Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:22 pm
Time: 9:22 pm
Results for bullying (u.s.)
4 results foundAuthor: Petrosino, Anthony Title: What characteristics of bullying, bullying victims, and schools are associated with increased reporting of bullying to school officials? Summary: This study tested 51 characteristics of bullying victimization, bullying victims, and bullying victims' schools to deter-mine which were associated with reporting to school officials. It found that 11 characteristics in two categories—bullying victimization and bullying victims—showed a statistically significant association with reporting. The study also notes the high percentage (64 percent) of respondents who experienced bullying but did not report it. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands, 2010. 45p. Source: Issues & Answers Report, REL 2010-No.092: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 28, 2012 at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2010092.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2010092.pdf Shelf Number: 123848 Keywords: Bullying (U.S.)Juvenile OffendersJuvenile VictimsSchool CrimeSchools |
Author: Seeley, Ken Title: Bullying in Schools: An Overview Summary: 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 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. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2011. 12p. Source: OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2012 at https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/234205.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 124368 Keywords: Bullying (U.S.)Crime PreventionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile VictimsSchool CrimeSchools |
Author: Roman, John Title: Citywide Model Bullying Prevention Policy Summary: On June 22, 2012, the District of Columbia City Council passed the Youth Bullying Prevention Act of 2012 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to address bullying on a comprehensive, citywide level. The policy requires that all District agencies, grantees, and educational institutions that provide services to youth adopt a bullying prevention policy. The law includes any entity who provides services to youth on behalf of, or with funding from, the District of Columbia. The law also creates the Mayor’s Task Force on Bullying Prevention (the ‘Task Force’), whose role is to assist District agencies in their bullying prevention efforts and the creation of their prevention policies. As part of this charge, the Task Force has compiled a model policy designed around evidence-based best-practices in bullying prevention. The District’s model policy on bullying adopts a public health framework with three levels of prevention practices and strategies: primary prevention applied to all youth and staff in a given setting, secondary prevention targeting youth atrisk of being a bully or a victim as well as places where bullying is most likely to occur, and tertiary prevention which includes responses to a particular bullying incident. This three-tiered public health model has been successfully used in clinical and community psychology to promote mental health and reduce social-emotional problems. The policy differentiates between legally-required responses and prevention activities intended to prevent future incidents. To develop the model policy, the Task Force reviewed best-practices in bullying prevention (see Appendix E) and conducted focus groups with District principals and youth. From this review and feedback, the Task Force identified strategies that have been consistently shown to be most effective at reducing bullying. These strategies are included in the model policy. Together these recommendations form a comprehensive framework that creates a positive climate for all youth who come into contact with an agency. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2013. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2013 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412741-District-wide-Model-Bullying-Prevention-Policy.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412741-District-wide-Model-Bullying-Prevention-Policy.pdf Shelf Number: 127698 Keywords: Bullying (U.S.)Bullying PreventionSchool Bullying |
Author: American Educational Research Association. Title: Prevention of Bullying in Schools, Colleges, and Universities: Research Report and Recommendations Summary: Bullying presents one of the greatest health risks to children, youth, and young adults in U.S. society. It is pernicious in its impact even if often less visible and less readily identifiable than other public health concerns. Its effects on victims, perpetrators, and even bystanders are both immediate and long term and can affect the development and functioning of individuals across generations. The epicenter for bullying is schools, colleges, and universities, where vast numbers of children, youth, and young adults spend much of their time. Bullying—a form of harassment and violence—needs to be understood from a developmental, social, and educational perspective. The educational settings in which it occurs and where prevention and intervention are possible need to be studied and understood as potential contexts for positive change. Yet many administrators, teachers, and related personnel lack training to address bullying and do not know how to intervene to reduce it. The report is presented as a series of 11 briefs. All but one present research and set forth conclusions and implications. The briefs, which range in length from four to 10 pages each, include: •Looking Beyond the Traditional Definition of Bullying •Bullying as a Pervasive Problem •Bullying and Peer Victimization Among Vulnerable Populations •Gender-Related Bullying and Harassment: A Growing Trend •Legal Rights Related to Bullying and Discriminatory Harassment •Improving School Climate: A Critical Tool in Combating Bullying •Students, Teachers, Support Staff, Administrators, and Parents Working Together to Prevent and Reduce Bullying •Putting School Safety Education at the Core of Professional Preparation Programs •Reinvigorated Data Collection and Analysis: A Charge for National and Federal Stakeholders. Details: Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 2013. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 15, 2013 at: http://www.aera.net/Portals/38/docs/News%20Release/Prevention%20of%20Bullying%20in%20Schools,%20Colleges%20and%20Universities.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.aera.net/Portals/38/docs/News%20Release/Prevention%20of%20Bullying%20in%20Schools,%20Colleges%20and%20Universities.pdf Shelf Number: 128730 Keywords: Bullying (U.S.)Bullying PreventionColleges and UniversitiesSchool CrimesSchool DisciplineSchool Security |