PREVENTINGBULLYING&VIOLENCEINSCHOOLSANDBEYOND

DorothyL.Espelage,Ph.D.ProfessorofPsychologyespelage@ufl.eduWebsite:http://www.psych.ufl.edu/espelage/Twitter:DrDotEspelage

FUNDINGSOURCES&DISCLAIMER

ResearchwassupportedbyCentersforDiseaseControl&Prevention(#1U01/CE001677)toDorothyEspelage(PI);Opinions,findings,andconclusionsorrecommendationsexpressedinthispresentationarethoseoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarilyreflectthoseoftheCDC

[Analysesandmanuscriptpreparationwassupportedthroughaninter-personnelagencyagreement(IPA)betweenUniversityofFlorida(Espelage)andtheCDC(17IPA1706096).]

ResearchwassupportedbyNIJGrant(MUOFX-0022)toDorothy

Espelage(PI);Opinions,findings,andconclusionsorrecommendationsexpressedinthispresentationarethoseoftheauthor(s)anddonotnecessarilyreflectthoseoftheDepartmentofJustice

EspelageResearchLab▫  SOCIAL-ECOLOGY&SCHOOL-BASEDPREVENTION(Espelage&Swearer,2003;Espelage,2012,2014)

▫  EXPOSURETOVIOLENCESTUDY(Espelage,1998;Low&Espelage,2014)

▫  SOCIALNETWORKANALYSISSTUDY(Birkettt&Espelage,2014;Espelage,Holt,&Henkel,2003;Espelage,Green,&Wasserman,2007;Espelage,Green,&Polanin,2012)

▫  SEXUALHARASSMENT,DATINGVIOLENCE,&BULLYINGSTUDIES(Holt&Espelage,2003;Holt&Espelage,2005;Espelage&Holt,2006;Espelage,Basile,&Hambuger,2012,2014)

▫  THEORYOFMIND,EMPATHY,&PEERRELATIONS(Espelageetal.,2004;Mayberry&Espelage,2006)

▫  SEXUALVIOLENCE,&BULLYING(Poteat&Espelage,2006;Espelageetal.,2008;Espelageetal.,2012)

▫  YOUTH&MENTALHEALTHOUTCOMES(Espelage,Aragon,Birkett,&Koenig,2008;Poteat,Espelage,&Koenig,2009;Birkett,Espelage,&Koenig,2009;Robinson&Espelage,2012,2013)

▫  STUDENTSWITHDISABILITIES-Victimization&PsychologicalCorrelates&SELprevention(Roseetal.,2010;Rose&Espelage,2012;Espelage,Rose,&Polanin,2015)

▫  SCHOOLCLIMATE,ACADEMICENGAGEMENT(Espelageetal.,2014,2015)

Policies & Procedures –Behavioral

Expectations (PBIS)

Ongoing ALL Staff Training

Effective Violence Prevention

Social-Emotional

Competences

InterconnectedRisks

TrustingRelationships

Supportive Schools

Bullying/AggressionSchool Violence

InterconnectedProtective

Factors

Prosocial Peers

EspelageMantra:WithAwarenessComesMisperception

MisperceptioninMedia ScientificEvidence-Bullyingisanepidemic. -BullyRatesVary-Bully-suicidelinked. -BullyOnlyOneofMany

Predictors-Bullyareyoungcriminals. -Bulliesarediverseintheir

outcomes-Bulliesneedtobepunished. -IgnoresGroupPhenomena-Bullies–dysfunctionalfamilies -Goodkidsgetinvolvedinbullying-Bullyingishard-wiredinyouth -Environmentmatters–gene

expression

DefinitionofBullying(CDC;Gladdenetal.,2014)

Bullyingisunwantedaggressivebehavior(s)amongschool-agechildrenthathasahighlikelihoodofcausingphysicalorpsychologicalharmorinjuryandischaracterizedby:

1)animbalanceofrealorperceivedpowerthatfavorstheaggressor(s);

2)isrepeatedorhasahighlikelihoodofbeingrepeated;

3)Thevictim(s)ofbullyingmayfeelintimidated,demeaned,orhumiliatedasaresultoftheaggression.

ComponentsMatter(Ybarra,Espelage,&Mitchell,2014;JAH)

•  Nationally-representativesamples:(1)2008:1,15712-to17-year-olds;(2)2010-11:3,98913-to18-year-olds.

•  Youthwhoreportedneitherdifferentialpowernorrepetitionhadthelowestratesofinterferencewithdailyfunctioning.

•  Youthwhoreportedeitherdifferentialpowerorrepetitionhadhigherrates.

•  Highestratesofinterferencewithdailyfunctioningwereobservedamongyouthwhoreportedbothdifferentialpowerandrepetition;theseyouthreporthighestlevelofhelplessness.

•  Youthwerevictimsofonlinegeneralizedpeeraggression(30%)orbothonlinegeneralizedpeeraggressionandcyberbullying(16%)butrarelycyberbullyingalone(1%).

BullyingPrevalence

Among3rd–8thgraders:15%ChronicallyVictimized17%RingleaderBullies8%Bully-Victims60%Bystanders

Only13%intervenetohelpvictim(Espelage,2015)

Cyber-BullyingPrevalence

•  7%ofstudentsinU.S.publicschoolsnationwidereportedbeingcyberbulliedin2013(Zhang,Musu-Gillette,&Oudekerk,2016).

•  Rateofcyberbullyingislowerthantherateofface-to-facebullyingvictimization(22%),th

•  Cyberbulliedstudentswerelesslikelytonotifyanadultthanface-to-facebullyingvictims(23%vs.39%;Zhangetal.,2016).

•  Reviewofcyberbullyingliteraturebytheratetobeanywherebetween4%and78%(Aboujaoude,Savage,Starcevic,&Salame,2015).

TransactionalAssociationsBetweenSchool-Based

Aggression/Bullying&Cyberbullying

This research was supported by Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (#1U01/CE001677) to Dorothy Espelage (PI)

MethodParticipants ◦  1,132 students (49.1% female) ◦  3 cohorts (5th, 6th, 7th graders) ◦  Assessed across 4 waves including

Spring/Fall 2008, Spring/Fall 2009 ◦  Racially diverse (51% Black; 34% White;

3% Hispanic; 3% Asian; 9% Other)

BullyingPerpetration&CyberbullyingPerpetration

0.131

0.499 0.590 -0.102(ns)

0.2790.114

0.2580.209

0.117

-0.239

0.280

0.143

0.5320.490BullyPerp(T1)

CyberbullyPerp(T1)

CyberbullyPerp(T2)

CyberbullyPerp(T3)

BullyPerp(T2)

BullyPerp(T3)

BullyPerp(T4)

CyberbullyPerp(T4)

0.253

0.294

Figure1.ModelFit:χ2(219,n=1132)=945.318;RMSEA=0.0542(0.0506;0.0577);NNFI=.0975;CFI=0.980

0.184

Espelage,Rao,&Craven,2013

BullyingVictimizationandCyberbullyingPerpetration

0.564

0.187

Figure2.ModelFit:χ2(222,n=1132)=854.147;RMSEA=0.0486(0.0453;0.0525);NNFI=.0965;CFI=0.972

BullyVictim(T2)

BullyVictim(T1)

BullyVictim(T3)

BullyVictim(T4)

CyberbullyPerp(T2)

CyberbullyPerp(T1)

CyberbullyPerp(T3)

CyberbullyPerp(T4)0.543 0.115

0.452 0.582 0.313

0.160 0.258

0.195

0.278

0.077

0.101

0.279

0.0640.100

Espelage,Rao,&Craven,2013

Bullying-SexualViolencePerpetrationPathwayAmongMiddleSchoolStudents

ThisresearchwassupportedbyCentersforDiseaseControl&Prevention(#1u01/ce001677)toDorothyEspelage(PI)

Do r o t h y L . E s p e l a g e , P h . D . U n i v e r s i t y o f F l o r i d a L i s a D e L a R u e , P h . D .

U n i v e r s i t y o f S a n F r a n c i s c o &

K a t h l e e n C . B a s i l e , P h . D . D i v i s i o n o f V i o l e n c e P r e v e n t i o n

C e n t e r s f o r D i s e a s e C o n t r o l & P r e v e n t i o n , A t l a n t a , G e o r g i a Me r l e E . H ambu r g e r , P h . D .

Jou rna l o f Ado le s cent Hea l th (2012 ) , J ou rna l o f I n te rpe r sona l V io lence (2014 )

2008-2015 CDC-NIJ Study Participants

} Demographics: – 3549 students (49.1% female) – 3 cohorts (5th, 6th, 7th graders) – Racially diverse (51% Black, 34% White) – 60% Free/reduced lunch

7 waves of data collection (from spring 2008-spring 2015)

Percentages of Youth who Bully

Percentages of Youth Who Engage in Homophobic Name-Calling

Longitudinal Middle School Results

BullyingPerpetration

Wave1

HomophobicTeasing

PerpetrationWave1

SexualHarassmentPerpetration

Wave1

SexualHarassmentPerpetrationWave2(5)

Controllingfor:

+

+

+

+

+

(Espelage, Basile, & Hamburger, 2012; Espelage, Basile, & De La Rue, 2014)

LongitudinalHighSchoolResults(Mediator–HomophobicName-calling)

BullyingPerpetration

HomophobicPerpetration

SexualViolencePerpetration

HomophobicVictimization

B=0.41(0.03)

B=1.9(0.16)AOR=6.73

B=1.21(0.21)OR=3.31

B=-0.67(0.18)AOR=0.51

B=0.13(0.01)

(Espelage,Basile,etal.,2018)

MODERATORS (ESPELAGE ET AL., UNDER REVISION)

•  Traditional masculinity ideology – Linked to gender-based harassment (Horn, 2007, Parrott, 2009, Pleck, 1995) •  High rates of bullying in middle school and high levels of

traditional masculinity predicted sexual violence perpetration six years later, effect stronger for males than females.

•  Dismissive attitudes toward sexual harassment – Associated with greater sexual violence perp and victimization (Charmaraman, Jones, Stein, & Espelage, 2013; Rogers et al., 2017) •  High rates of bullying in middle school and high levels of

dismissiveness of sexual harassment predicted sexual violence perpetration six years later, effect stronger for males than females.

DISCUSSION •  A comprehensive approach that addresses

the climate that may give potential perpetrators the license to perpetrate is important and may diffuse risk for sexual violence perpetration later in high school and emerging adulthood.

•  Another important piece of prevention programming suggested by this research is counteracting perceptions of gender non-conformity (Messerschmidt, 2000; Meyer, 2008).

ProtectiveFactorsforSexualViolence:UnderstandingHow

TrajectoriesRelatetoPerpetrationinHighSchool

KathleenC.Basile,PhDaWhitneyRostad,PhDaRuthW.Leemis,MPHa

DorothyL.Espelage,PhDbJordanP.Davis,PhDc

PreventionScience(2018)

aCDCbUniversityofFlorida

cUniversityofSouthernCalifornia

InteractionbetweenBiologicalsexandSexualviolence(SV)perpetration

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time

FemalePerp FemaleNonPerp

MalePerp MaleNonPerp

11

11.2

11.4

11.6

11.8

12

0 1 2 3 4 5

Time

FemalePerp FemaleNonPerp

MalePerp MaleNoPerp

EMPATHYSCHOOLBELONGING

ImplicationsforPrevention

•  Protective factors are important to identify in order to prevent sexual violence among middle and high school students.

•  Addressing empathy and school sense of belonging would be a fruitful area of investigation.

Developmentalmodelofbullying,sexualharassmentanddatingviolence

NIJGrant(MUOFX-0022)toDorothyEspelage(PI)Espelage,Low,Anderson,&DeLaRue,2014

ImplicationsforPrevention•  Research must consider multiple contexts to identify

longitudinal predictors, mediators, moderators associated with outcomes for youth who bully and later forms of violence.

•  Bullying programs need to incorporate discussion of gender-based name-calling, sexual violence, and gender expression (homophobic language; Birkett & Espelage, 2010; Meyer, 2009, 2010; Espelage, 2016).

Social-EcologicalPerspective

Community School

/Peers

Family Child Society

(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Espelage, 2014; Hong & Espelage, 2012)

IndividualCorrelatesofBullyingInvolvement

•  Depression/Anxiety •  Empathy •  Delinquency •  Impulsivity •  Other forms of Aggression •  Alcohol/Drug Use •  Positive Attitudes toward Violence/Bullying •  Low Value for Prosocial Behaviors

•  Forreview(Espelage&Horne,2007;Espelage&Holt,2012)

Family&SchoolRiskFactorsn  FAMILY

–  Lackofsupervision–  Lackofattachment– Negative,criticalrelationships

–  Lackofdiscipline/consequences

–  Supportforviolence– Modelingofviolence For review (Espelage, 2012; Espelage & Horne, 2007)

n  SCHOOL

–  Lackofsupervision–  Lackofattachment– Negative,criticalrelationships

–  Lackofdiscipline/consequences

–  Supportforviolence– Modelingofviolence

FamilyXSchoolInteractions(Merrin,Espelage,&Hong,2016)

Meta-Analytic Study Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek (2010)

•  Reviewed 153 studies since 1970 •  Youth who bully other students: have

significant externalizing behavior, social competence and academic challenges, negative attitudes toward others, family characterized by conflict

•  Peer Status & Bully varied by age: Adolescents who bully have higher peer status than children who bully others

Meta-AnalysisofBullyPreventionProgramsTtofi&Farrington,2011

JournalofExperimentalCriminology

•  Mostcomprehensivemeta-analysisthatappliedtheCampbellSystematicReviewprocedures.

•  Reviewed44rigorousprogramevaluationsandrandomizedclinicaltrials(RCT)(Ttofi&Farrington,2011).

•  Almost2/3ofthestudieswereconductedoutsideoftheUSorCanada.

•  1/3oftheprogramswerebasedontheOlweusBullyPreventionProgram(Olweus,1999).

•  Foundthattheprograms,onaverage,wereassociatedwitha20%–23%decreaseinbullyingperpetration,anda17%–20%decreaseinvictimization.

•  However,smallereffectsizeswerefoundforRCTdesignsincomparisontonon-RCTdesigns.

Meta-AnalysisofBullyPreventionProgramsTtofi&Farrington,2011

JournalofExperimentalCriminology•  Decreasesinratesofvictimizationwereassociatedwith

thefollowingspecialprogramelements:•  Non-punitivedisciplinarymethods•  parenttraining/meetings•  useofvideos,•  cooperativegroupwork•  greaterdurationandintensityoftheprogram

•  However,workwithpeers(e.g.,peermediation)wasassociatedwithanincreaseinvictimization

•  Thisiatrogenicfindingisnotnew.Scholarshavearguedforadecadethatpeermediationiscontraindicatedforbullyprevention(Espelage&Swearer,2003).

Meta-AnalysisofBullyPreventionProgramsTtofi&Farrington,2011

JournalofExperimentalCriminology•  Decreasesinratesofbullyperpetrationforprogramsthat

included:•  parenttraining/meetings•  improvedplaygroundsupervision•  Non-punitivedisciplinarymethods•  classroommanagement•  teachertraining•  classroomrules•  whole-schoolanti-bullyingpolicy•  cooperativegroupwork•  greaternumberofelementsandtheduration

•  Programs-lesseffectiveintheUSandinCanada

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12thGrade Level

Cohe

n's d

Inte

rven

tion

Effe

ct o

n Re

duce

d Bu

llyin

g(H

igh

Valu

es =

Les

s Bu

llyin

g)

Raw Within−Study Anti−Bullying Effect

Meta-Analysis:Yeager,Fong,Lee,&Espelage(2015)

DevelopmentalLens

BullyingPrevention–PushingTheFieldForward•  Bullyingco-occurswithothertypesofaggressionandotherriskybehavior(delinquency,AOD).

•  Overlappingriskandprotectivefactorsneedtobetargetedinschool-basedprogramsinordertoaddressspectrumofproblembehavior(Catalianoetal.,2002).

37

Social-EmotionalLearning

•  Self-awareness:Abilitytoaccuratelyrecognizeone’sownownemotions/thoughtsandhowtheiremotions/thoughtsinfluencetheirbehavior.

•  Socialawareness:Abilityforperspectivetakingandempathywithothersofdiverseculturesandbackgroundsinone’sownfamily,school,andcommunity.

•  Self-management:Abilitytoregulateone’sownemotions,thoughts,andbehaviorseffectivelyindifferentsituations.

Social-EmotionalLearning

•  Relationshipskills:Abilitytoestablishandmaintainhealthyandrewardingrelationshipswithdiverseindividualsandgroups.

•  Responsibledecision-making:Abilitytomakeconstructiveandrespectfulchoicesaboutpersonalbehaviorandsocialinteractions.

•  ThecorefivesocialemotionallearningcompetenciesasidentifiedbytheCollaborativeforAcademic,Social,andEmotionalLearning(CASEL,2013).See:http://www.casel.org

Social-EmotionalLearning(SEL)•  SELfocusesonthesystematicdevelopmentofa

coresetofsocialandemotionalskillsthathelpyouthmoreeffectivelyhandlelifechallenges,makebetterdecisions,andthriveinboththeirlearningandtheirsocialenvironmentsthroughaclimatethatsupportsthepracticingofskills.

•  Ameta-analysisof213programsfoundthatifaschoolimplementsaqualitySELcurriculum,theycanexpectbetterstudentbehaviorandan11percentileincreaseintestscores(Durlak,Weissberg,Dymnicki,Taylor,&Schellinger,2011).

40

Tayloretal.(2017)Meta-analysis

•  Meta-analysisof82school-based,universalsocialandemotionallearning(SEL)interventionsinvolving97,406K-12students•  Follow-upoutcomesdemonstratesSEL’senhancementofpositiveyouthdevelopment,includingprosocialbehaviors.

41

SocialEmotionalLearningandFutureHealth

•  “Non-cognitiveabilitytoself-controlinchildhoodwaspredictiveofadultoutcomesrangingfromphysicalhealthtocrimetosubstanceabuse.”

(Moffittetal.,2011,ascitedinJonesetal.,2015)

•  Jonesetal.(2015)foundstatisticallysignificantassociationsbetweenteacher’smeasuredSocialEmotionalSkillsduringkindergartenandyoungadultsoutcomesineducation,employment,criminalactivity,substanceuse,andmentalhealth.

ImpactofSELprogramsforearlychildhoodpopulationsSELcurriculumhadthegreatesteffectcomparedwithcontrolson:•  Children’sskillsrelatedtosocialcompetenceand

behaviorregulation(effectsizerange0.21–0.41)•  Emotionunderstanding(effectsizerange0.25–0.48)

(Landryetal.,2014).AMindfulnessprogramtargetingthedevelopmentofSELskillsresultedin:•  A24%gaininpeer-nominatedpositivesocialbehaviors.•  Againof15%inmathachievement.•  Againof20%inself-reportedwell-beingandpro-

sociality.•  Areductionof24%inpeer-nominatedaggressive

behaviors.(Schonert-Reichletal.,2015)

MULTI-SITEEVALUATIONOFSECONDSTEP:STUDENTSUCCESSTHROUGHPREVENTION

(SECONDSTEP–SSTP)INPREVENTINGAGGRESSION,BULLYING,&SEXUAL

VIOLENCE

DorothyL.Espelage,Ph.D.Professor,Psychology,UniversityofFlorida

SabinaLow,Ph.D.,

ArizonaStateUniversityJoshPolanin,M.A.,DSG

EricBrown,Ph.D.,UniversityofMiami

JournalofAdolescentHealth(2013),JournalofAppliedDevelopmentalPsychology(2015);

SchoolPsychologyReview(2015)

Research supported by Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (#1U01/CE001677)

Committee for Children, 2008

ProgramGoals

• Research Foundations •  RiskandProtectiveFactors•  Bullying•  BrainResearch•  PositiveApproachestoProblemBehavior•  DevelopmentalNeedsofYoungAdolescents

GradeLevels&Lessons50minutestoteachacompletelessonEachlessonisdividedintotwopartsthatcanbetaught

separately

47

Grade6SteppingUpHandlingnewresponsibilities15lessons

Grade7SteppingIn

Decisionmaking,stayingincontrol

13lessons

Grade8SteppingAheadLeadership,goal

setting13lessons

MajorStudyObjective

TorigorouslyevaluatetheoveralleffectivenessoftheSecondStep:StudentSuccessThroughPreventionprogramonimpactingbullyingbehavior,peervictimization,andsexualharassment/violenceamongalargesampleof6thgradersinanestedcohortlongitudinaldesign.

48

StudyTimeline

49

Intervention Schools

6th Graders----------------7th Graders----------------8th Graders O1 X1 O2 X2 O3 X3 O4 6th Graders----------------7th Graders----------------8th Graders O1 O2 O3 O4

Comparison Schools

Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring O = Assessment X = Intervention

Year 1 (2010-11)

Year 2 (2011-12)

Year 3 (2012-13)

Results–MiddleSchool

•  Reductionsinphysicalaggression,bullying,cyberbullying,homophobicname-calling,&sexualharassmentacrossthree-yearmiddleschoolstudy(Espelageetal.,2014,2015,2016).

•  Greaterreductionswhenteachersimplementedwithfidelity&engagedwithprogramastheywouldacademics(Polanin&Espelage,2015).

50

Results–HighSchoolEffects

IndividualsinthetreatmentgroupreportedsignificantlyhigherlevelsofgrowthinschoolbelongingfromT1–T4(b=.013,p=.042),growthinschoolbelongingwasinturnassociatedwithreductionsingrowthinbullyingperpetrationfromT5–T7(b=-.147,p=.067);Espelageetal.,2017.

51

SecondStepIntervention

MiddleSchool–SchoolBelonging

HighSchool–BullyPerpetration

+ -

StudentswithDisabilities–BullyPerpetration(Espelage,Rose,&Polanin,2015;2016)

Teacher/StaffPerceptionsofSchoolCulture:LinkstoStudentReportsofBullying,

Victimization,Aggression,&WillingnesstoIntervene

DorothyL.Espelage,Ph.D.JoshuaPolanin,Ph.D.SabinaLow,Ph.D.

SchoolPsychologyQuarterly(2014)

This research was supported by Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (#1U01/CE001677) to Dorothy Espelage (PI)

School Culture Matters

•  “schoolpolicies,attitudesandbehaviorsofteachers,administratorsandthestudentbody,andtheoverallatmosphereorschoolethos,determinetheinternallifeorsocial,emotional,andmotivationclimateoftheschool.”(Kasenetal.,2004).

School Environment Scale

Six scales emerged from factor analyses, measuring teacher/staff PERCEPTIONS OF: •  Student intervention (5 items; α = .83) •  Staff intervention (5 items; α = .89) •  Aggression being a problem (5 items; α = .80) •  School is doing professional development/

administrator support (8 items; α = .90) •  Positive school climate overall (7 items; α = .85) •  Gender Equity/Intolerance of Sexual Harassment (7

items; α = .79)

Final Multi-level Model Variable BullyingPerpetration PeerVictimization PhysicalAggression WillingnesstoIntervene

β(SE) B β(SE) B β(SE) B β(SE) BIntercept .39(.03)** - .96(.04)** - .96(.05)** - 2.03(.04)** -Individual Female -.03(.02) -.03 -.05(.03) -.05 -.20(.03)** -.21 .14(.02)** .14Mother’sEducation .01(.01) .01 .01(.03) .03 -.01(.01) -.03 .02(.01)** .08White .17(.02)** -.15 .11(.05)* .10 -.51(.05)** -.47 .18(.03)** .17Hispanic -.17(.02)** -.17 -.23(.05)** -.23 -.47(.05)** -.46 .09(.03)** .09Asian -.22(.04)** -.07 -.13(.07) -.04 -.64(.06)** -.21 .19(.05)** .06Bi-racial .11(.03)** -.08 -.01(.08) -.01 -.29(.05)** -.2 .12(.03)** .08School-level StudentIntervention .15(.14) .04 -.03(.18) -.01 .19(.20) .05 -.07(.10) -.02StaffIntervention .15(.10) .04 .30(.22) .07 .02(.19) .01 -.02(.11) -.01AggressionProblem -.07(.08) -.04 -.14(.12) -.08 .09(.12) .05 -.18(.06)** -.10SchoolCommitmenttoBullyPrevention

-.20(.06)** -.13 -.42(.09)** -.27 -.17(.08)* -.11 .08(.05) .05

PositiveTeacher-Staff-StudentInteractions

-.01(.11) .01 .14(.16) .04 -.23(.21) -.07 -.13(.08) .02

Genderequity/intoleranceofsexualharassment

-.23(.10)* -.08 -.71(.20)** -.24 -.13(.14) -.05 -.13(.08) -.05

State .05(.05) .05 -.04(.03) -.04 .05(.07) .05 .03(.04) .03Free/ReducedLunch .01(.01) .05 -.01(.01)* -.14 .01(.02)* .26 -.01(.01)* -.12%Female -.66(.29)* -.07 -.71(.32)* -.08 -.45(.42) -.05 .17(.25) .02%White .17(.11) .06 -.49(.15)** -.18 .64(.24)** .23 -.25(.11)* -.09

Final Multi-level Model Variable BullyingPerpetration PeerVictimization PhysicalAggression WillingnesstoIntervene

β(SE) B β(SE) B β(SE) B β(SE) BIntercept .39(.03)** - .96(.04)** - .96(.05)** - 2.03(.04)** -Individual Female -.03(.02) -.03 -.05(.03) -.05 -.20(.03)** -.21 .14(.02)** .14Mother’sEducation .01(.01) .01 .01(.03) .03 -.01(.01) -.03 .02(.01)** .08White .17(.02)** -.15 .11(.05)* .10 -.51(.05)** -.47 .18(.03)** .17Hispanic -.17(.02)** -.17 -.23(.05)** -.23 -.47(.05)** -.46 .09(.03)** .09Asian -.22(.04)** -.07 -.13(.07) -.04 -.64(.06)** -.21 .19(.05)** .06Bi-racial .11(.03)** -.08 -.01(.08) -.01 -.29(.05)** -.2 .12(.03)** .08School-level StudentIntervention .15(.14) .04 -.03(.18) -.01 .19(.20) .05 -.07(.10) -.02StaffIntervention .15(.10) .04 .30(.22) .07 .02(.19) .01 -.02(.11) -.01AggressionProblem -.07(.08) -.04 -.14(.12) -.08 .09(.12) .05 -.18(.06)** -.10SchoolCommitmenttoBullyPrevention

-.20(.06)** -.13 -.42(.09)** -.27 -.17(.08)* -.11 .08(.05) .05

PositiveTeacher-Staff-StudentInteractions

-.01(.11) .01 .14(.16) .04 -.23(.21) -.07 -.13(.08) .02

Genderequity/intoleranceofsexualharassment

-.23(.10)* -.08 -.71(.20)** -.24 -.13(.14) -.05 -.13(.08) -.05

State .05(.05) .05 -.04(.03) -.04 .05(.07) .05 .03(.04) .03Free/ReducedLunch .01(.01) .05 -.01(.01)* -.14 .01(.02)* .26 -.01(.01)* -.12%Female -.66(.29)* -.07 -.71(.32)* -.08 -.45(.42) -.05 .17(.25) .02%White .17(.11) .06 -.49(.15)** -.18 .64(.24)** .23 -.25(.11)* -.09

Final Multi-level Model Variable BullyingPerpetration PeerVictimization PhysicalAggression WillingnesstoIntervene

β(SE) B β(SE) B β(SE) B β(SE) BIntercept .39(.03)** - .96(.04)** - .96(.05)** - 2.03(.04)** -Individual Female -.03(.02) -.03 -.05(.03) -.05 -.20(.03)** -.21 .14(.02)** .14Mother’sEducation .01(.01) .01 .01(.03) .03 -.01(.01) -.03 .02(.01)** .08White .17(.02)** -.15 .11(.05)* .10 -.51(.05)** -.47 .18(.03)** .17Hispanic -.17(.02)** -.17 -.23(.05)** -.23 -.47(.05)** -.46 .09(.03)** .09Asian -.22(.04)** -.07 -.13(.07) -.04 -.64(.06)** -.21 .19(.05)** .06Bi-racial .11(.03)** -.08 -.01(.08) -.01 -.29(.05)** -.2 .12(.03)** .08School-level StudentIntervention .15(.14) .04 -.03(.18) -.01 .19(.20) .05 -.07(.10) -.02StaffIntervention .15(.10) .04 .30(.22) .07 .02(.19) .01 -.02(.11) -.01AggressionProblem -.07(.08) -.04 -.14(.12) -.08 .09(.12) .05 -.18(.06)** -.10

SchoolCommitmenttoBullyPrevention

-.20(.06)** -.13 -.42(.09)** -.27 -.17(.08)* -.11 .08(.05) .05

PositiveTeacher-Staff-StudentInteractions

-.01(.11) .01 .14(.16) .04 -.23(.21) -.07 -.13(.08) .02

Genderequity/intoleranceofsexualharassment

-.23(.10)* -.08 -.71(.20)** -.24 -.13(.14) -.05 -.13(.08) -.05

State .05(.05) .05 -.04(.03) -.04 .05(.07) .05 .03(.04) .03Free/ReducedLunch .01(.01) .05 -.01(.01)* -.14 .01(.02)* .26 -.01(.01)* -.12%Female -.66(.29)* -.07 -.71(.32)* -.08 -.45(.42) -.05 .17(.25) .02%White .17(.11) .06 -.49(.15)** -.18 .64(.24)** .23 -.25(.11)* -.09

Final Multi-level Model Variable BullyingPerpetration PeerVictimization PhysicalAggression WillingnesstoIntervene

β(SE) B β(SE) B β(SE) B β(SE) BIntercept .39(.03)** - .96(.04)** - .96(.05)** - 2.03(.04)** -Individual Female -.03(.02) -.03 -.05(.03) -.05 -.20(.03)** -.21 .14(.02)** .14Mother’sEducation .01(.01) .01 .01(.03) .03 -.01(.01) -.03 .02(.01)** .08White .17(.02)** -.15 .11(.05)* .10 -.51(.05)** -.47 .18(.03)** .17Hispanic -.17(.02)** -.17 -.23(.05)** -.23 -.47(.05)** -.46 .09(.03)** .09Asian -.22(.04)** -.07 -.13(.07) -.04 -.64(.06)** -.21 .19(.05)** .06Bi-racial .11(.03)** -.08 -.01(.08) -.01 -.29(.05)** -.2 .12(.03)** .08School-level StudentIntervention .15(.14) .04 -.03(.18) -.01 .19(.20) .05 -.07(.10) -.02StaffIntervention .15(.10) .04 .30(.22) .07 .02(.19) .01 -.02(.11) -.01AggressionProblem -.07(.08) -.04 -.14(.12) -.08 .09(.12) .05 -.18(.06)** -.10SchoolCommitmenttoBullyPrevention

-.20(.06)** -.13 -.42(.09)** -.27 -.17(.08)* -.11 .08(.05) .05

PositiveTeacher-Staff-StudentInteractions

-.01(.11) .01 .14(.16) .04 -.23(.21) -.07 -.13(.08) .02

Genderequity/intoleranceofsexualharassment

-.23(.10)* -.08 -.71(.20)** -.24 -.13(.14) -.05 -.13(.08) -.05

State .05(.05) .05 -.04(.03) -.04 .05(.07) .05 .03(.04) .03Free/ReducedLunch .01(.01) .05 -.01(.01)* -.14 .01(.02)* .26 -.01(.01)* -.12%Female -.66(.29)* -.07 -.71(.32)* -.08 -.45(.42) -.05 .17(.25) .02%White .17(.11) .06 -.49(.15)** -.18 .64(.24)** .23 -.25(.11)* -.09

Teacher/Staffperceptionsofschoolculture:

LinksToStudentReportsOfGender-basedBullying

SarahRinehart,M.A.UniversityofIllinois,Urbana-Champaign

DorothyL.Espelage,Ph.D.UniversityofFlorida

PsychologyofViolence(2015)

This research was supported by Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (#1U01/CE001677) to Dorothy Espelage (PI)

NextSteps•  Bullydown Text-Messaging SEL middle school program (Ybarra, Prescott, & Espelage, 2016). •  Gender-enhanced SEL Middle School Trial (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention #1RO1CE002340)

•  SEL, Restorative Problem-Solving/Justice, & Student-Led Campaigns (National Institute of Justice w/Univ. of Oregon # 2015-MU-MU-K003]

•  Sources of Strength High School Suicide Prevention Evaluation for sexual violence outcomes (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention #CE0002841-01)

Youth-Driven Interventions •  Studentvoices-notincorporatedintoschoolsafetyplanningeffortsin

spiteofresearchclearlyshowingthatsomeone(mostoftenpeers)oftenhaspriorknowledgeofaplannedtragicevent.

•  Studentsreportavarietyofreasonsfornotcomingforwardbeforehandwiththatinformation(e.g.,distrust,“snitching”).

•  Totakeadvantageofthiscriticalinformation,schoolsneedto:•  a)involvestudentsmeaningfullyinschoolsafetyplanningeffortsas

co-equalpartnersalongwithschoolstaff,administrators,andparents;

•  b)haveanefficient,easymechanismforreportingsuchinformationconfidentially,&

•  c)assurestudentsthattheirconcern(s)willbepromptlyactedupon.Inourview,suchchangesarelikelytoincreasestudentinvestmentandparticipationinkeepingtheschoolsafe.

(Vincent,Espelage,Walker,etal.,2017,2018)

Youth-Driven Interventions •  Youthdofeelthatschoolsshouldworkhardertoestablish

apositiveschoolclimate.•  Adultsneedtopayattentiontoemotionalandphysical

safety.•  Youthindicatedthatfairness&equityissuesneedtobe

addresseddirectly.•  Researchshowsthatstudentsinschoolswithpositive

climatesaremorelikelytoreportonthesituations,individualsandeventsthatendangeraschool’ssafety.

•  Suchaclimatecanalsoimprovestudentbondingandschoolengagementandserveasaprotectivefactoragainstahostofnegativeoutcomesoverthelongtermwithinandbeyondtheschoolcontext.

(Vincent,Espelage,Walker,etal.,2017,2018)

Barriers to Open Communication •  Focusgroupswithstudentsidentifiedkeystudentconcerns

thatparticipantsseeasthreatstotheirschool’ssafety&opencommunicationwithadults:

a)bullying,harassmentandaggression,b)weapons,drugsandalcoholoncampus,c)lackofsupportsforstudentswithmentalhealthissues,d)overtdiscriminationamongidentifiedstudentgroupssharingcertaincharacteristics,e)relationalaggressionanddamagingreputation,andf)inequityinallaspectsofeducation.

(Espelageetal.,2018;Vincent,Espelage,Walker,etal.,2017,2018)

Advocatr

(Espelageetal.,2018;Vincent,Espelage,Walker,etal.,2017,2018)

Advocatr

https://advocatr.org

TheImpactofSourcesofStrength,aPrimaryPreventionYouthSuicideProgram,onSexualViolencePerpetrationamongColoradoHigh

SchoolStudents

DorothyL.Espelage,Ph.D.UniversityofFloridaPeterWyman,Ph.D.

UniversityofRochesterTomeiKuehl,MPH

ColoradoDept.ofPublicHealthToddLittle,Ph.D.

TexasTechUniversity

This research was supported by Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (#1U01CE002841) to Dorothy Espelage (PI)

SOURCES OF STRENGTHS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RanDdvzHkjA

SOURCES OF STRENGTHS

SourcesofStrengthemploysaradicallystrength--basedapproachtoprevention.inschools–PEERLEADERS.

SourcesofStrengthfocusesondeveloping

protectivefactors,usingamodelthatisinnovative,interactive,andradicallystrength-based.

Usinganactivelearningmodel,incorporating

art,storytelling,smallgroupsharingandgames.

SourcesofStrengthexplorestheeightprotectivefactors,depictedinthewheelofstrength,todevelopresilientindividualsandcommunities.

EVIDENCE-BASED

Programoutcomeshaveshown:•  Increaseinconnectednesstoadults•  Increaseinschoolengagement•  Increaseinlikelihoodtoreferasuicidalfriend

toanadult•  Increaseinpositiveperceptionsofadult

support•  Increasedacceptabilityofseekinghelp•  Largestincreasesamongststudentswitha

historyofsuicidalideationWyman,,P..etal..(2010).AnoutcomeevaluationoftheSourcesof

Strengthsuicidepreventionprogramdeliveredbyadolescentpeerleadersinhighschools..AmericanJournalofPublicHealth,Vol.100:1653--1661.

Sources of Strength Evaluation:

Sexual Violence Outcomes [(CDC Grant #1 U01 CE002841 - Espelage (PI)]

N=4600

Treatment

SexualViolencePerpetrationW2

R2 =.075

CyberSexualViolence

PerpetrationW2R2 =.047

DismissivenessofSexual

ViolenceW2R2 =.320

SexualViolenceVictimizationW2

R2 =.082

SexualViolencePerpetrationW1

CyberSexualViolence

PerpetrationW1

DismissivenessofSexual

ViolenceW1

SexualViolenceVictimizationW1

.27***(.04)

.21***(.04)

.57***(.01)

29***(.03)

ENHANCINGSCHOOLSAFETYOFFICERS’EFFECTIVENESSTHROUGHONLINEPROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENTTRAINING Dr.DorothyEspelage,Ph.D. Co-PIDr.PhilipPoekert Co-PIDr.WalterLeite,Ph.D.UniversityofFlorida UniversityofFlorida UniversityofFloridaDepartmentofPsychology LastingerCenterforLearning walter.leite@coeufl.edu espelage@ufl.edu poekert@coe.ufl.edu

FundingSource:NationalInstituteofJustice(January2018–December2021)

SchoolResourceOfficers(SROs)=PoliceOfficers

•  SROsreceiveextensivetrainingtoaddressphysicalsafetyconcernsandcrime.

•  Enhancingexistingextensivetrainingwithtrainingincompetenciesspecifictochilddevelopmentandyouthbehavioralandmentalhealthhaspotentialtopavethewayfornation-wideprogressinSROprofessionaldevelopment.

Trauma-InformedApproachestoViolencePrevention

RestorativeProblemSolvingAlthoughfurtherresearchisneeded,thereareverypromisingfindingsendorsingtheuseofRestorativeProblemSolvinginourschools(Froniusetal.,2016).

Conclusions•  Perceptions of staff matter – intolerance for sexual harassment is critical to reduce gender-based bullying and other forms of aggression.

•  Social-emotional learning program – promise for reducing bullying and sexual violence perpetration

•  Program to build stronger relationships in schools could be promising approach to reduce gender-based aggression.

Conclusions

•  Strong support for the Bully-Sexual Violence Pathway (homophobic name-calling mediator & moderator)

•  Traditional masculinity and dismissiveness of sexual harassment – moderators

•  Peer norms matter - need to target these in programs

Conclusions•  Addressingaggressionandschoolviolencerequires

understandingtheunderlyingetiologyofthisviolence.•  Simply”hardening”ofourschoolshastheriskofcreating

greaterinequities,anxiety,andisolationofstudents,teachers,andfamilies.

•  Youthneedtobeauthenticallyengagedineffortstopromoteschoolsafety,socialjustice,equity,andinclusion.

•  Alladultswhointeractwithyouthcanbenefitfromtrainingintrauma-informedapproaches,restorativeapproaches,social-emotionallearning,&culturalcompetence.