¶ … bullying has become life threatening for most of the people, bullying prevention programs should be implemented to control and ultimately eliminate bullying from our society. Definition of Bullying: (Wright, 2004).

"Because the bullying has become life threatening for most of the people, bullying prevention programs should be implemented to control and ultimately eliminate bullying from our society."

Scope of paper:

How's:

Why's:

What's:

Who's:

Impact:

Scope of Bullying Problem: (University of Colorado, 2012); (Skiba & Fontanini, n.d.).

Worldwide: (University of Colorado, 2012).

Within the United States: (Skiba & Fontanini, n.d.).

Possible Solutions to Bullying: (Skiba & Fontanini, n.d.).

Individual Intervention: (Skiba & Fontanini, n.d.).

B. Community/School Intervention through Anti-Bullying Programs: (Skiba & Fontanini, n.d.).

Bullying Prevention Programs In General (Skiba & Fontanini, n.d.).

A. Important Elements: (Jones, Swearer, & Collier, 2012).

B. What Effective Programs Teach: (Jones, Swearer, & Collier, 2012).

C. Results (Jones, Swearer, & Collier, 2012).

D. How to Find an Effective Program (Jones, Swearer, & Collier, 2012).

V. Target Populations: (Whitted & Dupper, 2005).

A. Elementary Students: (Whitted & Dupper, 2005).

B. Junior High School Students: (Whitted & Dupper, 2005).

C. High School Students: (Whitted & Dupper, 2005).

VI. Content: (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, Blueprints for violence prevention: Book Nine -- Bullying prevention program, 1999).

A. Individual: (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, Blueprints for violence prevention: Book Nine -- Bullying prevention program, 1999).

B. Classroom: (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, Blueprints for violence prevention: Book Nine -- Bullying prevention program, 1999).

C. School-Wide: (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, Blueprints for violence prevention: Book Nine -- Bullying prevention program, 1999).

VII. Team: (Jones, Swearer, & Collier, 2012).

A. Internal Component: (Jones, Swearer, & Collier, 2012).

B. External Component: (Jones, Swearer, & Collier, 2012).

VIII. Impact: (Olweus, A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, 2005).

A. Impact on Bullies: (Olweus, A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, 2005).

B. Impact on Victims: (Olweus, A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, 2005).

IX. Costs: (University of Colorado, 2012).

A. Costs Due to Content: (University of Colorado, 2012).

B. Costs Due to Materials: (University of Colorado, 2012).

C. Possible Additional Costs of Implementation: (University of Colorado, 2012).

X. Olweus Bullying Protection Program: (Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, Blueprints for violence prevention: Book Nine -- Bullying prevention program, 1999).

A. Inception: (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007).

B. Characteristics: (University of Colorado, 2012).

C. Cost: (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007).

D. Results: (Olweus, A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, 2005).

XI. Conclusion: (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007).

A. Overview of Bullying Problem: (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007).

B. Possible Solutions: (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007).

C. General and Specific Bullying Prevention Programs: (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007).

D. Implications: (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007).

XII. Sources with Abstracts:

A. Bauer, N.S., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F.P. (2007). The effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: a controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(3), 266-74.

PURPOSE: Determine effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program.

METHOD: Examine a nonrandomized controlled trial with 10 public middle schools (7 intervention and 3 control)

RESULTS: Regression analyses controlling for baseline prevalence and school characteristics showed no overall effect on student victimization. However, when stratified by ethnicity/race, reports of relational and physical victimization decreased among white students relative to those in comparison schools.

CONCLUSIONS: Mixed positive effects varying by gender, ethnicity/race, and grade but no overall effect.

PROVISOS: Small sample population may affect results.

B. Jones, L., Swearer, S., & Collier, A. (2012). Implementing bullying prevention programs in schools - A how to guide. MacArthur Foundation.

PURPOSE: Examine the elements, teaching and locations of effective bullying prevention programs.

METHOD: Examine U.S. Elementary and Middle School students in "Steps to Respect," "Olweus Bullying Prevention Program" and "KiVa."

RESULTS: The best programs teach self-regulation; perspective taking; emotion management; problem-solving; communication skills; friendships skills.

CONCLUSIONS: Anti-Bullying programs are most effective in Elementary and Middle school settings.

PROVISOS: This is data is not collected first-hand; rather, the authors use conclusions reached by other researchers to reach their own conclusions.

C. Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11(4), 389-402.

PURPOSE: Examine the effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program been?

METHOD: Surveys regarding three consecutive cohorts of students, totaling approximately 21,000 students subjected to the Program.

RESULTS: By submitting a Bully/Victim Questionnaire to the population before and after 8 months of intervention with the Program, the results showed reductions in bully/victim problems by 32% - 49%.

CONCLUSIONS:...

Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. (1999). Blueprints for violence prevention: Book Nine -- Bullying prevention program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
PURPOSE: Examine the elements of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program as one of 10 nationally chosen Programs.

METHOD: Surveys regarding U.S. Elementary and Secondary School students engaging in Olweus Bullying Prevention Program.

RESULTS: Sixty-nine elements, including but not limited to anonymous student questionnaire, school conferences, coordinating committees, supervisory system for student break periods, classroom rules, classroom meetings, parent meetings, individual interventions, figures and charts.

CONCLUSIONS: The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program is one of the most effective of 10 nationally chosen Programs.

PROVISOS: The study was conducted more than 13 years ago and the data was not collected first-hand, which may affect the reliability of findings.

E. Skiba, R., & Fontanini, A. (n.d.). Bullying prevention. Retrieved on October 1, 2012 from www.indiana.edu Web site: http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/SrsBullying.pdf

PURPOSE: Determine what works in preventing school violence.

METHOD: Examine studies regarding Elementary, Secondary and High School students in districts in Indiana and Nebraska.

RESULTS: According to surveys administered to Elementary, Secondary and High School students in districts in Indiana and Nebraska, individual intervention sometimes works but established programs reduce bullying are shown to reduce bullying by 17% - 50%, depending on the survey and program.

CONCLUSIONS: Established school anti-bullying programs are far more effective than are individual interventions in bullying.

PROVISOS: Data was not collected first-hand; rather, the researchers relied on reported study results from other researchers to reach their conclusions, which may affect the reliability of these results.

F. University of Colorado. (2012, September 8). Model programs: Olweus BPP: Blueprints for violence prevention. Retrieved on October 1, 2012 from www.colorado.edu Web site: http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/modelprograms/BPP.html

PURPOSE: Determine how the model anti-bullying program of Olweus Bullying Prevention Program can be implemented.

METHOD: Examines studies regarding 2,500 children in 42 schools from the city of Bergen, Norway, from 1983 through 1985, 16 primary and 7 secondary schools in Sheffield, England, 6,400 3rd-9th graders in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, 6,388 elementary and middle school children from non-metropolitan communities in South Carolina evaluated in 1998 and 3,200 students in 30 schools was initiated in Bergen, Norway (undated).

RESULTS: Review of systematic evaluations of all programs mentioned above show that programs can counteract bullying, and significantly alter short-term and long-term effects on victims, effects on unchecked bullies, and school social climate.

CONCLUSIONS: Bullying must be counteracted by programs due to counteract bully/victim problems in school relating to: short-term effects on the victims; long-term effects on the victims; long-term effects on the bullies, if the bullying behavior goes unchecked; school social climate.

PROVISOS: Data is collected second-hand, and some of the data was collected as long as 18 years ago, affecting the reliability of the data.

G. Whitted, K.S., & Dupper, D.R. (2005). Best practices for preventing or reducing bullying in schools. Children & Schools, 27(3), 167-175.

PURPOSE: Determine the best practices for preventing or reducing bullying in schools.

METHOD: Review of studies regarding bullying's effect on U.S. Elementary, Middle and Secondary school students.

RESULTS: Through surveys, the researchers obtained data on forms of bullying in schools, prevalence rates, and the consequences of bullying for the bully, the victim, and the school community.

CONCLUSIONS: There are many forms of low-level violence in U.S. school systems and those profoundly affect the learning environment and can lead to more serious violence.

PROVISOS: Researchers use second-hand, generalized data about a vaguely defined population, affecting the reliability of the data.

H. Wright, J. (2004, February). Preventing classroom bullying: What teachers can do. Retrieved on October 1, 2012 from www.jimwrightonline.com Web site: http://www.jimwrightonline.com/pdfdocs/bully/bullyBooklet.pdf

PURPOSE: Determine how teachers can assist in preventing classroom bullying.

METHOD: Review of studies regarding U.S. Elementary, Middle and Secondary School students.

RESULTS: Review of data from other studies suggesting that 7% or more of students may be bullies and 10%-20% of students may be chronic victims of bullying, that bystanders can contribute to or reduce bullying, and that bullying is often a covert activity.

CONCLUSIONS: Bullying is a widespread problem in schools and the teacher can assist in reducing classroom bullying by educating students about bullying, encouraging appropriate anti-bullying intervention by bystanders and frequently supervising students in groups.

PROVISOS: Data is second-hand and very generalized, affecting its reliability.

Works Cited

Bauer, N.S., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F.P. (2007). The effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: a controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(3), 266-74.

Jones, L., Swearer, S., & Collier, A. (2012). Implementing bullying prevention programs in schools - A how to guide. MacArthur Foundation.

Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Psychology, Crime and Law, 11(4), 389-402.

Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic,…