summary of bullying thesis

• Write my thesis
• Thesis writers
• Buy thesis papers
• Bachelor thesis
• Master's thesis
• Thesis editing services
• Thesis proofreading services
• Buy a thesis online
• Write my dissertation
• Dissertation proposal help
• Pay for dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help online
• Buy dissertation online
• Cheap dissertation
• Dissertation editing services
• Write my research paper
• Buy research paper online
• Pay for research paper
• Research paper help
• Order research paper
• Custom research paper
• Cheap research paper
• Research papers for sale
• Thesis subjects
• How It Works

What Is a Good Thesis Statement About Bullying?

Unfortunately, bullying is still part of our society despite civilization and technology. But, that does not mean the issue cannot be addressed and fixed. It is the responsibility of parents, teachers, and institutions to find a way to reduce the blow of bullying in our society for everyone to be safe and happy. Are you concerned about bullying and want to be a part of the solution? One of the ways to do this is by writing an interesting essay that educates about bullying and its effects. As a part of the project, you will need a thesis statement for a bullying essay that stands out.

As much as you want to address the nasty effects of bullying, you also need to pass your exams. That is why you need to get a thesis about bullying that will impress your professor. Let us learn more here.

What’s a Bullying Thesis Statement?

• How to Write a Thesis Statement about Bullying?

What Is a Good Thesis Statement For Bullying?

Interesting examples on thesis statement for bullying research paper, straightforward thesis statement for bullying essay examples, exciting thesis statement on cyberbullying homework, our writing services guarantees good thesis statement.

A bullying thesis statement helps you address an issue about bullying. It needs to include the topic of the research paper you are writing about and the claim you have about the bullying topic. Your thesis statement determines whether your paper will stand out.

Which Of The Following Statements About Bullying Is True?

Most people are oblivious to cyberbullying and its effect. So you need first to understand what bullying is to develop a great thesis statement for bullying. Below are four statements that you can read to determine the truth about bullying.

• Bullying is a growing phase that children will grow out of.
• Bullying does not have to be physical; it can also be cyberbullying, verbal, and emotional.
• Bullying is not harmful.
• As children mature, they will learn positive behavior on their own.

What do you think is the correct answer? All the above statements are false except b. Bullying is not limited to the physical like fighting and hitting. Cyberbullying, verbal and emotional abuse are all bullying, and they all have devastating effects on the individual or group of people getting bullied.

How to Write a Thesis Statement About Bullying?

The thesis on bullying should be under the introduction. Most students prefer writing a statement when they complete their introduction. But the best way to write a thesis is by finishing your research.

Note that the thesis statement needs to be a summary of your research. You will have a better idea of what your essay is all about once you have completed your project. Ensure that the subject is exciting and as per your tutor’s instruction.

A good thesis statement on bullying needs to be a great impression so that it can hook your instructor or any other person who will read your thesis statement. It needs to be the hook to your essay and motivate the readers. The bullying essay thesis statement needs to be;

• An interpretation of the subject
• Precise, forceful, and confident
• It should challenge the readers

Bullying Thesis Statement Examples

If you have a hard time creating a thesis statement about bullying that will make your essay stand out, worry no more. Our team of experts has combined a list of thesis statements on cyberbullying you can use in your essay to impress your professors. Here we go!

You can make your essay research paper interesting by choosing the right thesis statement about bullying to use. In case you are not sure, here is a list you can choose from.

• Bullying and its effects on youth, and some possible solutions to the problem it causes.
• There are several ideas and concepts that most institutes have come up with to help stop bullying, but the challenge is the implementation of these policies.
• International progress can be hasted by the eradication of bully in and so government bodies should cultivate solutions to address the matter.
• Corporate bullying could push individuals into isolation, leading to depression and suicide.
• Bullying has been ignored for a long time, even though it has been a problem in the school system; people have only recently started discussing it.

A bullying thesis does not have to be complex. In fact, at times keeping the thesis statement on bullying essay simple could help capture the attention of your tutor and help improve your grade. Here is a look at the straightforward statements about bullying.

• The effects of physical bullying are depression, stress, withdrawal, physical, and emotional problems, which could destroy a child’s life.
• Parents and tutors should always be on the lookout for any bullying so they can fix the problem before it gets out of control.
• Most bullies have emotional or physical abuse, so they turn to bullies to help them feel in a position of power.
• Bullying could affect the mental health of the person being bullied, affecting their everyday life.
• Bullies have a hard time following the regulations, caring for other people, and having self-control.

Cyberbullying is often underestimated, and it makes people feel as though they are not good enough and do not deserve to live. Use these examples in your homework.

• School violence and cyberbullying attacks affect everyone who attends the school and compromise students’ safety.
• Cyberbullying is not new and can be used in many ways to bring individuals or a group down, yet not much is being done to address the issue.
• Proper measures should be implemented to help better predict communication during cyberbullying episodes.
• As technology advances, teens have become more prone to the internet’s dangers like cyberbullying.
• A look at the similarities and differences between bullying and cyberbullying and the best way to handle both situations.

Are you still wondering what’s a good thesis statement for bullying is? Reach out to our writing service today. We have skilled writers to help you get the best bullying thesis for a research paper. We can also write the research paper for you and ensure you attain the best grades. So get in touch with us today.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice (2016)

Chapter: 1 introduction, 1 introduction.

Bullying, long tolerated by many as a rite of passage into adulthood, is now recognized as a major and preventable public health problem, one that can have long-lasting consequences ( McDougall and Vaillancourt, 2015 ; Wolke and Lereya, 2015 ). Those consequences—for those who are bullied, for the perpetrators of bullying, and for witnesses who are present during a bullying event—include poor school performance, anxiety, depression, and future delinquent and aggressive behavior. Federal, state, and local governments have responded by adopting laws and implementing programs to prevent bullying and deal with its consequences. However, many of these responses have been undertaken with little attention to what is known about bullying and its effects. Even the definition of bullying varies among both researchers and lawmakers, though it generally includes physical and verbal behavior, behavior leading to social isolation, and behavior that uses digital communications technology (cyberbullying). This report adopts the term “bullying behavior,” which is frequently used in the research field, to cover all of these behaviors.

Bullying behavior is evident as early as preschool, although it peaks during the middle school years ( Currie et al., 2012 ; Vaillancourt et al., 2010 ). It can occur in diverse social settings, including classrooms, school gyms and cafeterias, on school buses, and online. Bullying behavior affects not only the children and youth who are bullied, who bully, and who are both bullied and bully others but also bystanders to bullying incidents. Given the myriad situations in which bullying can occur and the many people who may be involved, identifying effective prevention programs and policies is challenging, and it is unlikely that any one approach will be ap-

propriate in all situations. Commonly used bullying prevention approaches include policies regarding acceptable behavior in schools and behavioral interventions to promote positive cultural norms.

STUDY CHARGE

Recognizing that bullying behavior is a major public health problem that demands the concerted and coordinated time and attention of parents, educators and school administrators, health care providers, policy makers, families, and others concerned with the care of children, a group of federal agencies and private foundations asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to undertake a study of what is known and what needs to be known to further the field of preventing bullying behavior. The Committee on the Biological and Psychosocial Effects of Peer Victimization:

Lessons for Bullying Prevention was created to carry out this task under the Academies’ Board on Children, Youth, and Families and the Committee on Law and Justice. The study received financial support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Highmark Foundation, the National Institute of Justice, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Semi J. and Ruth W. Begun Foundation, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The full statement of task for the committee is presented in Box 1-1 .

Although the committee acknowledges the importance of this topic as it pertains to all children in the United States and in U.S. territories, this report focuses on the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Also, while the committee acknowledges that bullying behavior occurs in the school

environment for youth in foster care, in juvenile justice facilities, and in other residential treatment facilities, this report does not address bullying behavior in those environments because it is beyond the study charge.

CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY

This section of the report highlights relevant work in the field and, later in the chapter under “The Committee’s Approach,” presents the conceptual framework and corresponding definitions of terms that the committee has adopted.

Historical Context

Bullying behavior was first characterized in the scientific literature as part of the childhood experience more than 100 years ago in “Teasing and Bullying,” published in the Pedagogical Seminary ( Burk, 1897 ). The author described bullying behavior, attempted to delineate causes and cures for the tormenting of others, and called for additional research ( Koo, 2007 ). Nearly a century later, Dan Olweus, a Swedish research professor of psychology in Norway, conducted an intensive study on bullying ( Olweus, 1978 ). The efforts of Olweus brought awareness to the issue and motivated other professionals to conduct their own research, thereby expanding and contributing to knowledge of bullying behavior. Since Olweus’s early work, research on bullying has steadily increased (see Farrington and Ttofi, 2009 ; Hymel and Swearer, 2015 ).

Over the past few decades, venues where bullying behavior occurs have expanded with the advent of the Internet, chat rooms, instant messaging, social media, and other forms of digital electronic communication. These modes of communication have provided a new communal avenue for bullying. While the media reports linking bullying to suicide suggest a causal relationship, the available research suggests that there are often multiple factors that contribute to a youth’s suicide-related ideology and behavior. Several studies, however, have demonstrated an association between bullying involvement and suicide-related ideology and behavior (see, e.g., Holt et al., 2015 ; Kim and Leventhal, 2008 ; Sourander, 2010 ; van Geel et al., 2014 ).

In 2013, the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requested that the Institute of Medicine 1 and the National Research Council convene an ad hoc planning committee to plan and conduct a 2-day public workshop to highlight relevant information and knowledge that could inform a multidisciplinary

___________________

1 Prior to 2015, the National Academy of Medicine was known as the Institute of Medicine.

road map on next steps for the field of bullying prevention. Content areas that were explored during the April 2014 workshop included the identification of conceptual models and interventions that have proven effective in decreasing bullying and the antecedents to bullying while increasing protective factors that mitigate the negative health impact of bullying. The discussions highlighted the need for a better understanding of the effectiveness of program interventions in realistic settings; the importance of understanding what works for whom and under what circumstances, as well as the influence of different mediators (i.e., what accounts for associations between variables) and moderators (i.e., what affects the direction or strength of associations between variables) in bullying prevention efforts; and the need for coordination among agencies to prevent and respond to bullying. The workshop summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014c ) informs this committee’s work.

Federal Efforts to Address Bullying and Related Topics

Currently, there is no comprehensive federal statute that explicitly prohibits bullying among children and adolescents, including cyberbullying. However, in the wake of the growing concerns surrounding the implications of bullying, several federal initiatives do address bullying among children and adolescents, and although some of them do not primarily focus on bullying, they permit some funds to be used for bullying prevention purposes.

The earliest federal initiative was in 1999, when three agencies collaborated to establish the Safe Schools/Healthy Students initiative in response to a series of deadly school shootings in the late 1990s. The program is administered by the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice to prevent youth violence and promote the healthy development of youth. It is jointly funded by the Department of Education and by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The program has provided grantees with both the opportunity to benefit from collaboration and the tools to sustain it through deliberate planning, more cost-effective service delivery, and a broader funding base ( Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2015 ).

The next major effort was in 2010, when the Department of Education awarded $38.8 million in grants under the Safe and Supportive Schools (S3) Program to 11 states to support statewide measurement of conditions for learning and targeted programmatic interventions to improve conditions for learning, in order to help schools improve safety and reduce substance use. The S3 Program was administered by the Safe and Supportive Schools Group, which also administered the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act State and Local Grants Program, authorized by the

1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 2 It was one of several programs related to developing and maintaining safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools. In addition to the S3 grants program, the group administered a number of interagency agreements with a focus on (but not limited to) bullying, school recovery research, data collection, and drug and violence prevention activities ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ).

A collaborative effort among the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Interior, and Justice; the Federal Trade Commission; and the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders created the Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention (FPBP) Steering Committee. Led by the U.S. Department of Education, the FPBP works to coordinate policy, research, and communications on bullying topics. The FPBP Website provides extensive resources on bullying behavior, including information on what bullying is, its risk factors, its warning signs, and its effects. 3 The FPBP Steering Committee also plans to provide details on how to get help for those who have been bullied. It also was involved in creating the “Be More than a Bystander” Public Service Announcement campaign with the Ad Council to engage students in bullying prevention. To improve school climate and reduce rates of bullying nationwide, FPBP has sponsored four bullying prevention summits attended by education practitioners, policy makers, researchers, and federal officials.

In 2014, the National Institute of Justice—the scientific research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice—launched the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative with a congressional appropriation of $75 million. The funds are to be used for rigorous research to produce practical knowledge that can improve the safety of schools and students, including bullying prevention. The initiative is carried out through partnerships among researchers, educators, and other stakeholders, including law enforcement, behavioral and mental health professionals, courts, and other justice system professionals ( National Institute of Justice, 2015 ).

In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act was signed by President Obama, reauthorizing the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is committed to providing equal opportunities for all students. Although bullying is neither defined nor prohibited in this act, it is explicitly mentioned in regard to applicability of safe school funding, which it had not been in previous iterations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The above are examples of federal initiatives aimed at promoting the

2 The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act was included as Title IV, Part A, of the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. See http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect08-i.html [October 2015].

3 For details, see http://www.stopbullying.gov/ [October 2015].

healthy development of youth, improving the safety of schools and students, and reducing rates of bullying behavior. There are several other federal initiatives that address student bullying directly or allow funds to be used for bullying prevention activities.

Definitional Context

The terms “bullying,” “harassment,” and “peer victimization” have been used in the scientific literature to refer to behavior that is aggressive, is carried out repeatedly and over time, and occurs in an interpersonal relationship where a power imbalance exists ( Eisenberg and Aalsma, 2005 ). Although some of these terms have been used interchangeably in the literature, peer victimization is targeted aggressive behavior of one child against another that causes physical, emotional, social, or psychological harm. While conflict and bullying among siblings are important in their own right ( Tanrikulu and Campbell, 2015 ), this area falls outside of the scope of the committee’s charge. Sibling conflict and aggression falls under the broader concept of interpersonal aggression, which includes dating violence, sexual assault, and sibling violence, in addition to bullying as defined for this report. Olweus (1993) noted that bullying, unlike other forms of peer victimization where the children involved are equally matched, involves a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the target, where the target has difficulty defending him or herself and feels helpless against the aggressor. This power imbalance is typically considered a defining feature of bullying, which distinguishes this particular form of aggression from other forms, and is typically repeated in multiple bullying incidents involving the same individuals over time ( Olweus, 1993 ).

Bullying and violence are subcategories of aggressive behavior that overlap ( Olweus, 1996 ). There are situations in which violence is used in the context of bullying. However, not all forms of bullying (e.g., rumor spreading) involve violent behavior. The committee also acknowledges that perspective about intentions can matter and that in many situations, there may be at least two plausible perceptions involved in the bullying behavior.

A number of factors may influence one’s perception of the term “bullying” ( Smith and Monks, 2008 ). Children and adolescents’ understanding of the term “bullying” may be subject to cultural interpretations or translations of the term ( Hopkins et al., 2013 ). Studies have also shown that influences on children’s understanding of bullying include the child’s experiences as he or she matures and whether the child witnesses the bullying behavior of others ( Hellström et al., 2015 ; Monks and Smith, 2006 ; Smith and Monks, 2008 ).

In 2010, the FPBP Steering Committee convened its first summit, which brought together more than 150 nonprofit and corporate leaders,

researchers, practitioners, parents, and youths to identify challenges in bullying prevention. Discussions at the summit revealed inconsistencies in the definition of bullying behavior and the need to create a uniform definition of bullying. Subsequently, a review of the 2011 CDC publication of assessment tools used to measure bullying among youth ( Hamburger et al., 2011 ) revealed inconsistent definitions of bullying and diverse measurement strategies. Those inconsistencies and diverse measurements make it difficult to compare the prevalence of bullying across studies ( Vivolo et al., 2011 ) and complicate the task of distinguishing bullying from other types of aggression between youths. A uniform definition can support the consistent tracking of bullying behavior over time, facilitate the comparison of bullying prevalence rates and associated risk and protective factors across different data collection systems, and enable the collection of comparable information on the performance of bullying intervention and prevention programs across contexts ( Gladden et al., 2014 ). The CDC and U.S. Department of Education collaborated on the creation of the following uniform definition of bullying (quoted in Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7 ):

Bullying is any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm.

This report noted that the definition includes school-age individuals ages 5-18 and explicitly excludes sibling violence and violence that occurs in the context of a dating or intimate relationship ( Gladden et al., 2014 ). This definition also highlighted that there are direct and indirect modes of bullying, as well as different types of bullying. Direct bullying involves “aggressive behavior(s) that occur in the presence of the targeted youth”; indirect bullying includes “aggressive behavior(s) that are not directly communicated to the targeted youth” ( Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7 ). The direct forms of violence (e.g., sibling violence, teen dating violence, intimate partner violence) can include aggression that is physical, sexual, or psychological, but the context and uniquely dynamic nature of the relationship between the target and the perpetrator in which these acts occur is different from that of peer bullying. Examples of direct bullying include pushing, hitting, verbal taunting, or direct written communication. A common form of indirect bullying is spreading rumors. Four different types of bullying are commonly identified—physical, verbal, relational, and damage to property. Some observational studies have shown that the different forms of bullying that youths commonly experience may overlap ( Bradshaw et al., 2015 ;

Godleski et al., 2015 ). The four types of bullying are defined as follows ( Gladden et al., 2014 ):

• Physical bullying involves the use of physical force (e.g., shoving, hitting, spitting, pushing, and tripping).
• Verbal bullying involves oral or written communication that causes harm (e.g., taunting, name calling, offensive notes or hand gestures, verbal threats).
• Relational bullying is behavior “designed to harm the reputation and relationships of the targeted youth (e.g., social isolation, rumor spreading, posting derogatory comments or pictures online).”
• Damage to property is “theft, alteration, or damaging of the target youth’s property by the perpetrator to cause harm.”

In recent years, a new form of aggression or bullying has emerged, labeled “cyberbullying,” in which the aggression occurs through modern technological devices, specifically mobile phones or the Internet ( Slonje and Smith, 2008 ). Cyberbullying may take the form of mean or nasty messages or comments, rumor spreading through posts or creation of groups, and exclusion by groups of peers online.

While the CDC definition identifies bullying that occurs using technology as electronic bullying and views that as a context or location where bullying occurs, one of the major challenges in the field is how to conceptualize and define cyberbullying ( Tokunaga, 2010 ). The extent to which the CDC definition can be applied to cyberbullying is unclear, particularly with respect to several key concepts within the CDC definition. First, whether determination of an interaction as “wanted” or “unwanted” or whether communication was intended to be harmful can be challenging to assess in the absence of important in-person socioemotional cues (e.g., vocal tone, facial expressions). Second, assessing “repetition” is challenging in that a single harmful act on the Internet has the potential to be shared or viewed multiple times ( Sticca and Perren, 2013 ). Third, cyberbullying can involve a less powerful peer using technological tools to bully a peer who is perceived to have more power. In this manner, technology may provide the tools that create a power imbalance, in contrast to traditional bullying, which typically involves an existing power imbalance.

A study that used focus groups with college students to discuss whether the CDC definition applied to cyberbullying found that students were wary of applying the definition due to their perception that cyberbullying often involves less emphasis on aggression, intention, and repetition than other forms of bullying ( Kota et al., 2014 ). Many researchers have responded to this lack of conceptual and definitional clarity by creating their own measures to assess cyberbullying. It is noteworthy that very few of these

definitions and measures include the components of traditional bullying—i.e., repetition, power imbalance, and intent ( Berne et al., 2013 ). A more recent study argues that the term “cyberbullying” should be reserved for incidents that involve key aspects of bullying such as repetition and differential power ( Ybarra et al., 2014 ).

Although the formulation of a uniform definition of bullying appears to be a step in the right direction for the field of bullying prevention, there are some limitations of the CDC definition. For example, some researchers find the focus on school-age youth as well as the repeated nature of bullying to be rather limiting; similarly the exclusion of bullying in the context of sibling relationships or dating relationships may preclude full appreciation of the range of aggressive behaviors that may co-occur with or constitute bullying behavior. As noted above, other researchers have raised concerns about whether cyberbullying should be considered a particular form or mode under the broader heading of bullying as suggested in the CDC definition, or whether a separate defintion is needed. Furthermore, the measurement of bullying prevalence using such a definiton of bullying is rather complex and does not lend itself well to large-scale survey research. The CDC definition was intended to inform public health surveillance efforts, rather than to serve as a definition for policy. However, increased alignment between bullying definitions used by policy makers and researchers would greatly advance the field. Much of the extant research on bullying has not applied a consistent definition or one that aligns with the CDC definition. As a result of these and other challenges to the CDC definition, thus far there has been inconsistent adoption of this particular definition by researchers, practitioners, or policy makers; however, as the definition was created in 2014, less than 2 years is not a sufficient amount of time to assess whether it has been successfully adopted or will be in the future.

THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH

This report builds on the April 2014 workshop, summarized in Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014c ). The committee’s work was accomplished over an 18-month period that began in October 2014, after the workshop was held and the formal summary of it had been released. The study committee members represented expertise in communication technology, criminology, developmental and clinical psychology, education, mental health, neurobiological development, pediatrics, public health, school administration, school district policy, and state law and policy. (See Appendix E for biographical sketches of the committee members and staff.) The committee met three times in person and conducted other meetings by teleconferences and electronic communication.

Information Gathering

The committee conducted an extensive review of the literature pertaining to peer victimization and bullying. In some instances, the committee drew upon the broader literature on aggression and violence. The review began with an English-language literature search of online databases, including ERIC, Google Scholar, Lexis Law Reviews Database, Medline, PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Web of Science, and was expanded as literature and resources from other countries were identified by committee members and project staff as relevant. The committee drew upon the early childhood literature since there is substantial evidence indicating that bullying involvement happens as early as preschool (see Vlachou et al., 2011 ). The committee also drew on the literature on late adolescence and looked at related areas of research such as maltreatment for insights into this emerging field.

The committee used a variety of sources to supplement its review of the literature. The committee held two public information-gathering sessions, one with the study sponsors and the second with experts on the neurobiology of bullying; bullying as a group phenomenon and the role of bystanders; the role of media in bullying prevention; and the intersection of social science, the law, and bullying and peer victimization. See Appendix A for the agendas for these two sessions. To explore different facets of bullying and give perspectives from the field, a subgroup of the committee and study staff also conducted a site visit to a northeastern city, where they convened four stakeholder groups comprised, respectively, of local practitioners, school personnel, private foundation representatives, and young adults. The site visit provided the committee with an opportunity for place-based learning about bullying prevention programs and best practices. Each focus group was transcribed and summarized thematically in accordance with this report’s chapter considerations. Themes related to the chapters are displayed throughout the report in boxes titled “Perspectives from the Field”; these boxes reflect responses synthesized from all four focus groups. See Appendix B for the site visit’s agenda and for summaries of the focus groups.

The committee also benefited from earlier reports by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine through its Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education and the Institute of Medicine, most notably:

• Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research ( Institute of Medicine, 1994 )
• Community Programs to Promote Youth Development ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2002 )
• Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2003 )
• Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009 )
• The Science of Adolescent Risk-Taking: Workshop Report ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2011 )
• Communications and Technology for Violence Prevention: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2012 )
• Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014c )
• The Evidence for Violence Prevention across the Lifespan and Around the World: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014a )
• Strategies for Scaling Effective Family-Focused Preventive Interventions to Promote Children’s Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Health: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014b )
• Investing in the Health and Well-Being of Young Adults ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2015 )

Although these past reports and workshop summaries address various forms of violence and victimization, this report is the first consensus study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the state of the science on the biological and psychosocial consequences of bullying and the risk and protective factors that either increase or decrease bullying behavior and its consequences.

Terminology

Given the variable use of the terms “bullying” and “peer victimization” in both the research-based and practice-based literature, the committee chose to use the current CDC definition quoted above ( Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7 ). While the committee determined that this was the best definition to use, it acknowledges that this definition is not necessarily the most user-friendly definition for students and has the potential to cause problems for students reporting bullying. Not only does this definition provide detail on the common elements of bullying behavior but it also was developed with input from a panel of researchers and practitioners. The committee also followed the CDC in focusing primarily on individuals between the ages of 5 and 18. The committee recognizes that children’s development occurs on a continuum, and so while it relied primarily on the CDC defini-

tion, its work and this report acknowledge the importance of addressing bullying in both early childhood and emerging adulthood. For purposes of this report, the committee used the terms “early childhood” to refer to ages 1-4, “middle childhood” for ages 5 to 10, “early adolescence” for ages 11-14, “middle adolescence” for ages 15-17, and “late adolescence” for ages 18-21. This terminology and the associated age ranges are consistent with the Bright Futures and American Academy of Pediatrics definition of the stages of development. 4

A given instance of bullying behavior involves at least two unequal roles: one or more individuals who perpetrate the behavior (the perpetrator in this instance) and at least one individual who is bullied (the target in this instance). To avoid labeling and potentially further stigmatizing individuals with the terms “bully” and “victim,” which are sometimes viewed as traits of persons rather than role descriptions in a particular instance of behavior, the committee decided to use “individual who is bullied” to refer to the target of a bullying instance or pattern and “individual who bullies” to refer to the perpetrator of a bullying instance or pattern. Thus, “individual who is bullied and bullies others” can refer to one who is either perpetrating a bullying behavior or a target of bullying behavior, depending on the incident. This terminology is consistent with the approach used by the FPBP (see above). Also, bullying is a dynamic social interaction ( Espelage and Swearer, 2003 ) where individuals can play different roles in bullying interactions based on both individual and contextual factors.

The committee used “cyberbullying” to refer to bullying that takes place using technology or digital electronic means. “Digital electronic forms of contact” comprise a broad category that may include e-mail, blogs, social networking Websites, online games, chat rooms, forums, instant messaging, Skype, text messaging, and mobile phone pictures. The committee uses the term “traditional bullying” to refer to bullying behavior that is not cyberbullying (to aid in comparisons), recognizing that the term has been used at times in slightly different senses in the literature.

Where accurate reporting of study findings requires use of the above terms but with senses different from those specified here, the committee has noted the sense in which the source used the term. Similarly, accurate reporting has at times required use of terms such as “victimization” or “victim” that the committee has chosen to avoid in its own statements.

4 For details on these stages of adolescence, see https://brightfutures.aap.org/Bright%20Futures%20Documents/3-Promoting_Child_Development.pdf [October 2015].

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

This report is organized into seven chapters. After this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides a broad overview of the scope of the problem.

Chapter 3 focuses on the conceptual frameworks for the study and the developmental trajectory of the child who is bullied, the child who bullies, and the child who is bullied and also bullies. It explores processes that can explain heterogeneity in bullying outcomes by focusing on contextual processes that moderate the effect of individual characteristics on bullying behavior.

Chapter 4 discusses the cyclical nature of bullying and the consequences of bullying behavior. It summarizes what is known about the psychosocial, physical health, neurobiological, academic-performance, and population-level consequences of bullying.

Chapter 5 provides an overview of the landscape in bullying prevention programming. This chapter describes in detail the context for preventive interventions and the specific actions that various stakeholders can take to achieve a coordinated response to bullying behavior. The chapter uses the Institute of Medicine’s multi-tiered framework ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009 ) to present the different levels of approaches to preventing bullying behavior.

Chapter 6 reviews what is known about federal, state, and local laws and policies and their impact on bullying.

After a critical review of the relevant research and practice-based literatures, Chapter 7 discusses the committee conclusions and recommendations and provides a path forward for bullying prevention.

The report includes a number of appendixes. Appendix A includes meeting agendas of the committee’s public information-gathering meetings. Appendix B includes the agenda and summaries of the site visit. Appendix C includes summaries of bullying prevalence data from the national surveys discussed in Chapter 2 . Appendix D provides a list of selected federal resources on bullying for parents and teachers. Appendix E provides biographical sketches of the committee members and project staff.

Berne, S., Frisén, A., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Naruskov, K., Luik, P., Katzer, C., Erentaite, R., and Zukauskiene, R. (2013). Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18 (2), 320-334.

Bradshaw, C.P., Waasdorp, T.E., and Johnson, S.L. (2015). Overlapping verbal, relational, physical, and electronic forms of bullying in adolescence: Influence of school context. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44 (3), 494-508.

Burk, F.L. (1897). Teasing and bullying. The Pedagogical Seminary, 4 (3), 336-371.

Currie, C., Zanotti, C., Morgan, A., Currie, D., de Looze, M., Roberts, C., Samdal, O., Smith, O.R., and Barnekow, V. (2012). Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe.

Eisenberg, M.E., and Aalsma, M.C. (2005). Bullying and peer victimization: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36 (1), 88-91.

Espelage, D.L., and Swearer, S.M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 365-383.

Farrington, D., and Ttofi, M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 5 (6).

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K., and Turner, H.A. (2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect , 31 (1), 7-26.

Gladden, R.M., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Hamburger, M.E., and Lumpkin, C.D. (2014). Bullying Surveillance among Youths: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0 . Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education.

Godleski, S.A., Kamper, K.E., Ostrov, J.M., Hart, E.J., and Blakely-McClure, S.J. (2015). Peer victimization and peer rejection during early childhood. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44 (3), 380-392.

Hamburger, M.E., Basile, K.C., and Vivolo, A.M. (2011). Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration, and Bystander Experiences: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Hellström, L., Persson, L., and Hagquist, C. (2015). Understanding and defining bullying—Adolescents’ own views. Archives of Public Health, 73 (4), 1-9.

Holt, M.K., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Polanin, J.R., Holland, K.M., DeGue, S., Matjasko, J.L., Wolfe, M., and Reid, G. (2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 135 (2), e496-e509.

Hopkins, L., Taylor, L., Bowen, E., and Wood, C. (2013). A qualitative study investigating adolescents’ understanding of aggression, bullying and violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 35 (4), 685-693.

Hymel, S., and Swearer, S.M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 293.

Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research. Committee on Prevention of Mental Disorders. P.J. Mrazek and R.J. Haggerty, Editors. Division of Biobehavioral Sciences and Mental Disorders. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2011). The Science of Adolescent Risk-taking: Workshop Report . Committee on the Science of Adolescence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2012). Communications and Technology for Violence Prevention: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014a). The Evidence for Violence Prevention across the Lifespan and around the World: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014b). Strategies for Scaling Effective Family-Focused Preventive Interventions to Promote Children’s Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Health: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014c). Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2015). Investing in the Health and Well-Being of Young Adults . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Kim, Y.S., and Leventhal, B. (2008). Bullying and suicide. A review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20 (2), 133-154.

Koo, H. (2007). A time line of the evolution of school bullying in differing social contexts. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8 (1), 107-116.

Kota, R., Schoohs, S., Benson, M., and Moreno, M.A. (2014). Characterizing cyberbullying among college students: Hacking, dirty laundry, and mocking. Societies, 4 (4), 549-560.

McDougall, P., and Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Long-term adult outcomes of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence: Pathways to adjustment and maladjustment. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 300.

Monks, C.P., and Smith, P.K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of the term and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24 (4), 801-821.

National Institute of Justice. (2015). Comprehensive School Safety Initiative. 2015. Available: http://nij.gov/topics/crime/school-crime/Pages/school-safety-initiative.aspx#about [October 2015].

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community Programs to Promote Youth Development . Committee on Community-Level Programs for Youth. J. Eccles and J.A. Gootman, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2003). Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence . Case Studies of School Violence Committee. M.H. Moore, C.V. Petrie, A.A. Barga, and B.L. McLaughlin, Editors. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2009). Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Among Children, Youth, and Young Adults: Research Advances and Promising Interventions. M.E. O’Connell, T. Boat, and K.E. Warner, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School. What We Know and Whal We Can Do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in school. Prospects, 26 (2), 331-359.

Slonje, R., and Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49 (2), 147-154.

Smith, P. ., and Monks, C. . (2008). Concepts of bullying: Developmental and cultural aspects. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20 (2), 101-112.

Sourander, A. (2010). The association of suicide and bullying in childhood to young adulthood: A review of cross-sectional and longitudinal research findings. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55 (5), 282.

Sticca, F., and Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (5), 739-750.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2015). Safe Schools/Healthy Students. 2015. Available: http://www.samhsa.gov/safe-schools-healthy-students/about [November 2015].

Tanrikulu, I., and Campbell, M. (2015). Correlates of traditional bullying and cyberbullying perpetration among Australian students. Children and Youth Services Review , 55 , 138-146.

Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (3), 277-287.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Safe and Supportive Schools . Available: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-awards-388-million-safe-and-supportive-school-grants [October 2015].

Vaillancourt, T., Trinh, V., McDougall, P., Duku, E., Cunningham, L., Cunningham, C., Hymel, S., and Short, K. (2010). Optimizing population screening of bullying in school-aged children. Journal of School Violence, 9 (3), 233-250.

van Geel, M., Vedder, P., and Tanilon, J. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association. Pediatrics, 168 (5), 435-442.

Vivolo, A.M., Holt, M.K., and Massetti, G.M. (2011). Individual and contextual factors for bullying and peer victimization: Implications for prevention. Journal of School Violence, 10 (2), 201-212.

Vlachou, M., Andreou, E., Botsoglou, K., and Didaskalou, E. (2011). Bully/victim problems among preschool children: A review of current research evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 23 (3), 329-358.

Wolke, D., and Lereya, S.T. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 100 (9), 879-885.

Ybarra, M.L., Espelage, D.L., and Mitchell, K.J. (2014). Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: The importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55 (2), 293-300.

This page intentionally left blank.

Bullying has long been tolerated as a rite of passage among children and adolescents. There is an implication that individuals who are bullied must have "asked for" this type of treatment, or deserved it. Sometimes, even the child who is bullied begins to internalize this idea. For many years, there has been a general acceptance and collective shrug when it comes to a child or adolescent with greater social capital or power pushing around a child perceived as subordinate. But bullying is not developmentally appropriate; it should not be considered a normal part of the typical social grouping that occurs throughout a child's life.

Although bullying behavior endures through generations, the milieu is changing. Historically, bulling has occurred at school, the physical setting in which most of childhood is centered and the primary source for peer group formation. In recent years, however, the physical setting is not the only place bullying is occurring. Technology allows for an entirely new type of digital electronic aggression, cyberbullying, which takes place through chat rooms, instant messaging, social media, and other forms of digital electronic communication.

Composition of peer groups, shifting demographics, changing societal norms, and modern technology are contextual factors that must be considered to understand and effectively react to bullying in the United States. Youth are embedded in multiple contexts and each of these contexts interacts with individual characteristics of youth in ways that either exacerbate or attenuate the association between these individual characteristics and bullying perpetration or victimization. Recognizing that bullying behavior is a major public health problem that demands the concerted and coordinated time and attention of parents, educators and school administrators, health care providers, policy makers, families, and others concerned with the care of children, this report evaluates the state of the science on biological and psychosocial consequences of peer victimization and the risk and protective factors that either increase or decrease peer victimization behavior and consequences.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Effectiveness of Policy Interventions for School Bullying: A Systematic Review

William hall.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Associated Data

Bullying threatens the mental and educational well-being of students. Although anti-bullying policies are prevalent, little is known about their effectiveness. This systematic review evaluates the methodological characteristics and summarizes substantive findings of studies examining the effectiveness of school bullying policies.

Searches of 11 bibliographic databases yielded 489 studies completed since January 1, 1995. Following duplicate removal and double-independent screening based on a priori inclusion criteria, 21 studies were included for review.

Substantially more educators perceive anti-bullying policies to be effective rather than ineffective. Whereas several studies show that the presence or quality of policies is associated with lower rates of bullying among students, other studies found no such associations between policy presence or quality and reductions in bullying. Consistent across studies, this review found that schools with anti-bullying policies that enumerated protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity were associated with better protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) students. Specifically, LGBTQ students in schools with such policies reported less harassment and more frequent and effective intervention by school personnel. Findings are mixed regarding the relationship between having an anti-bullying policy and educators’ responsiveness to general bullying.

Conclusions

Anti-bullying policies might be effective at reducing bullying if their content is based on evidence and sound theory and if they are implemented with a high level of fidelity. More research is needed to improve on limitations among extant studies.

Bullying in schools is a pervasive threat to the well-being and educational success of students. Bullying refers to unwanted aggressive behaviors enacted intentionally over time by an individual or group using some form of power to cause physical and/or psychological harm to another individual or group in a shared social context ( Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014 ; Olweus, 2013 ). Bullying is also a widespread phenomenon. A meta-analysis of 82 studies conducted in 22 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Southern Africa, East Asia, and Australia and Oceania found that 53% of youth were involved in bullying as bullies, victims, or both bullies and victims ( Cook, Williams, Guerra, & Kim, 2010 ).

Involvement in bullying as perpetrators, victims, bully–victims, and bystanders has been linked with deleterious outcomes by both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Youths who are bullied can experience immediate negative effects that include physical injury, humiliation, sadness, rejection, and helplessness ( Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2009 ). Over time, a number of mental and behavioral health problems can emerge, including low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation and behavior, conduct problems, psychosomatic problems, psychotic symptoms, and physical illness ( Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010 ; Dake, Price, & Telljohann, 2003 ; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009 ; Kim & Leventhal, 2008 ; Klomek, Sourander, & Gould, 2010 ; Reijntjes et al., 2011 ; Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010 ; Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, & Loeber, 2011a ). In addition, students who have been bullied may not feel safe at school and may disengage from the school community due to fear and sadness, which may, in turn, contribute to higher rates of absenteeism and lower academic performance ( Arseneault et al., 2006 ; Buhs & Ladd, 2001 ; Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006 ; Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005 ; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000 ; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010 ).

Youths who bully also face psychosocial difficulties. These youths often grow up in harsh social environments with few resources ( Hong & Espelage, 2012 ), and bullies often lack impulse control and empathy for others ( O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009 ; van Noorden, Haselager, Cillessen, & Bukowski, 2015 ). Students who bully are more likely to skip school, perform poorly, and drop out ( Jankauskiene, Kardelis, Sukys, & Kardeliene, 2008 ; Ma, Phelps, Lerner, & Lerner, 2009 ). Bullying perpetration also is associated with depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation and behavior, and violent and criminal behavior (e.g., assault, robbery, vandalism, carrying weapons, and rape; Dake et al., 2003 ; Kim& Leventhal, 2008 ; Klomek et al., 2010 ; Ttofi, Farrington, & Lösel, 2012 ; Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, & Loeber, 2011b ). Compared to nonperpetrators, students who bully have an increased risk of violent and criminal behaviors into adulthood. A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies found that school bullies were 2.5 times more likely to engage in criminal offending over an 11-year follow-up period ( Ttofi et al., 2011b ).

Other youths involved in bullying include bully–victims and bystanders. Bully–victims are students who have been bullied but also engage in bullying others. Bully–victims can experience a combination of internalizing and externalizing problems ( Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010 ). Student bystanders are present in up to 90% of bullying incidents ( Atlas & Pepler, 1998 ; Craig & Pepler, 1995 ; Glew et al., 2005 ; Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001 ). Youths who witness bullying often report emotional distress, including increased heart rate and higher levels of fear, sadness, and anger when recalling bullying incidents ( Barhight, Hubbard, & Hyde, 2013 ; Janson & Hazler, 2004 ). Thus, across the literature, bullying is associated with problematic outcomes for perpetrators, victims, bully–victims, and bystanders alike.

Policy as an Intervention for Bullying

Perspectives vary on how to best address bullying in schools. Intervention strategies have included suspending and expelling bullies, training teachers on intervening, teaching empathy and respect to students through classroom lessons, maintaining constant adult supervision throughout school settings, collaborating with parents about student behavior, and enacting school-wide policies about bullying. In the United States, policies addressing bullying emerged in 1999 following the Columbine High School shootings. These policies have spread due to increased awareness and concern about student violence and school safety ( Birkland & Lawrence, 2009 ). A policy is a system of principles created by governing bodies or public officials to achieve specific outcomes by guiding action and decision making. Policy is an umbrella term that refers to various regulatory measures, including laws, statutes, policies, regulations, and rules. These terms vary based on the jurisdiction and legal authority of the individual or group who established the policy. In the United States, K–12 education policy, which includes school bullying policy, can be established at the federal, state, and local levels ( Mead, 2009 ).

One advantage of policy interventions for bullying is that they can influence student, teacher, and administrator behavior as well as school organizational practices. For example, school bullying policies typically prohibit certain behaviors, such as threatening and harassing other students or retaliating against students who witness and then report bullying incidents. Policies may also require behaviors, such as requiring teachers to report bullying incidents to administrators and requiring administrators to investigate reports of bullying. Further, policies may promote certain behaviors by explicitly stating positive behavioral expectations for students or discourage behaviors by explicitly stating punishments associated with aggressive behaviors. At the school level, policies can guide organizational practices, such as establishing bullying incident reporting procedures and creating school-safety teams tasked with developing and executing school-safety plans. Thus, bullying policies can influence individual and organizational behaviors.

Another advantage of bullying policies is that they are upstream interventions that provide a foundation for downstream interventions. In other words, policies are systems-level interventions that typically require more targeted intervention programs, practices, and services at the organizational, group, and individual levels ( McKinlay, 1998 ). For example, a bullying policy may be adopted within a state or district; the policy then applies to all schools within the state or district. This policy may require training all school employees on bullying prevention strategies, integrating bullying awareness and education into classroom lessons and curricula, and providing counseling for students involved in bullying. Thus, policy lays the groundwork for an array of more specific and targeted interventions to be deployed in schools by outlining goals and directives in the policy document.

Policy design is important because the content influences a cascade of actions throughout school systems, which may result in positive or negative outcomes. For example, a bullying policy that requires schools to provide counseling services and positive behavioral reinforcement to students who perpetrate bullying is markedly different than a policy that requires schools to suspend or expel students who have carried out multiple acts of bullying. Research shows that overly harsh and punitive policies (e.g., “three strikes and you’re out” policies or “zero-tolerance” policies) are not effective at reducing aggression or improving school safety ( American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008 ). Thus, bullying policies should be crafted and revised using evidence-based strategies.

Anti-bullying laws have been enacted in a number of countries, including Canada, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Although the United States does not have a federal law against school bullying currently, all states have enacted anti-bullying laws ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015 ). The content of these laws was reviewed in a U.S. Department of Education report, which shows some consistency but also variability in the inclusion of policy components (see Table 1 ; Stuart-Cassel, Bell, & Springer, 2011 ). These state laws apply to approximately 98,000 K–12 public schools and have a goal of protecting more than 50 million students from involvement in bullying ( Snyder & Dillow, 2013 ; Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011 ).

Percentage of State Anti-Bullying Laws That Included Key Policy Components Identified by the U.S. Department of Education

Note. The percentages are based on 46 state bullying laws passed between 1999 and 2011.

Source: Stuart-Cassel, Bell, & Springer, 2011 .

Despite the widespread adoption and application of anti-bullying policies within the United States and in other countries, relatively few studies have examined the effectiveness of these interventions. Instead, research has focused on programmatic interventions (e.g., Cool Kids Program, Fear Not!, Friendly Schools, KiVa, and Steps to Respect). Numerous systematic or meta-analytic reviews have been completed on the effectiveness of programmatic interventions for school bullying (e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 2007 ; Evans, Fraser, & Cotter, 2014 ; Ferguson, San Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007 ; Lee, Kim, & Kim, 2013 ; Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008 ; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011 ). However, a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of policy interventions for school bullying has not been completed.

Given the proportion of students directly or indirectly involved in bullying, the array of educational and psychological problems associated with bullying, the extensive adoption of anti-bullying policies, and the absence of a review of the research on these policy interventions, the need for a systematic review on this topic is imperative. The following questions drove this review: Are school policies effective in reducing or preventing bullying behavior among students? What is the state or quality of the research on school bullying policy effectiveness? What additional research is needed on school bullying policy effectiveness? Given these questions, the objectives of this review were threefold: to systematically identify, examine, and evaluate the methodological characteristics of studies investigating the effectiveness of school bullying policies; to summarize the substantive findings from these studies; and to provide recommendations for future research.

In preparation of this review, the author adhered to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria ( Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009 ). Before undertaking the search for relevant studies, the author developed protocols for bibliographic database searches, study inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a data extraction tool. In addition, this review was registered with PROSPERO, an international database of systematic reviews regarding health and social well-being.

Search Procedure

A behavioral and social sciences librarian was consulted to assist with developing a search string and identifying relevant computerized bibliographic databases in which to search. The following search string was used to search all databases for studies published between January 1, 1995, and November 8, 2014: school AND bullying AND (law OR policy OR policies OR legislation OR statute) AND (effect OR effects OR effectiveness OR efficacy OR impact OR influence). The search of multiple databases increased the likelihood of identifying all possible studies falling within the scope of the review; thus, the author searched 11 databases, some of which included gray literature sources (e.g., conference papers, government reports, and unpublished papers). Searches were performed in the following databases via EBSCO using terms searched within the abstracts: CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Educational Full Text, ERIC (Education Research Information Center), PsycINFO, and Social Work Abstracts. The following databases were searched via ProQuest using terms searched within the titles, abstracts, and subject headings: ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts), Dissertations & Theses Full Text, and Social Services Abstracts. In addition, the Conference Proceedings Citations Index was searched using terms searched within titles, abstracts, and keywords. Finally, PubMed was searched using terms searched within titles and abstracts. These more formal bibliographic database searches were supplemented with internet searches using Google Scholar.

Inclusion Criteria

Studies were included in the review if they met the following criteria: (a) collected data and reported results on the effectiveness of policy interventions for bullying in school settings; (b) written in English; and (c) completed since January 1, 1995. Policy interventions for bullying were defined as statutes, policies, regulations, or rules established at the national, state, district, or school levels with the goal of reducing bullying in K–12 schools. Effectiveness referred to the extent to which a policy intervention prevented or reduced student bullying behavior. Given that school bullying policy is a nascent area of empirical inquiry with relatively few empirical investigations and evaluations, the author did not use stringent exclusion criteria in terms of study designs and methods. Only studies written in English were included due to the researchers’ language proficiency. Finally, the time period selected allowed for a comprehensive and contemporary review of the empirical literature completed in this area over the past 20 years.

Study Screening

After performing the bibliographic database searches, 481 results were imported into the RefWorks program to assist with organization and duplicate removal. Following duplicate removal, 414 studies remained. An additional 8 studies were added from Google Scholar searches that were not present among the 414 studies. The author and a trained research assistant independently screened each of the 422 studies to determine eligibility. A checklist of the inclusion criteria was created prior to the search and was used for eligibility assessment. Studies had to meet all three inclusion criteria to be screened in. Most studies were included or excluded after reading the title and abstract; however, it was also necessary to examine the full source document of some studies to determine eligibility. To examine interrater agreement, the decisions of the two screeners were compared, and Cohen’s kappa was calculated with SPSS (Version 21), which showed excellent agreement: kappa=0.97, p < .05 ( Landis & Koch, 1977 ). There were only six disagreements between the screeners, which were resolved by the author examining the source documents. After screening, 401 studies were excluded because they did not meet all of the inclusion criteria. The most common reasons for exclusion included papers that were not empirical, lack of evaluation of effectiveness, lack of evaluation of policy, and studies that were not conducted in schools. After completing the search and screening processes, 21 studies were included for extraction and review ( Figure 1 ).

Flow diagram depicting the identification, screening, and inclusion of studies.

Data Extraction

A data extraction sheet was developed to assist with identifying and collecting relevant information from the 21 included studies. Information extracted included the citation, purpose of the study, study design, sampling strategy and location, response rate, sample size and characteristics, measurement of relevant variables, analyses performed, and results and findings. The author extracted this information and a research assistant then compared the completed extraction sheets with the source documents to assess the accuracy of the extractions. There were only six points of disagreement between the extractor and checker, which they then resolved together by examining the source documents and extractions simultaneously.

Data Synthesis

Initial review of the included studies revealed that a quantitative synthesis, such as a meta-analysis, was not advisable due to the methodological heterogeneity of the studies and differences in approaches to evaluating policy effectiveness. Thus, a narrative thematic synthesis approach was used ( Thomas, Harden, & Newman, 2012 ). The substantive findings on policy effectiveness were first categorized based on the outcome evaluated and then synthesized within each category.

A total of 21 studies were included in this review: 9 peer-reviewed journal articles, 6 research reports that were not peer-reviewed, 5 doctoral dissertations, and 1 master’s thesis. A summary of the methodological characteristics of these studies is presented—including a synthesis of the substantive findings regarding the effectiveness of school bullying policies—in Table S1 (available online).

Methodological Characteristics of the Studies

Of the 21 studies, 12 (57%) used mixed methods, 8 (38%) used quantitative methods, and 1 (5%) used qualitative methods. All studies relied on cross-sectional designs. Most studies (65%) used convenience sampling, whereas the remaining studies used some form of probability sampling. More than half (57%) of studies used national samples, whereas 24% used samples from a single city or local region, 15% used statewide samples, and 5% used samples from areas in multiple countries. Over 80% of studies sampled participants in the United States, with other studies drawing participants from Europe, Australia, East Asia, and Southwest Asia. The most common recruitment sites were schools, followed by listservs, websites, community groups or organizations, professional associations, and personal contacts. Most studies reported participant response rates which varied from 21% to 98%, and the average response rate across studies was 57% ( SD = 29%). Eight studies did not report response rates.

Across studies, sample sizes varied from 6 to 8,584 participants. Only the qualitative study had fewer than 50 participants, and two studies had between 50 and 100 participants. Most studies had relatively large samples with more than 500 respondents. The most commonly used participants were students, followed by teachers. Other respondents included administrators, school psychologists, school counselors, education support professionals, and parents. About one third of studies included multiple participant groups (e.g., students and teachers). Most studies (62%) recruited participants from K–12 settings, whereas other studies recruited participants from a single school level: elementary, middle, or high school. Among adult participants, about 75% were female and 90% were White. These percentages are similar to those reported by the U.S. Department of Education, which show that 76% of teachers are female and 82% are White ( Snyder & Dillow, 2013 ).

Samples of students were diverse in terms of race/ethnicity, with most studies consisting of about two-thirds White participants as well as Black, Hispanic/Latino/Latina, Asian, Native American Indian, Middle Eastern, and multiracial students. In addition, student samples were closer to having equal proportions of males and females. Five studies included student participants who were exclusively lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ), whereas 6 studies did not report information about student sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition, studies typically did not measure or report participant national origin, immigrant/citizenship status, religious identity, socioeconomic status, or ability/disability status. Finally, most students were high school students.

Evaluation methods

All studies relied on self-report data to evaluate school bullying policy effectiveness. However, studies varied based on the outcome used in their evaluations: Eight studies examined school members’ perceptions of policy effectiveness, 5 studies examined student bullying perpetration and/or victimization behaviors, 6 studies investigated anti-LGBTQ bullying victimization, and 2 studies considered educator intervention in bullying. The level of policies evaluated also varied: Eleven studies examined school-level policies, 3 studies examined district-level policies, 3 studies examined state laws, 3 studies examined both state laws and school-level policies, and one study examined a national policy.

Studies also varied in terms of the analytic approaches used to evaluate effectiveness: Nine studies used bivariate analyses, 8 studies used descriptive statistics of perceived effectiveness, 3 studies used multivariate analyses, and one study used both bivariate and multivariate analyses. Studies that used a bivariate analytic approach compared measures of teachers’ responsiveness to bullying or measures of student bullying between those in schools with and without anti-bullying policies or between schools with high- versus low-quality anti-bullying policies. In these studies, distinctions between high- and low-quality policies were made by the researchers in each study using content analyses of policy strategies that were theoretically and empirically associated with effectiveness in the bullying literature (e.g., having a definition of bullying, ensuring adult supervision of students, and outlining consequences for bullies; Ordonez, 2006 ; Woods & Wolke, 2003 ). Policy content analysis scores were then used to distinguish between high- and low-quality policies. Descriptive statistical analyses of effectiveness entailed participants responding to a single self-report item about their perceptions of policy effectiveness (e.g., “How effective do you feel that your school’s anti-bullying policy is in reducing bullying?”), with Likert-type response options related to agreement/disagreement or categorical response options (e.g., yes or no). Multivariate analytic approaches primarily used student bullying scores as the dependent variable and either a continuous anti-bullying policy score or a dichotomous variable indicating whether or not the school had an anti-bullying policy as the independent variable. Continuous school bullying policy scores were based on either a set of items about the perceived presence of an anti-bullying policy (e.g., “I think my school clearly set forth anti-bullying policies and rules”) or a content analysis of policy documents to identify the presence of criteria or strategies associated with effectiveness (e.g., having a definition of bullying, establishing procedures and consequences for bullies, having educational events about the school’s bullying guidelines, ensuring adult supervision in school areas prone to bullying, and formulating a school task group to coordinate anti-bullying efforts).

The measures used to assess bullying among students varied; some studies used established scales (e.g., Olweus Bullying Questionnaire), whereas other studies used items developed by the researchers. The number of items used to measure bullying varied from 3 to 23 ( M =18.2, SD =6.1). Of the 11 studies that measured bullying, the majority measured bullying victimization ( n = 8). Only 2 studies measured both bullying victimization and perpetration, and one study measured just perpetration. In terms of the types of bullying measured, 5 studies measured physical, verbal, social, electronic, and sexual bullying; 3 studies measured physical, verbal, and social bullying; one study measured physical, verbal, social, and electronic bullying; one study measured physical, verbal, social, and property bullying; and one study measured verbal bullying. In addition to student bullying, educators’ responsiveness to bullying was another outcome variable that was used in 8 studies. Only one study used a scale to measure educator responsiveness, and the remaining 7 studies used one to four items regarding educators responding to student bullying.

Results on Policy Effectiveness

Given that the 21 studies differed on the outcomes used in their evaluations of school bullying policy effectiveness, substantive results are presented by each outcome category: school members’ perceptions of policy effectiveness, student bullying perpetration and/or victimization, anti-LGBTQ bullying victimization, and educator intervention in bullying.

Perceptions of policy effectiveness

Eight studies reported results on participants’ perceptions of policy effectiveness. Results showed that 5% to 88%( M =49.4%, SD = 33.4%) of educators perceived school bullying policies to be effective to some degree, 4% to 79% ( M =24.5%, SD =23.6%) of educators perceived policies to be ineffective , and 16% to 70% ( M =51.3%, SD =30.6%) of educators were uncertain about policy effectiveness ( Barnes, 2010 ; Bradshaw, Waasdorp, O’Brennan, & Gulemetova, 2013 ; Hedwall, 2006 ; Isom, 2014 ; Sherer & Nickerson, 2010 ; Terry, 2010 ). Only one study measured students’ perceptions of policy effectiveness, and results showed that they perceived policies to be moderately effective ( Ju, 2012 ). In addition, only one of the 21 studies collected multiple waves of data, although different sets of respondents were used at each of the two waves ( Samara & Smith, 2008 ). In this study, researchers examined perceived effectiveness before and after the passage of an anti-bullying policy; however, there were no significant changes in perceived effectiveness.

Student bullying perpetration and victimization

Five studies reported findings on the influence of policy on general student bullying outcomes. Two of these 5 studies examined policy content in relation to effectiveness. One study found that students in schools with high-quality bullying policies reported lower rates of verbal and physical bullying victimization than students in schools with low-quality policies; however, no differences were found for social/relational or property bullying victimization ( Ordonez, 2006 ). In this study, policy quality was evaluated based on the inclusion of the following elements: a definition of bullying; procedures and consequences for bullies; plans for disseminating the policy to students, school personnel, and parents; programs or practices that encourage acceptance of diversity, empathy for others, respect toward others, peer integration, and responsible use of power; supervision of students in school areas prone to bullying (e.g., playground, cafeteria, and hallways); and socio-emotional skills training for victims and bullies ( Ordonez, 2006 ). Similarly, another study found lower rates of verbal, physical, and property bullying victimization among students in schools with high-quality bullying policies, yet higher rates of social/relational bullying perpetration ( Woods & Wolke, 2003 ). In this study, policy quality was evaluated based on the inclusion of the following elements: a definition of bullying; recognition of negative outcomes associated with bullying; discussion of locations where bullying can occur; evaluation of the prevalence of bullying; involvement of stakeholders in policy development; supervision of students in school areas; formulation of a school task group to coordinate anti-bullying efforts; classroom rules about bullying; classroom sessions about bullying; discussion of bullying at PTA/PTO meetings; involvement of parents in bullying prevention efforts; and follow-up with victims and bullies after incidents ( Woods & Wolke, 2003 ).

Other studies examined associations between policy presence and bullying outcomes. Three significant or marginally significant ( p ≤ .095) associations were found: the presence of an anti-bullying policy was inversely related to general bullying victimization, social/relational bullying perpetration, and verbal bullying perpetration ( Farrington & Ttofi, 2009 ; Lee, 2007 ). Conversely, eight nonsignificant associations were found between school bullying policy presence and scores of general, physical, verbal, and social/relational bullying perpetration, as well as physical, verbal, and social/relational bullying victimization ( Farrington & Ttofi, 2009 ; Khoury-Kassabri, 2011 ; Lee, 2007 ). In addition, having a bullying policy was not associated with increases in general bullying perpetration or victimization ( Farrington & Ttofi, 2009 ).

Anti-LGBTQ bullying

Six studies with rather large samples of primarily LGBTQ students consistently found that compared to students in schools without an anti-bullying policy or with an anti-bullying policy that did not explicitly prohibit bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity, students in schools with comprehensive anti-bullying policies that included protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity reported lower rates of anti-LGBTQ bullying, more school personnel frequently intervening when anti-LGBTQ comments were made in their presence, and more school personnel being effective in their anti-LGBTQ bullying responses ( Kosciw&Diaz, 2006 ; Kosciw, Diaz,&Greytak, 2008 ; Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2010 ; Kosciw, Greytak, Bartkiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2012 ; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014 ; Phoenix et al., 2006 ). These differences were consistent in analyses of both local anti-bullying policies and state anti-bullying laws.

Educator intervention in bullying

Educators play a key role in reducing bullying behavior among students. One study found that compared to those in schools without a bullying policy, educators in schools with bullying policies were more likely to enlist the help of parents and colleagues in responding to a bullying incident and were less likely to ignore bullying ( Bauman, Rigby, & Hoppa, 2008 ). Conversely, a large, national study of educators found no relationship between having an anti-bullying policy and educators’ comfort intervening in both general and discriminatory bullying ( O’Brennan, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2014 ).

The findings are discussed according to the research questions that drove the review.

Are Policies Effective at Reducing Bullying?

Educators were divided in their perceptions of the effectiveness of policies for school bullying; however, on average, about twice as many educators reported that policies were effective to some degree as those who reported that they were not effective. Nonetheless, descriptive summaries of perceptions of effectiveness are typically not viewed as compelling sources of evidence for the effectiveness of an intervention ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2003 ). However, educators are considered key informants who know what goes on in schools.

Two studies found lower rates of verbal and physical bullying in schools with high- rather than low-quality policies; however, in terms of social/relational bullying, one study found no difference, and another study found higher rates of social/relational bullying in schools with high-quality policies ( Ordonez, 2006 ; Woods & Wolke, 2003 ). This tentative finding suggests that improving the quality of bullying policies may be effective for direct and overt forms of bullying (e.g., hitting and name-calling) but may not effect social/relational bullying. Across the two studies, elements of policy quality associated with decreases in verbal and physical bullying included a comprehensive definition of bullying; school and classroom rules and procedures about bullying; plans for communicating the policy within the school community; supervision of students across school areas; involvement of parents in anti-bullying efforts; involvement of multiple stakeholders in school-wide anti-bullying actions; and working with and educating students around social, emotional, and behavioral issues to prevent bullying. Extant policies may overemphasize traditional notions of what bullying is (i.e., physical and verbal harassment) and underemphasize or neglect to address more recent understandings of social/relational aggression as bullying. In addition, direct and overt forms of bullying may be more amenable to policy interventions because educators can directly observe these behaviors and then proceed with their response, whereas social/relational bullying often occurs away from the direct supervision of educators ( Young, Nelson, Hottle, Warburton, & Young, 2013 ). Educators have reported difficulty in responding to bullying incidents that they did not witness ( Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener, 2006 ). Similarly, although many educators are aware of cyberbullying, few take steps to address it and many are uncertain about how to confront cyberbullying, which often occurs outside of school ( Cassidy, Brown, & Jackson, 2012 ; Stauffer, Heath, Coyne, & Ferrin, 2012 ; Vandebosch, Poels, & Deboutte, 2014 ). Nonetheless, educators can address cyberbullying occurring on or off school grounds if the aggression creates a hostile school environment and substantially disrupts a student’s learning environment ( Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011 ).

Findings among the few studies that examined associations between policy presence and student bullying were mixed, although more nonsignificant than significant associations were found. At first glance, one may conclude from these findings that the presence of bullying policies does not influence bullying among students; however, the presence of a policy is necessary but is not sufficient to affect student behavior. Indeed, after a policy has been adopted, it must be put into practice. The mere adoption or presence of a policy does not mean that it will be immediately and consistently put into practice exactly as intended. The implementation of a policy is a complex, dynamic, and ongoing process involving a vast assortment of people, resources, organizational structures, and actions. No study that examined the implementation of school bullying policies found that the policies were being implemented precisely as intended ( Hall & Chapman, 2016a , 2016b ; Hedwall, 2006 ; Holmgreen, 2014 ; Jordan, 2014 ; LaRocco, Nestler-Rusack, & Freiberg, 2007 ; MacLeod, 2007 ; Robbins, 2011 ; Schlenoff, 2014 ; Smith-Canty, 2010 ; Terry, 2010 ). Indeed, the extent of faithful implementation in these studies varied considerably by location and policy component. Therefore, fidelity of implementation (i.e., the extent that a policy is put into practice as intended based on the directives expressed in the policy document) may mediate the relationship between policy adoption or presence and the targeted policy outcome of student bullying. However, none of the studies reviewed measured policy implementation fidelity. Thus, one can conclude from this evidence that in some cases, policy presence was associated with decreases in bullying; in other cases, however, there were no such associations. Because data on implementation were not collected in any study, it is not known if the lack of significant associations was related to lack of faithful implementation of policies.

One area of consistent agreement in the findings relates to the benefits for LGBTQ students who are in schools with anti-bullying policies that explicitly provide protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. These benefits included lower rates of victimization and higher rates of intervention by educators. Numerous studies have demonstrated that LGBTQ youths experience high rates of bullying victimization ( Berlan, Corliss, Field, Goodman, & Austin, 2010 ; Espelage, Aragon, Birkett, & Koenig, 2008 ; Kosciw & Diaz, 2006 ; Kosciw et al., 2008 ; Kosciw et al., 2010 ; Kosciw et al., 2012 ; Kosciw et al., 2014 ; McGuire, Anderson, Toomey, & Russell, 2010 ; Varjas et al., 2008 ). However, only 20 states (40%) have enumerated protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in their anti-bullying laws ( Human Rights Campaign, 2015 ). Given the evidence for the effectiveness of enumerated policies, all policies should prohibit harassment and bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Aside from the LGBTQ-focused studies, only two other studies examined educators’ responsiveness to bullying. Findings from these studies were somewhat contradictory, as one found a connection between having a bullying policy and responding to a bullying incident, whereas the other study found no relationship between having a policy and educators’ comfort in responding to bullying. However, the study that found no relationship included several other relevant independent variables (i.e., receiving training on how to implement the school’s bullying policy and having resources available in the school to help educators intervene), which were significantly associated with increased comfort in responding to bullying ( O’Brennan et al., 2014 ). Thus, the relationship between the presence of a school bullying policy and educators’ responsiveness to bullying incidents may be mediated by training about putting the policy into practice and having resources available for intervention.

Finally, there was no evidence that one level of policy was more effective than another. Across the studies, school, district, and state policies all showed evidence for effectiveness as well as ineffectiveness. Policies do vary in terms of their weight in law. For example, a state statute has more legal force than an informal school policy established by a principal. Nonetheless, a school policy set by a principal is more proximal than a state policy, and therefore, the proximity may facilitate implementation of the policy at the school. Policy level may not be related to effectiveness. What likely matters more in terms of effectiveness are the strategies contained within a policy and the ways they are implemented.

What is the State of the Research on School Bullying Policy Effectiveness?

Systematic reviews summarize what is substantively known about a topic area and also provide a state of the research on a particular topic. Research to date on school bullying policy effectiveness has several strengths. In terms of designs, most studies have used a mixed-methods approach, which is advantageous because it capitalizes on the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative research and offsets weaknesses of using one or the other. Including quantitative methods allows for precise, numerical estimates related to distribution or the strength and direction of relationships, and including qualitative methods allows for rich, in-depth data related to context or complexity. Other strengths are related to sampling: More than one third of the studies used some form of probability sampling, over half of the studies used national samples, and many studies reported high response rates. These sampling strengths are beneficial in terms of generalizing findings. Also, almost all studies had sample sizes greater than 200, and two thirds of studies had large samples (i.e., approximately 500 to 8,500 participants). Larger samples can be more representative of a population and are beneficial in terms of statistical power. A final strength was that many studies collected data from multiple participants groups (e.g., teachers and students). Having multiple participant groups allows for a more comprehensive assessment and the triangulation of data sources, which can be used to compare and contrast findings and may help researchers corroborate findings.

On the other hand, several prominent methodological limitations were identified among the studies reviewed. First, the studies relied on evidence from cross-sectional surveys, which are vulnerable to selection bias and confounding. In addition, cross-sectional studies cannot examine a key criterion of causality: a temporal relationship wherein an anti-bullying policy was adopted and implemented, which then led to decreases in bullying over time. Second, most studies used convenience sampling. Although convenience sampling may be highly feasible and efficient, it can lead to the under representation or overrepresentation of particular groups within a sample. Thus, convenience samples may not be representative of the populations of interest, which undermines the generalizations that can be made from the findings. Third, most of the studies used descriptive statistics or bivariate analyses to evaluate the effectiveness of bullying policies. Such analyses can be oversimplified and leave out relevant explanatory or contextualizing variables. In addition, some of the studies that used bivariate analyses did not report the exact statistical test used (e.g., independent groups t-test and chi-square test) or effect sizes and instead focused on substantive findings. Although these reports seemed to be aimed at a more general, nonscholarly audience, the omission of this information can become problematic in understanding the methods used and drawing conclusions about the results. Fourth, many studies asked participants to report whether their school had an anti-bullying policy. This question might be problematic for student respondents because they might not know about the policies in their schools.

A final limitation involved the measurement of bullying. The main goal of policy interventions for bullying is to prevent and reduce bullying behavior among students. Thus, studies evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions should measure bullying among students as a primary outcome. Nonetheless, only half of the studies directly measured student bullying, and most of these studies did not measure both bullying perpetration and victimization. Policies are aimed at influencing multiple actors involved in the bullying dynamic, which includes bullies, targets, victims, bully–victims, bystanders, parents, and school personnel. Thus, studies that do not measure bullying perpetration and victimization among students are not assessing the two main targeted behavioral outcomes of anti-bullying policies. In addition, bullying behaviors can manifest in many forms, including physical bullying, verbal bullying, social/relational bullying, cyberbullying, property bullying, and sexual bullying ( Hall, 2016 ). However, none of the studies in this review measured all of the dimensions of bullying.

What Future Research is Needed on School Bullying Policy Effectiveness?

Undoubtedly, research on the effectiveness of policy interventions for school bullying will continue to expand. In order to build upon and address gaps and limitations in the extant literature, six recommendations are presented for future research on school bullying policy effectiveness. These recommendations are based on the critical analysis of studies in this systematic review.

First, future studies should employ more rigorous designs to evaluate the effectiveness of policy interventions for bullying. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the “gold standard” approach for measuring the impact of an intervention; however, RCTs are often infeasible for evaluating public policy interventions due to the political and legal nature of policies, which are implemented across large organizational systems and typically with prescribed timelines ( Oliver et al., 2010 ). Thus, researchers may need to rely on other rigorous and feasible designs for evaluating policy effectiveness: pretest/posttest cohort designs, pretest/posttest matched comparison group designs, and interrupted time series designs ( Oliver et al., 2010 ; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002 ). These study designs are superior to cross-sectional studies in determining the effectiveness of interventions ( Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, 2003 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2003 ; Pilcher & Bedford, 2011 ).

Second, studies should collect data on outcomes and the implementation of policy components. None of the studies assessed implementation fidelity. When bullying policies do not successfully achieve targeted outcomes, we do not know whether those policies were implemented as intended and failed or whether lack of implementation fidelity is to blame. Implementation data, if collected, could be used to ensure that policies are being activated as intended with high levels of fidelity and reported along with outcome evaluation data in the study designs mentioned previously. These data also could be used to examine the predictive relationship between implementation fidelity and outcomes. Theory would suggest an inverse relationship where higher levels of implementation fidelity are associated with lower levels of bullying among students; however, this remains an untested hypothesis. Also, bullying policies are comprised of an array of directives to be put into action. Data on the fidelity of implementation of all components of an anti-bullying policy would allow researchers to examine the relative or combined impact of policy components on outcomes.

Third, analyzing policy content—versus only considering the presence of absence of a bullying policy—is needed for more nuanced understanding of which policies work, for whom, and why. A national review of state anti-bullying laws showed broad inclusion of some policy components (e.g., outlining the consequences for students who bully) and limited inclusion of other components (e.g., providing mental health services to perpetrators or victims of bullying; Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011 ). Theoretically and empirically based guidance about specific actions that can be prescribed in bullying policies is small but growing ( Cornell & Limber, 2015 ; Nickerson, Cornell, Smith, & Furlong, 2013 ). Future research should analyze the relationships between policy content and bullying outcomes, which could help identify the most influential policy components. Examining only policy presence or absence is insufficient because a school district may indeed have an anti-bullying policy, but its content may not be evidence-based. Policies can also vary in the way they are written, as some policies are lengthy, vague, and contradictory, whereas other policies are clear, concise, and specific. This area of content could also be analyzed and may relate to educators’ comprehension of policies, which would influence implementation actions by educators, and subsequently, policy outcomes.

Fourth, future studies should use multivariate and multilevel analyses. The effectiveness of policy interventions for bullying are influenced by several variables, including policy content, fidelity of implementation, and school environmental factors. By using more complex statistical methods (e.g., regression modeling, structural equation modeling, propensity score matching, and hierarchical linear modeling), researchers will be able to examine the influence of multiple variables, examine moderating and mediating relationships, control for extraneous variables, match intervention participants with control participants, and account for clustered data (e.g., students or teachers nested within schools). These statistical methods will be essential to execute the recommended study designs and analytic methods described previously. The use of these statistical methods will help ensure the integrity of future findings on policy effectiveness.

Fifth, studies should improve sampling practices. To attain more representative samples, researchers should partner with school districts, state departments of education, and departments of public instruction, and they should employ some form of probability sampling. Many of the studies in this review that used probability sampling involved data collection collaborations with state- and district-level educational agencies. Educational agencies have a vested interest in the implementation and success of bullying policies, especially those codified as law. In addition, future studies should sample from multiple respondent groups—such as administrators, teachers, school mental health professionals, and students—to gain a more comprehensive and multiperspective understanding of the implementation and effectiveness of school bullying policies. Researchers also should sample across the K–12 spectrum because state and district policy guidelines typically apply across these grade levels. Yet, there may be differences in policy effectiveness between elementary, middle, and high school. Certain policy strategies also may need to be tailored based on student developmental differences and differences in school structure across the K–12 system.

Finally, future studies should use scales to measure both bullying perpetration and victimization, and these measures should assess all of the dimensions of bullying: physical, verbal, social/relational, electronic, sexual, and property bullying. Researchers may find that policies are more effective at addressing certain types of bullying than others (e.g., direct vs. indirect bullying). Multifactor scales with a sufficient number of items are needed to measure the full range of bullying behaviors. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention created a compendium of bullying measures that is available to the public (see Hamburger, Basile, & Vivolo, 2011 ). However, caution should be taken in selecting instruments because some measures have low internal consistency reliability values (i.e., α < .70), low test-retest reliability coefficients (i.e., r < .70), no recall time frames, overly long and complex definitions of bullying, limited evidence of construct validity, limited evidence of criterion validity, and limited evidence regarding respondents’ understanding of the measure’s instructions and items ( Hall, 2016 ). In addition, as opposed to questionnaires about bullying behaviors, peer and/or teacher nomination methods to identify students who are bullying victims or perpetrators may be more developmentally appropriate for elementary school-age children.

Strengths and Limitations of the Review

This review used a rigorous approach to identify relevant studies by searching 11 databases using an expert-informed search string. In addition, search records were independently screened by two screeners based on a priori inclusion criteria. Further, research reports and dissertations (forms of gray literature) were included to minimize publication bias. Nonetheless, unpublished research may be underrepresented in this review. Another limitation relates to the variability of studies: Studies varied in the respondents, sample locations, the types of policies examined, and the ways effectiveness was evaluated. This variability presented challenges for combining and comparing results. Another limitation of this review relates to the methodological limitations of some of the included studies. However, by presenting the methodological characteristics and substantive findings by study in Table S1 (available online), readers are able to assess the methodological rigor and trustworthiness of findings accordingly.

Bullying is a widespread problem in which about half of students are directly involved and up to 90% of students are indirectly involved ( Atlas &Pepler, 1998 ; Cook, Williams, Guerra, & Kim, 2010 ; Craig & Pepler, 1995 ; Glew et al., 2005 ; Hawkins et al., 2001 ). Policy interventions are an approach to bullying that establishes legal mandates for schools, influences the behavior of students and school personnel, and guides the implementation of other targeted interventions within schools. Findings on the effectiveness of policy interventions for bullying are primarily mixed, and there are limitations in the evaluation methods used. Research on school bullying policy will undoubtedly continue to expand with the growing understanding of the need for evidence-based education policies and as bullying policies continue to be introduced and revised in schools across the globe. Future research must use more rigorous methods and designs and may indeed find that policy interventions play a key role as one of a constellation of intervention strategies for preventing and reducing school bullying.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

I would like to thank Mimi Chapman, Natasha Bowen, Barbara Fedders, Mark Fraser, and Kathleen Rounds for their advice and feedback regarding this paper. I also thank Rachele McFarland for her research assistance. The author was supported by the National Research Service Award Postdoctoral Traineeship from the National Institute of Mental Health, sponsored by Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine (grant number T32 MH019117).

* Asterisks indicate studies that were included in the systematic review.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

A historic new law would protect kids online and hold tech companies accountable

Windsor Johnston

Members of advocacy group Parents for Safe Online Space rally after a hearing on Capitol Hill in January. The group supports proposed legislation that will hold tech companies accountable for limiting children's exposure to harmful online content. Erika Layne Salazar hide caption

Kristin Bride lost her 16-year-old son, Carson, to suicide in 2020. She says shortly before he took his own life he was bullied on the social media site Snapchat.

"Carson received over 100 harassing and sexually explicit texts from his high school classmates through an anonymous messaging app on Snapchat," Bride says. "The last search on his phone before he ended his life was for hacks to find out who was doing this to him."

'You have blood on your hands,' senator tells Mark Zuckerberg for failing kids online

Shortly after her son's death, Bride joined Parents for Safe Online Spaces , an organization of families who lost their children after they were exposed to toxic online content. Some died by suicide after cyberbullying or sextortion; others after participating in viral challenges involving self-harm or taking drugs sold by online dealers.

Bride is also part of an ongoing effort on Capitol Hill to craft legislation that would hold social media sites and other tech companies accountable for keeping minors safe online.

Kristin Bride lost her 16-year-old son, Carson, to suicide in 2020. She says shortly before he took his own life he was bullied on the social media site Snapchat. "Carson received over 100 harassing and sexually explicit texts from his high school classmates through an anonymous messaging app on Snapchat. Erika Layne Salazar hide caption

Last year, a group of bipartisan senators introduced the Kids Online Safety Act, a groundbreaking piece of legislation addressing growing concern from parents about the impact of online and social media platforms on children and teens.

The legislation passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support earlier this week, and the measure now heads to the Republican-led House.

New law will require companies to limit harmful content

The last time Congress passed a law to protect children on the internet was in 1998 — before Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and smartphones. The legislation would require tech companies to implement measures to help protect kids from exposure to harmful content.

For example, companies would be prohibited from using algorithms to push content that underage users did not specifically search for. This addresses a huge concern of parents and advocates: that kids are targeted with content that promotes harmful behavior, such as eating disorders, sexual exploitation and substance abuse.

Shots - Health News

Major psychologists' group warns of social media's potential harm to kids.

The truth about teens, social media and the mental health crisis

The bill would also raise the maximum age of children covered under the law to 17; ban companies from collecting data from minors, including biometric indicators such as fingerprints, voiceprints and facial imagery; and improve parental controls.

Josh Golin is the executive director of Fairplay , a nonprofit working to protect kids from marketing and dangerous online content from Big Tech.

"For the first time ever, social media and other online platforms will have a legal responsibility to consider how they are impacting children," Golin says.

Golin says it’s important for online platforms and members of Congress to recognize that regulating the use of social media for their kids has become overwhelming for families.

No parent is looking for "another full-time job," he says.

"We need to put the responsibility back on where it belongs, which is on these companies who are the ones controlling what these kids are seeing. We need to ensure that these kids are not being sent down such dangerous rabbit holes," says Golin.

TikTok and others change platforms to protect kids. Advocates say it's just a start

Advocates hope new law will help fight cyberbullying.

Parent advocates of the bill say the new requirements will make it easier to protect their kids from becoming victims of cyberbullying. They say more parent-friendly user settings will make it easier to control what their kids are exposed to online.

Kristin Bride says the anonymous messaging feature on Snapchat ultimately led to her son's death.

"I absolutely believe that my son would be alive if this legislation was in place at the time," she says.

While cyberbullying is not directly called out in the legislation, its impacts — anxiety, depression, suicidal and self-harming behaviors — are addressed, says Vaishnavi J., founder of Vyanams Strategies, an organization that advises companies on how to create safer tech products for children.

"Cyberbullying is a really challenging issue to navigate because it's so coded and it's constantly evolving," says J.

States sue Meta, claiming Instagram, Facebook fueled youth mental health crisis

J. notes that cyberbullying disproportionately impacts girls and young women of color.

"They are typically under-represented from marginalized communities. They aren't getting the range of societal support they deserve," J. says. "That tends to extend to online as well."

J. also says boys are under-represented in the research when it comes to cyberbullying, something that she says isn't talked about enough.

Boys "don't tend to tell you that they're being harassed or bullied. Instead, they choose to suffer in silence … and that's a real problem," she says.

All 50 states have laws against bullying, and every state — except Wisconsin and Alaska — include specific references to cyberbullying. Currently, there are no federal laws that criminalize cyberbullying.

More challenges lie ahead

Along with the safety bill, the Senate also passed online privacy legislation that would prohibit online companies from collecting personal information from kids under the age of 17 without their consent.

Even though the online safety bill has broad bipartisan support, some lawmakers argue that the legislation could violate free speech rights. Others are concerned that the new regulations could prevent some kids from accessing information on LGBTQ+ issues or reproductive rights.

Social media companies including Microsoft, X and Snapchat have voiced support for the measure, while TikTok and Meta have called it unconstitutional.

Maurine Molak is among the families who worked with the Senate to get the bill passed. She lost her 16-year-old son, David, to suicide after months of relentless online threats and cyberbullying. Erika Layne Salazar hide caption

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says there's still more work to be done to regulate online protections for kids, but the new online safety law would be a step in the right direction. The bill now heads to the Republican-led House where Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled support for the legislation.

Maurine Molak is among the families who worked with the Senate to get the bill passed. She lost her 16-year-old son, David, to suicide after months of relentless online threats and cyberbullying. Molak is urging every House member to vote in favor of what she says is a game-changing bill.

"It's game-changing for young people. It's game-changing for families," she says. "I hear it over and over again that it's like a game of Whac-A-Mole. As soon as parents figure out to keep their kids safe on one platform — three more pop up."

Enbridge: Increasing My Stake Despite Underperformance

• Enbridge prioritizes growth over debt reduction and shareholder distributions, unlike peers.
• Despite the ambitious growth agenda, the financial risks remain balanced, as well as the margin of safety is there for conservative dividend investors.
• The Q2, 2024 earnings dynamics reveal a couple of interesting data points that, in my opinion, further enhance the investment thesis.
• In this article, I elaborate on Q2, 2024 earnings dynamics and explain why I have decided to increase my stake here.

Phonix_a/iStock via Getty Images

Enbridge ( NYSE: ENB ) is one of the few midstream players that has clearly prioritized growth over debt reduction and / or significantly increased distributions to the shareholders through massive share buybacks or dividend hikes.

For example, if we take a look at some of the closest peers, which also carry large capitalization levels such as Plains All American ( PAA ), MPLX LP ( MPLX ) and Enterprise Products Partners ( EPD ), we will notice a laser focus on bringing down the leverage, reducing maintenance CapEx and limiting the M&A maneuvers.

In ENB's case, we see, however, huge activity on the organic CapEx front and M&A transactions, which put a higher pressure on the balance sheet and disabled it from decreasing the leverage to levels that would be comparable to those of, say, MPLX, EPD and PAA.

As outlined in my previous article , there are a couple of nuances that help derisk this situation, such as utility-tilted investments and more than 95% of cash flows being contracted well into the future. These dynamics also warrant higher leverage ratios, which come in handy in the context of ENB's acquisitive strategy.

However, if we look at the total return performance chart below, we can see that while the results are positive, the market has not rewarded ENB for devising such a magnified growth agenda. On a past three-year basis, the gap is much wider, close to 60%.

Having said that, considering the data points in the Q2 2024 earnings report as well as the forthcoming benefits of the growth strategy, I have decided to increase my stake in this Company.

Let me explain.

Thesis review

In a nutshell, Q2, 2024 earnings report brought some very encouraging data points indicating benefits from the ambitious strategy. The year-over-year adjusted EBITDA generation expanded by 8%, which was partly driven by the organic growth factors (e.g., higher volumes and periodic escalators) and partly by the conducted M&A transactions. For example, this was the first full-year quarter, which includes the effects of the Gas Ohio acquisition and only partial effects from the Questar acquisition, which together have contributed $175 million in incremental adjusted EBITDA.

However, if we measure the results on a per-share basis, we will observe a relatively flat performance. The DCF per share result for Q2, 2024 has landed at $1.34, which is by $0.02 lower than in the comparable period last year. Theoretically, this could be viewed as a major negative and question whether ENB's strategy is really working.

Now, here are a couple of things to keep in mind:

• The only driver behind the registered decline in DCF per share result is higher share count, which introduces an immediate drag on per share metrics, whereas the execution of M&A and / or organic CapEx takes more time (especially to realize full benefits of these investments).
• On top of this, the financing costs have also increased for ENB because of the assumption of additional debt that comes along with funding M&A and / or growth projects. Just as in the previous bullet, the cash flows from the new investments have not yet been fully reflected due to some inherent lag effects from capital raising and first revenue recognition.
• Even after factoring in all of these headwinds, ENB has remained committed to delivering a DCF of $5.40 to $5.80 per share and reaffirmed near-term EBITDA growth of 7% to 9% through 2026.

Plus, going forward, ENB has clearly communicated that it does not intend to tap the public equity markets to fund the remaining ~ $21 billion of the already identified CapEx project program. In Q2, 2024 the Company also cancelled its ATM program, confirming that the additional equity issuance is not considered an option over the foreseeable future. For investors, this should secure increased predictability on the DCF per share growth.

If we turn to ENB's growth side, we will notice a huge project and M&A activity, all of which should help accommodate almost double-digit annual EBITDA growth through 2026.

For example, during Q2, Enbridge put online 130MW solar park that is backed by a long-term PPA with AT&T. In June, ENB closed the acquisition of Questar and Wexpro, where an integration process has already started. The Gray Oak pipeline was also successfully sanctioned during the quarter. Through one of ENB's joint venture vehicles, the Company made a final investment decision for the Blackcomb pipeline, with a capacity of up to 2.5 BCF.

ENB is clearly on a track to establishing itself as the largest natural gas utility in North America, which against the backdrop of increased demand for energy, positions the Company nicely for capturing incremental growth in a significant fashion.

In the recent earnings call , Gregory L. Ebel - President and CEO - gave a decent color on this opportunity and the relevant dynamics that should offer strong tailwinds for ENB:

Throughout our utility footprint, we are engaged in additional early stage discussions with data centers that we expect to translate into future growth. In gas transmission, our assets are ideally located and well connected. We are within 50 miles of 45% of all natural gas power generation in North America. In fact, in July, we achieved seven of our highest ever daily deliveries to U.S. power plants from our gas transmission system. We've had a range of customers in the U.S. Southeast that expressed interest in securing approximately 700 million cubic feet a day of transmission capacity to serve up to 5,000 megawatts of new gas power demand. In renewable power, our scale, financial and execution capabilities are differentiators. Data centers need base low power solutions such as natural gas to support the 24x7 energy demands of hyperscalers.

Speaking of the balance sheet, ENB remains in a solid position to both manage financial risk and execute on the remaining CapEx ambition. For instance, during the quarter a credit rating agency DBRS upgraded ENB's rating to A low and S&P removed its negative outlook on ENB's business. The fact that ENB is rated just one notch below the upper investment grade, while having such a notable growth program in place, is an indicative of the underlying cash flow durability. Plus, it implies that ENB's leverage range of 4.5x to 5.0x is fully acceptable given the relevant business and financial risk dynamics.

Finally, we have to appreciate the fact that despite the $21 billion CapEx plan that is still unfunded and is set to be covered through internal cash generation and incremental leverage (while holding the 4.5x - 5.0x leverage range), ENB plans to deploy roughly $2 billion per year towards either funding new opportunities or reducing debt load. This is a clear testament of the embedded margin of safety in ENB's business.

Having said that, we still have to be cognizant of the risks that are associated with such an aggressive growth strategy, where the current CapEx pipeline is as large as ~28% of ENB's market cap. The most important risk here is that in the process of CapEx project and M&A execution, the sector dynamics turn south (e.g., drastically decreased natural gas and oil production) wiping out the surplus FCF capacity and forcing ENB to either assume more debt or once again tap into the secondary equity market just to close the execution properly. An additional risk that is out there, is the potential consequences of existing debt rollovers, which currently yield below the market level.

Yet, in my opinion, in both instances the chances of these risks materializing are minimal. Even if the natural gas and oil production drops sharply, we have to remember that, in practice, most of such large-scale projects are usually funded and initiated only once there are sufficient offtake agreements in place that warrant the necessary cash flow predictability for both ENB and lenders. It might be so that the returns are low, but the risk of projects becoming dependent on external financing just to keep the cash flows neutral is very, very low. Similarly, looking at the current FOMC dot plot, which indicates a gradual decrease in SOFR, and considering the fact that ENB has a well-laddered debt maturity profile, the risk of rising interest costs introducing a huge constraint on ENB's financial capacity seems quite distant.

The bottom line

All in all, Q2 2024 earnings report confirms that ENB has been able to expand the business in a notable fashion, while keeping the financial risk balanced.

There are multiple projects realized that did not fully percolate through the current financials, but instead will help facilitate increased EBITDA generation going forward. The projected 7% to 9% annual EBITDA growth through 2026 in combination with notable amounts of surplus cash retention after covering the financing costs and dividends should warrant a favorable base from which ENB can capitalize on the significant growth opportunities that are associated with increasing energy demand.

In the meantime, the core business still remains highly defensive, with an investment grade balance sheet and the lion's share of the underlying cash generation being linked to long-term and inflation protected contracts.

So, these are the reasons why I have recently increased my stake in Enbridge.

This article was written by

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of ENB either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Recommended For You

About enb stock.

More on ENB

Related stocks.

Trending Analysis

Trending news.