Blueprints | = Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence

=20

Blueprints = for=20 Violence Prevention >> Model= =20 Programs >> BPP

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (BPP)

Program=20 Summary
Program=20 Background
Video=20 Segment
Materials
Contact=20 BPP

Program Summary

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program is a universal intervention = for the=20 reduction and prevention of bully/victim problems. The main arena for = the=20 program is the school, and school staff has the primary responsibility = for the=20 introduction and implementation of the program.

Program Targets:
Program targets are students in = elementary,=20 middle, and junior high schools. All students within a school = participate in=20 most aspects of the program. Additional individual interventions are = targeted at=20 students who are identified as bullies or victims of bullying.

Program Content:
Core components of the program are = implemented at=20 the school level, the class level, and the individual level:

School-wide components include the administration of an = anonymous=20 questionnaire to assess the nature and prevalence of bullying at each = school, a=20 school conference day to discuss bullying at school and plan = interventions,=20 formation of a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee to coordinate = all=20 aspects of school's program, and increased supervision of students at = "hot=20 spots" for bullying.

Classroom components include the establishment and = enforcement of=20 class rules against bullying, and holding regular class meetings with=20 students.

Individual components include interventions with children = identified=20 as bullies and victims, and discussions with parents of involved = students.=20 Teachers may be assisted in these efforts by counselors and school-based = mental=20 health professionals.

Program Outcomes:
The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program = has been=20 shown to result in:

a substantial reduction in boys' and girls' reports of bullying = and=20 victimization;
a significant reduction in students' reports of general antisocial = behavior such as vandalism, fighting, theft and truancy; and
significant improvements in the "social climate" of the class, as=20 reflected in students' reports of improved order and discipline, more = positive=20 social relationships, and a more positive attitude toward schoolwork = and=20 school.

Program Costs:
In addition to costs associated with = compensating an=20 on-site coordinator for the project, the costs (which vary with the size = of the=20 site) for program expenses consist of approximately $200 per school to = purchase=20 the questionnaire and computer program to assess bullying at the school, = plus=20 approximately $65 per teacher to cover costs of classroom materials.

The information for this fact sheet was excerpted from:

Olweus, D., Limber, S. & Mihalic, S.F. (1999). B= ullying=20 Prevention Program: Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book = Nine.=20 Blueprints for Violence Prevention Series (D.S. Elliott, Series Editor). = Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute = of=20 Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

1999 (Updated 08/2006)

PDF Version of Fact Sheet

Program Background

An Historical Thumbnail Sketch
Bullying among school children is = no doubt=20 a very old phenomenon. The fact that some children are frequently and=20 systematically harassed and attacked by other children has been = described in=20 literary works, and many adults have personal experiences of it from = their own=20 school days. Though many are acquainted with the "bully/victim problem," = it was=20 not until fairly recently=E2=80=94in the early 1970s=E2=80=94that = efforts were made to=20 systematically study it. For a number of years, these attempts were = largely=20 confined to Scandinavia. More recently, however, bullying among school = children=20 has received considerable public and research attention in countries = such as=20 England, Scotland, Ireland, Japan, Germany, Australia, Canada, and the = United=20 States.

A strong societal interest in bully/victim problems began in Sweden = in the=20 late 1960s and early 1970s, and the issue quickly spread to the other=20 Scandinavian countries. In Norway, for example, bully/victim problems = received=20 attention from the mass media and was of great concern to teachers and = parents=20 for a number of years. At first, the school authorities did not = officially=20 address the phenomenon, but 15 years ago, a marked change took place. In = late=20 1982, a newspaper reported that three 10-14 year old boys from the = northern part=20 of Norway had committed suicide, in all probability as a consequence of = severe=20 bullying by peers. This event generated considerable uneasiness in the = mass=20 media and general public, and eventually it triggered a chain of = reactions which=20 ultimately resulted in a nationwide campaign against bully/victim = problems in=20 Norwegian primary and junior high schools, launched by the Ministry of = Education=20 in the fall of 1983.

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program described in this Blueprint = was=20 developed, refined, and systematically evaluated in an intervention = project=20 involving 2,500 children in 42 schools from the city of Bergen, Norway, = during=20 the two-year period from 1983 through 1985 (Olweus, 1991; 1993a; 1994). = There=20 have been several recent replications of the program, both within Norway = and in=20 several other countries, including the United States. Whitney and = colleagues=20 (Whitney, Rivers, Smith, & Sharp, 1994) implemented and evaluated = the=20 effectiveness of the program in 16 primary and 7 secondary schools in = Sheffield,=20 England. Hanewinkel and Knaack (1997) tested the Olweus Bullying = Prevention=20 Program among approximately 6,400 3rd-9th graders in Schleswig-Holstein, = Germany. The first systematic evaluation of the program within the = United States=20 was conducted by Melton and colleagues (Melton et al., 1998) and = involved 6,388=20 elementary and middle school children from non-metropolitan communities = in South=20 Carolina. Most recently, a new large-scale intervention project = involving 3,200=20 students in 30 schools was initiated in Bergen, Norway. Although all of = the=20 replications were true to the goals and approach of the original = Norwegian=20 model, several projects (most notably the Sheffield and South Carolina=20 initiatives) made several additions and modifications to the model in = order to=20 meet the perceived needs of the particular populations. These = replication=20 projects are described in detail in Chapter 4.

What is Bullying?
Bullying or victimization can be generally = defined in=20 the following way: A student is being bullied or victimized when he or = she is=20 exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of = one or=20 more other students. Such negative actions include intentionally = inflicting, or=20 attempting to inflict, injury or discomfort upon another. These = behaviors can be=20 carried out physically (e.g., hitting, kicking, pushing, choking), = verbally=20 (e.g., by calling names, threatening, taunting, malicious teasing, = spreading=20 nasty rumors), or in other ways, such as making faces or obscene = gestures, or=20 intentional exclusion from a group. The latter (usually more subtle) = forms are=20 usually termed "indirect bullying," whereas "direct bullying" comprises=20 behaviors that represent relatively open (usually verbal or physical) = attack on=20 the victim.

In order to be considered bullying, there should also be an imbalance = in=20 power or strength (an asymmetric power relationship). In other words, = students=20 who are exposed to the negative actions generally have difficulty in = defending=20 themselves and are somewhat helpless against the student or students who = harass.=20 It is not considered bullying when two students of approximately the = same=20 physical or psychological power are in conflict, nor is friendly or = playful=20 teasing considered bullying. However, repeated degrading and malicious = teasing=20 which is continued despite clear signs of distress and opposition on the = part of=20 the target does qualify as bullying.

In the context of school bullying, the victim is usually a single = student,=20 who is generally harassed by a group of two or three students, often = with a=20 "negative leader." A considerable proportion of the victims, 20-40 = percent,=20 report, however, that they are mainly bullied by a single student.

Bullying is thus characterized by the following three criteria: (a) = it is=20 aggressive behavior or intentional "harmdoing;" (b) it is carried out = repeatedly=20 and over time; and (c) it occurs within an interpersonal relationship=20 characterized by an imbalance of power. One might add that bullying = behavior=20 often occurs without apparent provocation. These characteristics clearly = suggest=20 that bullying can be considered a form of abuse: peer abuse. What sets = it apart=20 from other forms of abuse such as child or domestic abuse is the context = in=20 which it occurs and the relationship of the interacting parties.

The following newspaper clippings illustrate two forms of bullying: =

For two years, Johnny, a quiet 13 year-old, was a human plaything for = some of=20 his classmates. The teenagers badgered Johnny for money, forced him to = swallow=20 weeds and drink milk mixed with detergent, beat him up in the rest room, = tied a=20 string around his neck, and led him around as a "pet." When Johnny's = torturers=20 were asked about the bullying, they said they pursued their victim = because "it=20 was fun."

Having a child who is bullied means seeing your child become an = outcast,=20 frozen out and completely isolated. But most of what you read is about = bullies=20 and victims who are boys. Bullying is to be found amongst girls, but it = is not=20 so obvious from the outside. It is not usually a matter of damaged = clothes or=20 damaged arms and legs. Bullying amongst girls bypasses physical pain and = goes=20 right into the soul. Bullying amongst girls is less concrete or=20 visible.

How can I as a mother accuse the girls bullying my 14-year-old = daughter=20 for having stopped phoning, for not saying hello, for speaking badly of = her=20 behind her back, for changing places in the classroom, for always = commenting on=20 and making fun of what she says, etc. Nothing they do (or don't do) is = against=20 the rules.

As a mother, I have a great sense of grief and helplessness in = the face=20 of what my daughter has to go through. In desperation I have tried to = talk to=20 the mothers of two of my daughter's previous friends. It wasn't = particularly=20 helpful; some parents just can't accept that their children are = criticized by=20 outsiders. They defend their children at any cost, no matter how = ridiculous this=20 may be.

I wouldn't wish the grief and helplessness I feel on any parents, = but I=20 wish you and your children could actually feel just for a short time = what my=20 daughter and our family have had to live with for the last six months or = so.=20 Then perhaps you would understand.

=E2=80=94Despairing mother

=20

Prevalence of Bullying
According to more than 150,000 Norwegian = and=20 Swedish students who completed the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire, 15 = percent=20 (1 out of 7) of the students in Norwegian or Swedish elementary and = lower=20 secondary/junior high schools (grades 1-9, roughly corresponding to ages = 7 -16)=20 are involved in bully/victim problems. Approximately 9 percent are = victims and 7=20 percent bullied other students (see Figures 1 and 2). A relatively small = percentage of the students are both victim and bully (1.5 percent of the = total=20 student population, or 17 percent of the victims). Five percent of the = students=20 are involved in more frequent bullying problems (as bullies or victims = or=20 bully/victim), occurring once a week or more frequently. As the = prevalence=20 questions in the Questionnaire typically refer to a limited time period = of three=20 to five months, there is little doubt that the figures presented = actually=20 underestimate the number of students involved in such problems during a = whole=20 year.

These figures emphasize that bullying is a considerable problem in = Norwegian=20 and Swedish schools, affecting a very large number of students. = Moreover, data=20 collected in many other countries (primarily collected with the Olweus=20 Bully/Victim Questionnaire), including the United States, clearly = indicate that=20 these problems are not limited to Scandinavia. In fact, the prevalence = rates in=20 these countries are as high, if not higher, than those reported in = Scandinavia.=20

For example, in a recent large-scale study (Melton et al., 1998) of = more than=20 6,000 middle school students from grades 4 through 6 in rural South = Carolina, 23=20 percent reported that they had been bullied by other students "several = times" or=20 more frequently during the past three months. Approximately 20 percent = reported=20 that they had bullied other students with the same frequency (see = Figures 3 and=20 4).

It should be emphasized, however, that comparisons of prevalence = figures from=20 different countries must be made with considerable caution. In spite of = the fact=20 that the Questionnaire gives a fairly detailed definition of bullying = (written=20 in simple language), it is likely that prevalence rates will be affected = by the=20 students' familiarity with the concept of bullying, the degree of public = attention to the phenomenon and similar factors. At the same time, it = should be=20 underscored that the general pattern of findings and interrelationships, = such as=20 gender and age trends, has been found to be fairly similar across = countries and=20 cultures, suggesting that the existence of a phenomenon has some = relatively=20 universal characteristics.

In terms of gender differences, boys are much more likely to bully = others=20 than are girls, and a relatively large percentage of girls report that = they are=20 bullied mainly by boys. Also, a slightly higher percentage of boys = report being=20 victims of bullying. Although direct bullying is a greater problem among = boys,=20 bullying also occurs among girls. Girls are less apt to use physical = means of=20 bullying; instead, they use more subtle and indirect ways of harassment = such as=20 slandering, spreading rumors, intentionally excluding others from the = group, and=20 manipulating friendship relations (e.g., depriving a girl of her "best = friend").=20 In addition, these forms of bullying may be more difficult for adults to = detect.=20

Age trends in bullying also exist. Generally, younger and weaker = students are=20 more often exposed to bullying. Although most incidents occur among = students in=20 the same grade, a good deal of bullying is also carried out by older = students=20 towards younger ones. (More details about bullying in different grades = and among=20 boys and girls are given in, Olweus, 1993a; Melton, et al, 1998).

Most bullying occurs on the playground or in the classroom (in = Norway, 65=20 percent and 38 percent, respectively; in the U.S., 26 percent and 29 = percent,=20 respectively), but these behaviors also occur in hallways/corridors, the = gymnasium, the locker room, and the bathroom. Although a substantial = portion of=20 students are bullied on their way to and from the school, this = percentage is=20 usually considerably lower than the percentage being bullied at school. =

Why Focus on Bully/Victim Problems?

There are several key reasons for examining and attempting to = counteract=20 bully/victim problems in school relating to:

The short-term effects on the victims
The long-term effects on the victims
The long-term effects on the bullies, if the bullying behavior = goes=20 unchecked
School social climate

Each of these points is elaborated below.

Short-term Effects on Victims. In addition to being painful and = humiliating,=20 bullying experiences make victims unhappy, distressed, and confused. = These=20 students tend to lose self-esteem and become anxious and insecure. = Moreover,=20 victims may suffer physical injury, their concentration and learning may = be=20 affected, and they may refuse to go to school. They may tend to feel = stupid,=20 ashamed and unattractive, and gradually begin to view themselves as = failures.=20 Many of the victims develop psychosomatic symptoms such as headaches and = stomach=20 pains. In some cases, the victims' devaluation of themselves becomes so=20 overwhelming that they see suicide as the only possible solution.

Long-term Effects on Victims. Persistent bullying during the school = years may=20 also have long-term negative effects on the victims many years beyond = school=20 (Olweus, 1993b). As young adults (age 23), former victims (who were = bullied=20 primarily in grades six through nine) tended to be more depressed and = had poorer=20 self-esteem than their nonvictimized peers. The pattern of results = suggested=20 that earlier, persistent bullying can leave many scars. Thus, it is = obviously=20 crucial to stop bullying in school in order to reduce and prevent its = negative,=20 short and long-term consequences.

Long-term Effects on Bullies. Bullying is not just isolated behavior = on the=20 part of its perpetrators; instead, it is part of a more generally = antisocial and=20 rule-breaking (conduct-disordered) behavior pattern. As our research has = shown,=20 students (particularly boys) who bully others are especially likely to = engage in=20 other antisocial/delinquent behaviors such as vandalism, shoplifting, = truancy=20 and frequent drug use. We have also found that this antisocial behavior = pattern=20 often continues into young adulthood. Approximately 60 percent of boys = who were=20 characterized as bullies in grades 6-9 (on the basis of both teacher = nominations=20 and peer ratings) had been convicted of at least one officially = registered crime=20 by the age of 24, compared to 23 percent of boys who were not = characterized as=20 bullies. Even more dramatic, as many as 35-40 percent of the former = bullies had=20 three or more convictions by this age, while this was true of only 10 = percent of=20 the control boys (those who were neither bullies nor victims in grades = 6-9).=20 Thus, as young adults, the former school bullies had a fourfold increase = in the=20 level of relatively serious, recidivist criminality as documented in = official=20 crime records (Olweus, 1993a). With regard to (potential) bullies, then, = it is=20 important to try to stop their development along an antisocial pathway = and to=20 redirect it in a more prosocial direction.

School Social Climate. In addition, there is a connection between the = level=20 of bully/victim problems in a classroom or school and aspects of the = social=20 climate of the unit concerned. In classrooms or schools with high levels = of=20 bullying problems, students tend to feel less safe and are less = satisfied with=20 school life. This implies that, for many students, and particularly for = the=20 victims, the classroom is no longer a place of concentrated work and = learning.=20

A classroom or school climate characterized by bully/victim problems = may have=20 other negative effects. It is natural to assume that most students in a=20 classroom or a school are affected by a bully/victim problem in some = way. For=20 example, if a "neutral" student observes bullying behavior going = unchecked,=20 possibly with open or tacit support from other students or even the = teacher,=20 this will teach him or her to regard bullying behavior as acceptable. = Over time,=20 such episodes can result in harsher, less empathetic social climates = which=20 foster new bullying episodes and other problems. Conversely, classrooms = or=20 schools with a friendly and positive social climate are likely to elicit = and=20 encourage different, more appropriate reaction patterns in their = students.=20 Accordingly, when counteracting bullying, it is important to involve the = students surrounding the bully/ies and the victim and affect their views = regarding bullying behavior. The various roles and related attitudes = that other=20 students in the class or school may adopt regarding bully/victim = problems are=20 portrayed in the "bullying circle," shown in Figure 5.

Theoretical Rationale/Conceptual Framework

Common Myths About Bullying
In the public debate, several = hypotheses=20 about the causes of bully/victim problems have been advanced. Even = though these=20 have failed to receive support in controlled, empirical research, they = are still=20 quite popular, and it is important to briefly discuss and dispel some of = these=20 myths.

One assumption is that bully/victim problems are, in part, a = consequence of=20 large classes and/or schools: the larger the class or the school, the = higher the=20 level of bully/victim problems. Closer analysis of this hypothesis, = using the=20 Norwegian survey data from more than 700 schools and several thousand = classes=20 (with great variations in size) reveals that the size of the class or = the school=20 is of negligible importance for the relative frequency or level of = bully/victim=20 problems (Olweus, 1993a). Moreover, a large-scale Irish study has found = an=20 inverse relationship: the larger the class or the school, the lower the = level of=20 bully/victim problems (e.g., O'Moore, Kirkhan, & Smith, 1997).

Second, it has been commonly maintained that bullying is a result of=20 competition and striving for grades in school. More specifically, it has = been=20 argued that the aggressive behavior of the bullies toward their = environment can=20 be explained as a reaction to failures and frustrations in school. This=20 hypothesis has also failed to receive support from detailed analyses of=20 longitudinal data. Though there was an association (of moderate = magnitude)=20 between aggressive behavior and (poor) grades, no evidence suggests that = aggressive behavior is a consequence of poor grades and failure in = school=20 (Olweus, 1983).

Third, a widely held view, especially among students, is that = external=20 deviations cause victimizations. It is argued that students who are fat, = red-haired, wear glasses, speak with an unusual dialect, or have a = different=20 ethnic background, for example, are particularly likely to become = victims of=20 bullying. This hypothesis received no support in empirical analyses in = several=20 European studies (e.g., Junger, 1990; Olweus, 1978), and suggests that = external=20 deviations play a much smaller role in the origin of bully/victim = problems than=20 generally assumed. The relationship between ethnic background and = victimization=20 has not been closely examined in the United States, however. Given the = greater=20 ethnic heterogeneity of the U.S., it is possible that ethnic background = may be=20 related to victimization.

It may be added that in the case of Scandinavian students, being a = bully or a=20 victim is unrelated to the socioeconomic conditions of the student's = family such=20 as parental education or income. Accordingly, the common belief that = bullying=20 behavior is more prevalent in lower social classes can be considered a = myth as=20 regards Scandinavia. However, this hypothesis has not yet been well = investigated=20 in large-scale North-American studies. Given the greater socioeconomic=20 heterogeneity of the U.S., it is possible that there may be such link, = although=20 it is likely to be weak.

Causes of Bullying
All of these assumptions or hypotheses have = failed to=20 receive support from empirical data. As a result, one must look for = other=20 factors to determine the (partial) origins of these problems. In this = context,=20 it is important to realize that the search for causes must be conducted = at=20 different levels of analyses, including the individual, the classroom, = and=20 school levels. The research evidence collected to date clearly suggests = that=20 personality characteristics and typical reaction patterns, in = combination with=20 physical strength or weakness in the case of boys, are quite important = for the=20 development of these problems in individual students (making them more = likely to=20 become victims or bullies). At the same time, environmental factors such = as the=20 teachers' attitudes, routines, and behaviors play a major role in = determining=20 the extent to which the problems will manifest themselves in a larger = unit such=20 as the classroom or the school. In addition, = environmental-organizational=20 factors such as the way in which break periods are arranged, may be of = some=20 importance.

Basic Principles
Given the considerable stability of aggressive = behavior=20 over time and the generally low or modest success in reducing such = behavior with=20 a number of individual-oriented approaches, an important premise of the = Olweus=20 Bullying Prevention Program is that bullying behavior can be checked and = redirected into a more prosocial direction through a systematic = restructuring of=20 the social environment. Among other outcomes, this restructuring is = expected to=20 result in fewer opportunities for bullying behavior and fewer or smaller = rewards=20 (e.g., in the form of prestige or peer support) for displaying such = behavior.=20 More specifically, the program aims to effect systematic changes of the=20 "opportunity" and "reward structures" for bullying and similar behavior = in the=20 school and other relevant contexts. In addition, positive, friendly, and = prosocial behaviors are encouraged and rewarded.

Generally, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program is built around a = limited=20 set of key principles and findings derived chiefly from research on the=20 development and modification of problem behaviors, particularly = aggressive=20 behavior. More specifically, the program strives to develop a school = (and=20 ideally, a home) environment:

characterized by warmth, positive interest, and involvement by = adults;=20
firm limits to unacceptable behavior;
where non-hostile, nonphysical negative consequences are = consistently=20 applied in cases of violations of rules and other unacceptable = behaviors; and,=20
where adults act as authorities and positive role models. =

The first three principles represent the antithesis of child-rearing=20 dimensions that research has linked to the development of aggressive = reaction=20 patterns: negativism on the part of the primary caretaker, general=20 permissiveness, lack of clear limits, and use of power-assertive methods = such as=20 spanking and violent verbal outbursts. The fourth principle encourages = adults to=20 emulate an authoritative (not authoritarian) adult-child interaction = model in=20 which they take responsibility for the students' total situation, = including both=20 academic learning and social relationships in school.

A basic premise of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program is that = most=20 efforts to create a better school environment must be initiated and = driven by=20 the adults at school. However, a number of the program measures (below) = include=20 the students in these efforts. Moreover, the students' role in changing = the=20 normative context of the school will gradually increase in importance as = the=20 program evolves.

Brief Description of Intervention

General Prerequisites: Awareness and Involvement
Adult behavior = is=20 crucial to the success of the Bullying Prevention Program, and in order = to=20 achieve the program's goals the following two conditions must be met. = First, the=20 adults at school and, to some degree, at home must become aware of the = extent of=20 bully/victim problems in their own school. Secondly, the adults must = engage=20 themselves, with some degree of seriousness, in changing the situation. = Without=20 adults' acknowledgment of schools' existing bully/victim problems and a = clear=20 commitment by a majority of the school staff to participate actively in = the=20 anti-bullying efforts, the program is likely to have limited success.=20 Administration of the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire is usually an = effective=20 way to achieve awareness and involvement. In general, staff members will = be more=20 inclined to initiate countermeasures if they realize the number of = students in=20 their own school who are directly involved in bully/victim problems and = learn=20 how these problems affect students.

Interventions at the School, Class, and Individual Levels
The = principles=20 described above have been translated into a number of specific measures, = or=20 interventions, that are used at the school, class, and individual = levels, and=20 taking action at all of these levels is vital to counteract bully/victim = situations. In this way, students will be exposed to consistent = messages, from=20 different persons/sources and in different contexts, regarding the = school's=20 views of and attitudes toward bullying. All of the components are very=20 important; however, the focus has been to highlight adult involvement = because=20 adults are the key implementors of the program. The basic message of the = program=20 is successfully demonstrated through all the components: = Bullying is not=20 accepted in our class/school, and we will see to it that it comes to an=20 end.

Table 1 presents an overview of the components that are considered, = on the=20 basis of both statistical analyses and our experience with the program, = to be=20 particularly important in any implementation of the Bullying Prevention = program.=20

School Level. Core interventions at the school level include = administration=20 of the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire to assess the nature and = prevalence of=20 bullying at each school, a school conference day/meeting, formation of a = Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee, and the development of a = coordinated=20 system to supervise students during break periods. The school conference = day=20 provides an opportunity for program consultants and school personnel to = review=20 results of the survey, discuss elements of the Olweus Bullying = Prevention=20 Program, and make specific plans for implementing the program during the = upcoming school year. Ongoing coordination of the school's efforts will = be=20 guided by a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee, which may = include a=20 school administrator, a teacher representative from each grade, a = guidance=20 counselor and/or a school-based mental health professional, and parent = and=20 student representatives. The final core component, increasing teacher=20 supervision of students in locations where bullying occurs most = frequently at=20 school, can be implemented after the Questionnaire has identified = particular=20 "hot spots" within a school, which commonly include the playground, = classroom,=20 and lunchroom.

Classroom Level. Core program interventions at the classroom level = include=20 establishing and enforcing specific rules against bullying, as well as = holding=20 regular classroom meetings with students to discuss various aspects of = bullying=20 and related antisocial behaviors and adherence to agreed upon classroom = rules.=20 Classroom meetings also are used to engage students in a variety of = activities=20 (e.g., role playing, writing, and small-group discussions) through which = they=20 gain a better appreciation of the harm caused by bullying and learn = strategies=20 to combat it. Meetings with parents to foster their active involvement = are=20 considered highly desirable components both at the classroom and the = school=20 levels.

Individual Level. Additional core components of the program involve=20 interventions with individual bullies (or small groups of bullies), = victims, and=20 their parents to both ensure that bullying behaviors cease and that = victims=20 receive necessary support to avoid future bullying.

In order to foster the implementation and execution, the program = emphasizes=20 using the existing social environment: teachers and other school = personnel,=20 students, and parents. Thus, non-mental health professionals play a = major role=20 in the desired restructuring of the social environment. However, experts = such as=20 school mental health professionals, guidance counselors, and social = workers also=20 serve important functions as planners and coordinators, in counseling = and=20 consulting with the school, and in possibly handling more serious cases. =

Evidence of Program Effectiveness

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program has been implemented in a = variety of=20 cultures (e.g, Bergen, Norway; the southeastern United States; = Sheffield,=20 England; and the state of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany) and school = contexts=20 (elementary, middle, and junior high schools). The first and most = comprehensive=20 evaluation was conducted with 2,500 students from elementary and junior = high=20 schools in Bergen, Norway, between 1983 and 1985. Results from this=20 quasi-experimental study revealed substantial reductions (typically by = 50=20 percent or more) in the frequency with which students reported being = bullied and=20 bullying others. Roughly similar results were obtained using peer and = teacher=20 ratings of levels of bully/victim problems. Furthermore, there were = substantial=20 reductions in students' reports of participation in general antisocial = behaviors=20 such as vandalism, fighting, theft, and truancy. Improvements were also = observed=20 in the social climate of classrooms. Students reported better order and=20 discipline at school, more positive social relationships, and more = positive=20 attitudes toward schoolwork and school. The effects of the program = appeared to=20 be cumulative: for some of the outcome variables studied, the program = effects=20 were more marked after 20 months than after 8 months of intervention. = Finally, a=20 "dosage-response" relationship was documented: those classrooms that had = implemented certain essential components of the intervention program = (including=20 establishment of classroom rules against bullying and use of regular = classroom=20 meetings) showed larger reductions in bully/victim problems than those=20 classrooms that implemented fewer components.

Evaluations of programs in the United States, England, Germany, and a = subsequent study in Bergen, Norway, have produced somewhat more modest = but still=20 quite positive findings. For example, the U.S. study of middle school = students=20 revealed significant decreases in students' self-reports of bullying in = the=20 intervention schools compared to control schools. Moreover, the program = appeared=20 to slow the natural rate of increase in students' engagement in several = other=20 antisocial behaviors.

The information for this fact sheet was excerpted from:

Olweus, D., Limber, S. & Mihalic, S.F. (1999). Blueprints for = Violence=20 Prevention, Book Nine: Bullying Prevention Program. Boulder, CO: Center = for the=20 Study and Prevention of Violence.

Video Segment

Contact BPP

OLWEUS BULLYING PREVENTION PROGRAM (BPP)

For general program information, contact:

Marlene Snyder , Ph.D.
Institute on Family and Neighborhood=20 Life
Clemson University
158 Poole Agricultural = Center
Clemson, SC=20 29634
Phone: (864) 710-4562
Fax: (864) 656-6281
Email: nobully@clemson.edu =
Websites: http://www.clemson.edu/olweus/, http://www.olweus.org/

For information about program research, = contact:

Dan Olweus, Ph.D.
University of Bergen
Research Center for = Health Promotion (HEMIL)
Christies gt. 13, N-5015
Bergen,=20 Norway
Phone: 47-55-58-23-27
Fax: 47-55-58-84-22
Email: = olweus@psych.uib.no
Website: = http://www.olweus.org/

For other program materials, contact:

Hazelden Publishing and Educational Services
15251 Pleasant = Valley=20 Road
P.O. Box 176
Center City, MN = 55012-0176
Phone: (800)=20 328-9000 or (651) 213-4200
Fax: (651) 213-4590
Email: customersupport@hazelden.org= =20
Website: www.hazelden.org/web/go/ol= weus=20

For program implementation materials, please see our implementation=20 resources.