the demographic characteristics of cases where they lack jurisdiction. Thus, they do not plan to address the commission’s recommendation. Additionally, according to officials from both departments, attempting to track such information would be problematic because of difficulties in ascertaining demographic information. They also believe the information could be misleading. According to Justice officials, they dedicate significant resources to outreach designed to educate communities on their jurisdiction, and this may impact the number of complaints they receive from demographic groups that fall outside of their jurisdiction.

State Civil Rights Protections

We found that some states’ civil rights laws extend beyond the protections afforded at the federal level, but information about the possibility of pursuing claims at the state level was not always provided to federal complainants. For all eight states we reviewed, state anti- discrimination laws, like federal civil rights laws, provide protections for individuals who are discriminated against on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion, and disability, and in all but Arkansas, color.Thus, in these eight states, for these protected classes, legal action can generally be taken at the federal, state, or both levels.

The majority of the eight states that we reviewed include in their anti- discrimination laws protections for various groups of people who are not explicitly covered at the federal level. For example, six of the eight states we reviewed prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and five of the eight states prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Beyond these protected classes, most states we reviewed also prohibit discrimination on the basis of other personal characteristics, such as marital status. California is unique among the states in our review in that its anti-discrimination laws explicitly protect individuals on the basis of citizenship, gender-related appearance and behavior, and individuals who are associated with a person with (or perceived to have) a protected characteristic. However, because some characteristics are not explicitly protected under anti-discrimination laws at either the federal level or in the states we reviewed, youths in these states who are bullied on the basis of one of these characteristics would have no recourse under civil rights law at either level. For example, state education and civil rights officials mentioned that anti-discrimination laws generally do not apply to youths who were bullied based on their socioeconomic status or obesity.

The six states are California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Vermont. who withdraws his or her complaint may be informed in a phone discussion about legal options at the state level. Also, officials said that if a complaint reaches the stage of a dismissal, Education’s letter to the complainant sometimes suggests that the claimant might have a claim under state civil rights law, along with the name and address of the relevant state agency. However, according to Education officials, when the agency lacks jurisdiction, it does not presently notify complainants about the availability of possible recourse under state law on a routine basis. As a result, individuals who file complaints with Education may not be fully aware of their legal options. On the other hand, according to Justice officials, department officials routinely share with complainants that they may have legal options available to them through their state’s civil rights laws. While not specific to particular states and their laws, Justice provides a general notification in letters to complainants for complaints they do not pursue.

Coordinated Federal Antibullying Efforts Are Under Way, but Assessment of Legal Remedies Is Incomplete

Federal Coordination Efforts

Education, HHS, and Justice have established coordinated efforts to carry out research and broadly disseminate information on bullying. Education has also provided key information about how federal civil rights laws can be used to address bullying and is conducting a study of state bullying laws and how selected school districts are addressing bullying. Three federal efforts, in particular—formation of a coordinating committee, establishment of a central website, and an informational campaign—have provided the public with a range of information about bullying, through a variety of media.

The Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Steering Committee serves as a forum for federal agencies to develop and share information with each other and the public. The committee was created in 2009 and is composed of the Departments of Education, HHS, Justice, Agriculture, Defense, and Interior, along with the Federal Trade Commission, the National Council on Disability, and the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Among other activities, the coordinating committee helped to plan a conference on bullying in March 2011 hosted by the White House, as well as annual conferences of the coordinating committee in August 2010 and September 2011. Following each annual conference, the committee has developed priorities and formed subcommittees to address those priorities. For example, after identifying a need for better coordination of bullying research, a research subcommittee was created after the August 2010 conference. Following the September 2011 conference, this subcommittee’s activities in the upcoming year will also include identifying best practices for training teachers as well as drawing attention to programs that could help youths develop interpersonal skills and manage their emotions.

The three federal departments, along with the White House, established a central federal website (www.stopbullying.gov, last accessed May 22, 2012), launched in March 2011 at the White House conference on bullying. The central website sought to consolidate the content of different federal sites into one location to provide free materials for the public. Hosted by HHS, with content and technical support from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the website aims to present a consistent federal message and features content arranged by target audience, such as teens, along with sections on special topics such as cyberbullying.

HHS through HRSA launched the informational campaign called Stop Bullying Now! in 2004. Federal departments outside HHS that assist with the campaign include the Departments of Education, Justice, Agriculture, Defense, and Interior. The campaign is designed for youth and adults to raise awareness, foster partnerships, and disseminate evidence-based findings to help prevent and intervene in instances of bullying. The informational campaign offers a variety of free materials, including a DVD with 14 cartoon episodes, 30 tip sheets based on research and evidence- based practices, public service announcements, posters, brochures, comic books, and kits for youth leaders and adults. According to data from HRSA as of August 2011, recipients of materials in mass mailings included, among others, all 66,000 public elementary and middle schools in the country, 17,000 libraries, relevant state health and education agencies, offices serving Indian and military youth, 4,000 Boys and Girls Clubs, relevant state health and education agencies, schools on military bases worldwide, and offices serving American Indian youth. (See app. V for more information on the campaign.) However, according to HHS officials, the campaign and its online content are currently in a period of transition, as they adapt to the new interdepartmental website and its governance.

While these efforts are still evolving, we found that they are consistent with key practices that we determined can help or sustain coordination efforts across federal agencies. Specifically, we found that in each of these three efforts that key agencies reached agreement on roles and responsibilities. For example, the roles and responsibilities of the federal agencies responsible for stopbullying.gov are spelled out in a governance document, and the lead agency, HHS, for this website has executed agreements to provide funding for the maintenance and operation of the website. Similarly, we found that these agencies worked to establish compatible policies and procedures, and to develop mechanisms to monitor progress for these coordinated efforts. Appendix V provides more information on federal coordination efforts on bullying.

In addition to these collaborative agency efforts to share information about bullying, Education has disseminated information about federal civil rights laws that can be used to address bullying, and key components of state bullying laws. In October 2010, Education sent a letter to state and local education officials outlining how federal civil rights laws can be applied to bullying. The letter stated that student misconduct may trigger school responsibilities under federal civil rights laws and provided examples of behavior that may meet the threshold for violating the laws. In December 2010, the department issued another letter that summarized several key components of state bullying laws, such as specifying prohibited behavior, development and implementation of school district policies, and training and preventive education. As previously discussed, following up on this letter, the department commissioned a study of state bullying laws to determine the extent to which states and school districts incorporate the key components into their laws and policies. In December 2011, Education issued the first part of this two-part study on state bullying laws.

No Assessment of State Civil Rights Laws and Procedures Has Been Performed

While Education, HHS, and Justice have initiated several efforts to better inform the public about how to utilize federal, state, and other resources to better address bullying, none of these efforts include an assessment of state civil rights laws and procedures for filing complaints. Since some states’ civil rights laws provide protection for groups not named in applicable federal civil rights laws, collection and dissemination of such information could assist in better understanding how these laws vary in coverage and in the procedures states have in place for filing complaints. For example, five states in our review—California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Vermont—have established processes and procedures for resolving civil rights complaints, and have empowered a statewide organization with the authority to hold schools and school districts accountable when discrimination is found, according to state officials. Specifically, according to a state official, California’s Uniform Complaint Process empowers its Department of Education’s Office of Equal Opportunity to ensure compliance with state and federal civil rights laws. California’s state code also requires uniform complaint procedures that each school district within the state must follow when addressing complaints of discrimination against protected groups, according to a state official. The complaint process allows up to 60 days for an investigation and decision to be rendered at the district level, unless a child is directly in harm’s way and the school district is unresponsive, in which case a complaint can be filed directly with the state. In Vermont, the state’s Human Rights Commission acts as an independent agency focused solely on the protection of civil rights, and if its investigation determines unlawful discrimination occurred, the agency assists the parties in negotiating a settlement. Human Rights Commission officials told us if a settlement cannot be reached, the agency may choose to take the case to court. However, they said that this usually does not happen because cases are generally settled. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has a formal process called the Problem Resolution System that handles complaints that allege a school or a district is not meeting legal requirements for education, including complaints of discrimination. In each of the five states with established processes and procedures for resolving civil rights complaints, the SEAs include information on their websites about the civil rights complaint process, including where to file, required information, and time frames.

According to their respective state officials, Arkansas and New Mexico offer only limited legal options for protected classes with complaints of discrimination based on school bullying because they lack a state entity with the authority to investigate and hold school districts accountable for such complaints. Although Arkansas has an Equity Assistance Center within its Department of Education that can serve as an intermediary between the complainant and the school district, its decisions lack the authority to discipline a school district, according to state officials. New Mexico has a human rights commission that receives and investigates complaints of discrimination based on protected classes, but the commission is focused on employment issues and does not address discrimination complaints related to education. As a result, the state lacks formal processes and procedures to address complaints of discrimination stemming from instances of bullying, according to state officials. Therefore, according to state officials from these two states, if an individual cannot afford an attorney to file a private right of action related to complaints of discrimination because of school bullying, the individual’s only legal option is to file a federal complaint.

By not incorporating an assessment of state civil rights laws and procedures into their various bullying prevention efforts, federal agencies are overlooking a potentially important source of information. Building on information from Education’s study of state bullying laws and the letters they issued on federal civil rights laws, information on state civil rights laws and procedures would provide a broader and more complete perspective of the overall coverage of federal and state efforts to prevent and address bullying.

Conclusions

Students who are bullied may seek recourse through a number of avenues—local and state educational policies, state bullying laws, state civil rights laws, or federal civil rights laws. However, the nature and extent of protections available to them depend on the laws and policies of where they live or go to school. Education and Justice have taken important steps in assessing how federal civil rights laws can be used to help combat certain instances of bullying of protected classes of youth for which they have jurisdiction. And Education has completed a study of state bullying laws and is conducting another study looking at how school districts are implementing these laws. However, neither Education nor Justice has assessed state civil rights laws and procedures as they may relate to bullying. Many of the states’ civil rights laws we reviewed extend protections to classes of individuals beyond the groups protected at the federal level, but states vary in the groups that are explicitly protected; therefore, whether bullying victims have any recourse through civil rights laws can depend on the state in which they live or go to school. Also, states vary in their procedures for pursuing civil rights claims, which could also affect the ability to pursue a bullying-related discrimination claim. State civil rights laws, just like federal civil rights laws and state bullying laws, can play an important role in addressing this important issue. More information about state civil rights laws and procedures is a key missing link and is needed by administration officials and decision makers alike, to understand the potential overall legal protections available to students who have been bullied.

Federal claimants would also benefit from knowing that options may be available to them at the state level. This is particularly key when cases are dismissed at the federal level because of a lack of jurisdiction. While Justice routinely informs individuals when their complaints are dismissed because of a lack of jurisdiction of possible recourse under their state civil rights laws, Education does not. Routinely making this basic information available would be another key step in helping ensure that bullying victims are aware of some of the legal options available to them.

Multiple efforts to collect information about bullying have been under way for several years; however, the prevalence of bullying of youths in certain vulnerable demographic groups is not known. A greater effort by key federal agencies to develop more information about the extent to which a broader range of demographic groups are subject to bullying and bullying- related discrimination would better inform federal efforts to prevent and remedy bullying. Understanding the prevalence of bullying by demographic groups would help administration officials develop additional actions targeted at the greatest areas of need. This information, together with an assessment of federal and state legal protections, could also aid policymakers in determining whether additional actions are needed to protect vulnerable groups of youths who are subjected to bullying.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To allow for a more comprehensive assessment of federal and state efforts to prevent and address bullying, we recommend the Secretary of Education, in consultation with the Attorney General, as appropriate, compile information in a one-time study—similar to its study of state bullying laws—about state civil rights laws and procedures, as they may pertain to bullying.

In order to better ensure that individuals are aware of their options to seek legal redress, especially in cases where their complaints to Education are not pursued because of a lack of jurisdiction, we recommend that the Secretary of Education develop procedures to routinely inform individuals who file complaints of discrimination stemming from bullying about the potential availability of legal options under their state’s anti-discrimination laws.

To address gaps in knowledge about targets of bullying and discrimination, we recommend that the Secretaries of Education and HHS and the Attorney General work together to develop information in their future surveys of youths’ health and safety issues on the extent to which youths in various vulnerable demographic groups are bullied.

To aid policymakers and program administrators at the federal and state levels in understanding more comprehensively what is being done to address bullying and discrimination, we recommend that the Secretaries of Education and HHS and the Attorney General, in conjunction with the Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Steering Committee, assess the extent to which legal protections against bullying exist for vulnerable demographic groups. Such an assessment, to be comprehensive, should make use of information federal agencies have already compiled on state bullying laws and federal civil rights laws together with information from our recommendations above to compile information on state civil rights laws and collect more information on demographic groups in federal surveys of youth health and safety issues.

Agency Comments

We provided Education, HHS, and Justice an opportunity to comment on a draft of this report. Education and HHS provided written responses, which appear in appendixes VII and VIII, respectively. Each of the agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. Justice chose not to provide a written response.

Education disagreed with our recommendation that it compile information about state civil rights laws and procedures as they pertain to bullying. Specifically, Education noted that it does not have jurisdiction over state civil rights laws, nor the appropriate expertise, to interpret and advise on these laws. The department stressed that its previous analysis of state bullying laws was limited to compiling a list of statutes or regulations and identifying key components of statutes and regulations. Further, Education suggested that compiling information about state civil rights laws and procedures would only be useful if kept current, and that undergoing such a time-intensive and costly survey and review of state’s civil rights laws would not be an appropriate use of the department’s limited resources.

We continue to believe that a one-time compilation of state civil rights laws and procedures would be beneficial, and provide a basis, along with other information, for analyzing the overall legal protections that are available for vulnerable demographic groups. Such an assessment would help determine the extent to which states are positioned to respond to these types of civil rights complaints and to identify those instances where certain students are left with little recourse to pursue discrimination claims simply because of the state in which they reside or go to school. While we appreciate the work involved in any analysis of state laws, we believe that Education can develop a methodological approach that would limit the scope of their work and hone in on those aspects of civil rights laws that come into play when bullying leads to allegations of discrimination. For example, this review could be limited to compiling basic information about state civil rights laws, such as which protected classes are included and whether they apply in educational settings, and may not require an extensive analysis of state case law. In implementing a study of this type, Education may consider approaches similar to those they used in their previous work on state bullying laws. Alternatively, Education officials could choose to rely on the knowledge and expertise of cognizant state officials by conducting a survey or otherwise soliciting pertinent information, rather than undertaking the bulk of this work themselves. We acknowledge Education’s concerns regarding keeping the information on state civil rights laws updated and have modified language in the report and our recommendation to clarify that this is meant to be a onetime effort.

Regarding our second recommendation, Education indicated that they are considering whether to develop procedures that would inform complainants whose complaints are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction that they may have possible recourse under state or local laws. We encourage Education to review the language that Justice currently includes in similar notification letters. As Education suggested, more detailed guidance regarding rights and procedures for seeking redress may then be provided by state and local agencies.

Both HHS and Education agreed with our recommendation that they develop additional information in their surveys about youths in various vulnerable groups who are bullied.

In response to our recommendation that Education, HHS, and the Attorney General assess the extent to which protections exist for various demographic groups likely to be the target of bullies, HHS agreed with the recommendation and Education cited many of its ongoing efforts to this end. We commend Education on its current efforts as well as other efforts we have discussed in our report. However, as we point out in our previous recommendations, more information is needed on state civil rights laws as well as about how various demographic groups are affected by bullying. Utilizing all of the information at their disposal, including information we recommend be collected, Education, HHS, and Justice could work together to assess how well the available laws and resources address areas of need and identify measures that could be taken to help prevent bullying. We believe that it is an important step to assimilate information on resources and laws with research about areas of need in order to assist federal policy makers and agency officials in their efforts to address this important issue. Based on questions we received during discussions with Justice on our report, we modified this recommendation to clarify that such an assessment should make use of information from our previous recommendations in this report, as well as information that federal agencies have already gathered, and that the three agencies in our review could work through the Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Steering Committee to conduct such an assessment.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of Education, and Health and Human Services, and the Attorney General; relevant congressional committees; and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about the report, please contact me at (206) 287-4809 or calboml@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Analysis of Surveys and Literature Review

To obtain information on the prevalence of school bullying of victims in the United States, we primarily compared estimates and methodologies of available data on being bullied in four nationally representative surveys by federal statistical agencies conducted from 2005 to 2009. Specifically, we compared data on being victims of bullying from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the Health Behavior in School-aged Children Survey, and the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (see table 4). We selected these surveys based on interviews with officials at the Departments of Education (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Justice (Justice), as well as the similar work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on this topic that compared the four surveys. We evaluated these federal surveys for methodological rigor, as well as to determine the extent to which the data could be used to offer a national perspective on bullying in schools. This included interviews with researchers, as appropriate. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Because the survey data were collected using generalizable probability samples, this sample is only one of a large number of samples that might have been selected. Since each sample could provide different estimates, we have used 95 percent confidence intervals to show the precision of our results. All percentage estimates used in this report have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or minus 2.1 percentage points, unless otherwise noted. In addition to sampling error, surveys are subject to nonsampling error, such as how respondents interpret questions, including any biases or tendencies to provide desirable answers or false answers. Although respondents self-reported being bullied in the surveys, this approach to measure the prevalence of bullying is viewed as valid and robust, according to some previous research on bullying. We also reviewed certain other relevant research as appropriate. Finally, we conducted interviews with officials at Education and HHS to obtain information about how different surveys and research define bullying and their efforts to develop a uniform definition of bullying for research purposes.

To describe the effects of school bullying on victims, we conducted a literature review. To identify studies on the effects of bullying on victims, we searched numerous databases—including MEDLINE, Embase, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ProQuest, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and WorldCat. We also consulted with officials at Education, HHS, and Justice to identify relevant studies. Because of the extensive available literature, we limited our review to meta-analyses, which analyze other studies and synthesize their findings. Additionally, we limited our review to articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Our literature search covered studies published from 2001 through July 2011. Subsequently, new meta-analyses were brought to our attention by agency officials, and we reviewed them to the extent they were consistent with our search criteria. We identified seven relevant studies. We reviewed the methodologies of these studies to ensure that they were sound and determined that they were sufficiently reliable. The meta-analyses synthesized the findings of studies of school- aged children in a variety of countries, including the United States. They were not designed to establish causal relationships, nor are the results of the meta-analyses generalizable.

States and Local School District Interviews and Document Review

To describe approaches that selected states and local school districts are taking, we reviewed relevant state bullying laws and regulations, as well as guidance and other documents from eight selected states and conducted interviews with state education officials. We selected eight states—Arkansas, California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Vermont, and Virginia—based on the following criteria: Each has bullying laws or regulations, and they vary with respect to bullying definitions and enumeration of protected classes, geographic variation, and student enrollment. Further, we selected three of these states (New Mexico, Vermont, and Virginia), which vary on the characteristics listed above, to review policies and guidance of local school districts and conduct interviews with school officials. We selected a total of six school districts, two in each state—Albuquerque Public Schools, Rio Rancho Public Schools, Fairfax County Public Schools, Warren County Public Schools, Windham Southeast Supervisory Union, and Windham Southwest Supervisory Union. The six school districts were selected from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2008–09. The Common Core of Data (CCD) nonfiscal surveys consist of data submitted annually to NCES by state educational agencies (SEA). School districts and schools were selected to reflect a range of size, and urbanicity (urban, suburban, or rural), as well as racial and socioeconomic diversity. Participation in the National School Lunch Program was used as a proxy for socioeconomic status. We held interviews with central administrators, principals, school staff, and parents. In several instances, multiple individuals attended an interview; for example six parents attended one parent interview. During the interviews, we asked about measures taken to prevent bullying, school officials’ response to bullying behavior, and lessons learned. We analyzed narrative responses thematically.

Review of Laws and Discrimination Complaint Processes

To identify legal options that federal and selected state governments have in place when bullying leads to allegations of discrimination, we reviewed relevant federal and state anti-discrimination laws and regulations, selected federal court decisions, as well as guidance and other documents of the federal government and the eight states selected for review. We also conducted interviews with federal officials in the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division (CRT), Educational Opportunities Section, as well as with state officials. State officials were from various departments, including state educational agencies and human rights or civil rights commissions or departments. During the interviews with federal and state officials, we asked about provisions, discrimination complaint processes, complaint resolutions, and legal mechanisms available to individuals who are not members of a protected class.

Interviews with Federal Officials and Document Review

To address how key federal agencies are coordinating their efforts to combat school bullying, we interviewed officials from Education, HHS, and Justice and reviewed relevant documents. These departments were represented with officials from many component agencies. For Education, we spoke to officials from the Office of Safe and Healthy Students (formerly the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools), OCR, and Office of Special Education Programs. For HHS, we spoke to officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, CDC, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), National Institutes of Health, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). For Justice, we spoke to officials from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, CRT, and Office of Justice Programs. We focused on these three departments, given their leadership roles on an interdepartmental coordinating committee and website (www.stopbullying.gov, last accessed May 22, 2012) on bullying. We analyzed coordination of efforts based on key practices that GAO has previously identified as effective coordination practices.our interviews and analysis, we asked questions about such effective coordination practices as agreeing on roles and responsibilities or establishing compatible policies, procedures, or other means to operate across agency boundaries. We focused on these practices, among those GAO has identified, based on our professional judgment and relevance For example, in for the coordinated federal efforts regarding bullying. Related documents that we reviewed included plans, meeting agendas, conference materials, interagency agreements, and educational materials provided to the public. We also attended the second annual bullying prevention conference of the interdepartmental coordinating committee. In addition, we conducted interviews with Education, HHS, and Justice officials about efforts within their departments to combat bullying. We also reviewed relevant documents and agency websites.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 through May 2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Comparison of the Definition and Measurement of Bullying in Four Nationally Representative Surveys

Table 5 compares how four nationally representative surveys define and measure bullying.

Appendix III: Selected Data on National Prevalence of Youth Who Report Being Bullied in School

This appendix provides estimates of the overall prevalence of youth who reported being bullied by sex and by race/ethnicity. Three of the four federal surveys that we reviewed present an estimate of overall prevalence of being bullied, and for these three surveys, the results of each are shown separately by sex and by race/ethnicity. Unless otherwise noted, all estimates in these tables have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

The difference between boys and girls reporting that they were bullied was statistically significant in one survey (YRBS), with girls reporting a higher percentage of bullying, but was not statistically significant in the other two surveys (SCS and HBSC). See table 6.

White youth reported being bullied at higher percentages than African- American youth in two of the three surveys (YRBS and HBSC), while the other survey found no difference. In two of the three surveys (YRBS and HBSC), differences between the overall prevalence for white compared with Hispanic youth and for African-American youth compared with Hispanic youth were not statistically significant.Hispanics reported a lower percentage of bullying than whites or African- Americans. Asian-American youths reported a lower percentage of bullying in the one survey (NCVS) that captured information for that demographic group. See table 7.

Appendix IV: Selected Data on National Prevalence of Certain Types of Bullying Behaviors

This appendix provides estimates of the prevalence of being bullied for certain types of bullying behaviors. Three of the four federal surveys that we reviewed provide estimates of the prevalence of being bullied for certain types of behaviors, and the results of each are shown separately. Unless otherwise noted, all estimates in these tables have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.

These surveys also found that boys may be subject to somewhat different types of bullying than girls. For example, estimates from SCS and HBSC showed that a higher percentage of boys were bullied physically than girls, while girls were more commonly bullied than boys with rumors or social exclusion, which are examples of relational bullying, or bullying using interpersonal relationships.

Appendix V: Coordination Practices of Key Interdepartmental Federal Efforts on Bullying

In table 11 are selected coordination practices that we have previously found help to enhance and sustain coordination across federal agencies, as well as the ways that key interdepartmental activities against bullying reflect those coordination practices.

Appendix VI: Additional Federal Programs and Services Are Available to Combat Bullying

In addition to supporting antibullying activities, the Departments of Education, HHS, and Justice support more broadly focused services and programs that may be used for bullying prevention. Generally, bullying prevention represents one of many allowable activities within these services and programs. Within each agency, officials identified a range of services and programs, including technical assistance, funding opportunities, information sharing, and research, that may include bullying prevention. For example, HHS provides funding for the Children’s Safety Network (CSN), a national resource center for the prevention of childhood injuries and violence. See table 12.

While these programs and services generally support a broader range of activities than just bullying, several of them have been used to directly address bullying. For example, several grantees have used Safe Schools/Healthy Students funding to implement bullying prevention programs. Also, in fiscal year 2010, 2 of the 11 SEAs awarded Safe and Supportive Schools grants devoted resources to bullying prevention. While these services and programs do not always exclusively focus on bullying prevention, officials across the three federal agencies— Education, HHS, and Justice—agreed that their emphasis on violence reduction and healthy behaviors can help prevent and reduce bullying behavior, even if the funds are not used specifically to address bullying.

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

Bryon Gordon (Assistant Director), Ramona L. Burton (Analyst-in- Charge), Susannah Compton, Alex Galuten, Avani Locke, Ashley McCall, Sheila McCoy, Jean McSween, Mimi Nguyen, Karen O’Conor, Kate O’Dea, Michael Pahr, Rebecca Rose, Regina Santucci, Matthew Saradjian, Ronni Schwartz, and John Townes made significant contributions to all aspects of this report.