6 Reed

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL VOLUME 21, NUMBER 1, 2007--2008

YOUTH BEHAVIOR AND BULLYING MANAGEMENT: IMPLICATIONS FOR PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION Carrie Butler Dianne Reed Alice Fisher Megan Gray Sam Houston State University ABSTRACT The purpose of our study was to determine the prevalence and source of bullying in schools and to propose multi-institutional prevention and intervention strategies for managing this behavior. The research was based on both qualitative and quantitative information obtained from a survey administered to junior and senior high school students in a southeast Texas school district. The self-report survey was designed to identify specific bullying incidences experienced by the students. Reducing bullying in schools is an important concern of parents, educators, and law enforcement. The findings of our study indicated that adolescents may engage in bullying behavior due to influences encountered in schools, home environments, and interaction with peer groups. In our study, the implications regarding the reduction of bullying behaviors by adolescents are discussed in terms of the impact of family involvement and after school and community programs which include capable adults who will hold individuals accountable for their actions.

B

ullying has become more pervasive and sparks violence in schools and communities. In the last two decades, research indicated that behaviors historically considered “rites of passage” and “a bit of fun” has emerged as threats to school safety, affecting the psychological and physical health of children (Stockdale, Hangadumanbo, Duys, Larson, & Sarvela, 2002). According to the 81

82

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHHD] (2001), 17 percent of school age children and teenagers reported being bullied on a regular basis and 19 percent of youths bully others just as frequently. Annually, 1.6 million youth are bullied, and 1.7 young people bully others (Snyder, 2001). While it is unclear whether bullying is at an all-time high or the recent measurement of it has uncovered cases that have always existed, fear of school and community violence and the carrying of weapons by juveniles in response to this threat remains a persistent problem (Stockdale, et al., 2002). Efforts to investigate the prevalence and nature of bullying are required so that school personnel, parents, and other community supervisors can identify the early warning signs of bullying and intervene to end these destructive behaviors. The purpose of our study was to determine the prevalence and source of bullying in the selected schools and to propose multiinstitutional prevention and intervention strategies for managing this behavior. Bullies must be recognized as delinquents and the characteristics which influence their deviant behavior must be identified in order for effective strategies to be designed and implemented in combating this behavior. Types of Bullying Bullying can manifest in various forms; however, most definitions of bullying reveal a power differential between the victim and the bully, with the bully assuming a position of authority (Snyder, 2001). While not mutually exclusive, the forms of bullying can be physical, verbal, and/or emotional. A victim who experiences physical and verbal bullying, for example, will inevitably suffer emotionally. Physical bullying for both males and females includes hitting, pushing, kicking, and spitting (Snyder, 2001). Verbal and emotional bullying includes spreading rumors, teasing, threatening, isolating others from peers, and intimidating the victim. Bullying can be similar

Carrie Butler, Dianne Reed, Alice Fisher & Megan Gray

83

for both males and females; however, females are more likely to engage in emotional and manipulative types of bullying (Fassler, 2005). Bullying interferes with learning and prosocial development. It is associated with other delinquent behaviors, such as destroying property; stealing, truancy, and drug abuse (Snyder, 2001)). Bullying behavior also has long-term effects; victims suffer emotional consequences, while the bully continues down the path toward criminality. Olweus and Limber (1999) reported that 60 percent of adolescent male bullies were convicted of crimes as adults. In addition, 40 percent of these former bullies had at least three or more convictions by early adulthood. Bullying impacts both the victim and offender, creating a range of psychological problems from loneliness, inadequate social relationships, and isolation. Victims are more likely than the bullies to experience humiliation, low self-esteem, anxiety, school phobia, and insecurity (Snyder, 2001; Fassler, 2005). Bullying Risk Factors Family and peer risk factors often serve as indicators for future bullying behaviors. Family risk factors include overly harsh or lenient discipline, lack of supervision, parental bullying, and lack of parental affection (National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center, 2005). Youths who exhibit bullying behaviors are also more likely to associate with peers who fight, skip school, carry weapons, and commit other crimes National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHHD] (2003). Bullies exhibit both physical and verbal aggressive behavior while in a school environment, in addition to being less cooperative and less prosocial (Perren & Alsaker, 2006). Because they are the main

84

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

locality for bullying behavior, schools are the ideal place to prevent and stop such abuse. Social Systems Perspectives Systems theory outlines the body of group deviance literature into an understandable whole.While much of bullying behavior may be defined in systemic terms, other questions remain with respect to effective intervention and prevention of the behavior. Control theories, a component of micro-objectivist theories (Ward, Carter, & Perrin, 1994), suggest that individuals engage in deviant behavior as a result of weakening social controls. Social control theory hypothesizes that when controls such as parents, schools, and other social institutions fail to hold people accountable for their deviant actions; they are more likely to engage in delinquency. This theory may provide the most appropriate framework in which to measure the effects of mediating systemic influences in after school programs that serve to deter young people from delinquency. J. F. Longres (1994) defined social control as: The processes through which a person’s participation in a system is limited or constrained. Social control may be implemented through positive or negative means. Often, systems of reward are devised to assure compliance with group expectations (Longres, p. 44) Social controls that lead to conformance of group expectations facilitate positive peer socialization (Ward, et al., 1994). These forms of social control can be identified as police visibility on school premises, presence of capable adults during after school programs, accountability of behavior through adult supervision, and parental reinforcement of negative consequences for deviant conduct. Social controls that influence youth on a daily basis may either promote or deter group delinquency, depending on the consistency of controls. Weak social controls in after school and community

Carrie Butler, Dianne Reed, Alice Fisher & Megan Gray

85

programs may serve to promote delinquency, allowing students to coalesce into negative peer groups (Butler & Watkins, 2006). Similarly, delinquency tolerated in these programs may facilitate gang activities (Butler & Watkins, 2006). Consistent with the notion that mediating systemic influences can serve as effective prevention and intervention methods, social controls that exist in the mediating systemic level may deter delinquency within those existing institutions. A Case Study Bullying is prevalent in many schools throughout the United States (Nansel, Overpeck, Pilla, Ruan, Simons-Morton, & Scheidt, 2001). This study focused on a school district in southeast Texas with reports of bullying in junior and senior high schools (grades 7th through 12th). School administrators conducted needs assessments on these campuses to identify the prevalence of bullying and specific strategies effective in reducing bullying and other delinquent activities. These schools participated in the Partners of Safe Schools Initiative (PSSI). Partners of Safe Schools Initiative (PSSI), a coalition of school districts and community youth agencies in southeast Texas has reported concerns regarding bullying behavior that contribute to school and community juvenile crime (Texas Commission on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, 2003). The objective of PSSI was to target funding for prevention and intervention services for at-risk youth and their families in an effort to reduce bullying and related juvenile delinquency. Method Participants The population for our study was 1211 students in grades 7-12 that attended the selected junior high and high schools. Thirty-four percent of the students who attended the schools were economically

86

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

disadvantaged. The ethnicities of the participants for our study were 77.5% Caucasian, 6.7% Hispanic, 1.2% Asian American, 2.3% American Indian, and 3.4% of the students identified as other. The male and female participants in our study were 46.7% female and 52.8% male. The findings for our study are based on participants’ responses to specific questions on a self-report survey. Instrumentation and Procedures Self-report measures are widely used in the social sciences to help control for unreported crime to the police. Although self-report measures run the risk of inflated or deflated responses to items on bullying and related delinquency, they provide one of the best means of gaining information from an adolescent population (Esbensen & Osgood, 1997). Therefore, to determine the prevalence and source of bullying in the selected schools and to propose multi-institutional prevention and intervention strategies for managing this behavior, all students in grades 7-12 were administered a self-report survey. The survey consisted of 103 items and the participants were given one class period to complete the survey. We collaborated with school district personnel to develop the 103 item survey, which included items from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Survey [NICHHD] (1998). The participants responded to questions regarding bullying and other types of delinquent behaviors exhibited on school premises and in the community. They also responded to questions concerning school and community interventions, which are designed to deter delinquent behavior. Classroom teachers distributed the survey. Although the survey administration procedure produced a threat to the validity of the results, teachers read aloud a cover sheet that explained confidentiality, the importance of honest student responses, and a guarantee of student anonymity in an effort to promote accurate and honest responses. The completed surveys were immediately placed in covered boxes and given to selected school district personnel for safe

Carrie Butler, Dianne Reed, Alice Fisher & Megan Gray

87

keeping in a locked office. The school district personnel collected a total of 1211surveys from classroom teachers whose students participated in the study; the surveys were then submitted to us. Data Analysis Violence. On the survey, violence was defined as actions that harm other people or have the potential to harm other people. Violence specifically included the variable of physical fighting. The violence variable was categorized into “yes” or “no” responses. A “yes” response from students indicated that the students had experienced a violent incident and a “no” response indicated that the students had not experienced a violent incident. Within a 12-month period, 454 (38%) of the participants reported getting into a physical fight. Victimization. Victimization was included in the survey to determine how students perceived school safety. Victimization referred to the mistreating, bullying, and threatening of students by other students. Threatening remarks and bullying behaviors within the last 12 months included incidences on the way to and from school and on school property. Victimization variables were categorized into “yes” or “no” responses. One hundred six of the participants (9%) reported feeling threatened by others going to and from school, and 353 (29%) of students felt that they had been bullied at school. Bivariate analyses indicated that participants who reported being bullied at school also reported being more likely to use drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and illegitimately use of prescription drugs (Table 1). Interestingly, alcohol use was not a significant variable for bullying victims; victims were more likely to use the illicit substances. They were also more likely to vandalize property (destroy property that did not belong to them) and to skip school (Table 1). Within Table 1, only alcohol use and the stealing of property were not significant. Although males were significantly more

88

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

likely to be victims of bullying, both male and female bullying victims were significantly more likely to engage in delinquent activities. Participants were asked to rank strategies that they perceived to be most effective in curtailing drug use, vandalism, stealing, fighting, and skipping school. On a scale of 1 to 6 (1 being least effective to 6 being most effective), participants rank-ordered strategies of talking to a counselor, harsher consequences for behavior, more consistent discipline, encouragement by teachers/principals, and after school activities. The strategies were listed for three categories: drug use, vandalism/violence/weapons, and truancy. Rankings of 5 and 6 were identified as effective strategies. For all three categories, students indicated that harsher consequences for behavior and more consistent discipline were the most effective strategies to curtail unwanted behaviors, followed by after school activities (Table 2). Clearly, students at these schools perceived accountability for their actions and more involvement in prosocial activities to be important prevention and intervention strategies. The findings of this study are limited because they reflect only responses from participants at the selected schools. However, the implications for bullying are apparent: bullying behavior should not go unnoticed, and consequences for these actions should be clear. Prevention and Intervention Specific strategies for the prevention and intervention of bullying behaviors are recommended for school personnel. Seeking information about the episode(s) and asking the victims what they recommend to resolve the problem can be effective strategies to combat bullying (Fassler, 2005). Keeping school personnel comprised of bullying activities will help gather necessary information about the incident and assess the emotional state of the victims. Further, collecting current information on bullying incidents may help to empower the victims to devise an effective coping strategy. It is also recommended to encourage victims to avoid physical confrontation

Carrie Butler, Dianne Reed, Alice Fisher & Megan Gray

89

and to walk with friends as much as possible, because they can act as guardians against bullying attacks. The victims should be encouraged not to fight back, but to seek the counsel of a trusted adult. Strategies for managing delinquent behaviors and enforcing the rules with regards to bullying are equally important. The bully should understand that victimizing others will not be tolerated. School administrators should note that consistency in enforcing the rules will help to eliminate bullying on school premises. While bullies should be monitored closely, they should also be praised and reinforced for following the rules to encourage further positive behavior. Additionally, parents of the victims and the bullies should be notified immediately after any incident takes place. Parents should be encouraged to spend quality time with their children and to use nonhostile consequences for rule violations. Implications and Conclusion Mediating and micro-level systems such as school and family play important roles in deterring young people from bullying behaviors and delinquency. However, schools and community programs may prove to be more successful in having a positive effect on the delinquent behavior than those actions made on the part of the adolescent’s family, particularly if parental role models are inattentive, negative, or nonexistent. Consistent with the literature, a systems approach of entities working together to achieve the common goal of reducing antisocial behavior in schools is the best option. This will require structure, consistency, and cooperation from all systems to be effective (Goldstein & Huff, 1993). Prevention and intervention efforts should more closely target peer socialization using multi-systemic approaches involving mediating and micro-levels, with high levels of social control. Macro-level systems should aim efforts toward providing more economic relief to low-socioeconomic communities in need of providing alternatives to deviance through opportunities for active involvement in positive activities. Law enforcement agencies

90

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

can help by expanding prevention programs in the schools (i.e., the Gang Resistance Education and Training program) with at-risk populations, in conjunction with suppression efforts. Families who incorporate and reinforce high levels of adult supervision, accountability for negative behavior, positive moral development, and extra-familial resources that provide constructive networks for adolescents will help establish a healthy, individual identity. Families and schools can work together to develop healthy networks for individuals and facilitate positive peer socialization.

Carrie Butler, Dianne Reed, Alice Fisher & Megan Gray

91

REFERENCES Butler, C., & Watkins, T. (2006). Handbook of juvenile justice: Theory and practice. In Effective social control measures in school and community programs: Implications for policy and practice (pp. 145-166). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group. Esbensen, F. & Osgood, D. W. (1997). National evaluation of G.R.E.A.T. Research in brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Fassler, D. (2005). A common sense 10 point plan to address the problem of school violence. American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. Retrieved August 10, 2007, from http//www.aacap.org/wahtsnew/10point.htm Goldstein, A. P., & Huff, C. R. (1993). The gang intervention handbook. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Longres, J. F. (1994). Self-neglect and social control: a modest test of an issue. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 22(3/4), 320. Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, W., Simons-Morton, B. & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors in youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medicine, 285, 2094-2100. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1998). Facts and figures. Retrieved March 4, 2005, from http://www.nih.gov/about/almanc/1998/organization/nichd National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2001). Bullying widespread in US schools, survey finds. Retrieved April 24, 2007, from http://www.nih.gov/about/almanc/2001/organization/nichd National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2003). Bullies, victims at risk for violence and other problem behaviors. Retrieved September 20, 2007, from http://www.nih.gov/about/almanc/2003/organization/nichd

92

NATIONAL FORUM OF APPLIED EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH JOURNAL

National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center. (2005). Bullying facts and statistics. Retrieved September 14, 2007, from http://www.safeyouth.org/scripts/faq/bullying.asp Olweus, D. & Limber, S. (1999). Blueprints for violence prevention: Bullying Prevention program (Book Nine). Boulder, CO: University of Colorado at Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Perren, S. & Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully-victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(1), 45-57. Snyder, H. N. (2001). Juvenile offenders and victims. National Report Series: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Stockdale, M. S., Hangadumanbo, S., Duys, D., Larson, K., & Sarvela, P. D. (2002). Rural elementary students’, parents’, and teachers’ perceptions of bullying. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26(4), 266-277. Texas Commission on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (2003). Retrieved March 2, 2005, from http:///www.texas commission on alcoholism and drug abuse.state.tx.us/ Ward, D. A., Carter, D. J., & Perrin, R. D. (1994). Social deviance: Being, behaving, and branding. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.