After reading a recent article by Neil Swidey in The Boston Globe (May 2, 2010, “The Secret to Stopping Bullying”), we felt compelled to correct some inaccuracies about bullying prevention efforts in general, and the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), in particular, which are promoted by Swidey and supported by a number of quotes from Dr. Dorothy Espelage. 

A Misunderstanding of “Whole-School” Programs

Mr. Swidey notes that “whole school assembly-type programs are notable for their abject failure.”  In fact, whole-school programs such as the OBPP (also referred to as comprehensive programs, whole-school, or school-wide programs) actually stand in stark contrast to “assembly-type approaches” and other short-term solutions to bullying.  The federal government (Health Resources and Services Administration, (www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov) and many experts recognize that short-term, one-shot approaches are unlikely to produce positive outcomes, and comprehensive bullying prevention programs are needed to reduce bullying and have, in fact, been proven successful.

Meta-Analysis of Bullying Prevention Programs

Mr. Swidey appears to base his conclusion that “nothing works” on a meta-analysis by Kenneth Merrell and colleagues (Merrell, Guelder, Ross, & Isava, 2008).  The Merrell meta-analysis included only 16 studies (and several of them with very small samples) and included only one of the six large-scale evaluations of the OBPP in Norway.  The Norwegian evaluations, which comprise more than 20,000 students, have documented very positive results--typically with a reduction of 35-50 percent in reliable self-reports of “being bullied” and “bullying other students” after eight months of work with the program.

Curiously, Mr. Swidey dismisses the quite positive findings from a much larger meta-analysis by noted Cambridge University criminologist David Farrington and colleagues (Ttofi & Farrington, 2009; Ttofi, Farrington, & Baldry, 2008) as “less rigorous” even though this study is widely recognized as the most complete and rigorous study to date on bullying prevention programs.  It includes 30 programs and 59 studies with a minimum of 200 subjects per study.  In a recent article (Swearer, Espelage, Viallancourt, & Hymel, 2010), Dr. Espelage, herself, actually found the Cambridge analysis “noteworthy because of the rigorous study selection procedures used” (p. 42). 

The OBPP is actually the only bullying prevention program in the Farrington meta-analysis that has been replicated a number of times with positive results; all the other program evaluations are based on first-time, demonstration projects (where possible future replications are much more uncertain).  A basic message of the Cambridge meta-analysis is that whole-school programmes can be quite successful but also that there are great variations in the effects of different programs. Farrington and his colleagues concluded that programs “inspired by the work of Dan Olweus worked best” (Ttofi et al., 2008, p. 8) and that future efforts should be “grounded in the successful Olweus programme” (p. 8).  In sum, the general message of this report and in particular with regard to the OBPP is in complete opposition to what is argued in the Globe article. 

Appropriateness of the OBPP in Diverse Settings

In the Boston Globe article, Dr Espelage claims that, “there is no scientific evidence to show that strategies developed for Norway’s homogeneous population actually work for the population here, especially given its diversity.”  With regard to this statement, it should be emphasized first that several of our successful evaluations of the OBPP have been made with schools in Oslo (the capital of Norway) where approximately 25% of the students are of minority background and where as many as 30-40 different languages are spoken by students.

Further, comparisons of nationally representative U.S. and Norwegian student samples have shown that there are no marked differences in levels of problem behaviors in the two countries (Olweus & Limber, 2010).  Moreover, there are, in fact, U.S. evaluations of the OBPP with positive results that have included ethnically diverse populations.  In one large-scale evaluation study from South Carolina a majority of students from low-income families with minority (African American) background.  This study showed positive program effects for students’ reports of bullying and antisocial behavior. Another large-scale study of schools in inner-city Philadelphia with predominantly African American students found marked decreases in “Bullying Incident Density” with the OBPP over a 4-year period (Black & Jackson, 2007).

Admittedly, the results obtained with the OBPP in the U.S. have not (yet) been as consistent and convincing as in Norway but given the effects produced by other programs in the U.S., we think they must be considered quite encouraging, in particular since they were obtained with economically and ethnically very diverse populations.

Against this background, we find Dr Espelage’s critical comments about the OBPP generally unfair and her attempt to create an impression that the program is not suited for ethnically diverse U.S. student populations misguided. The inappropriateness of such categorical statements is also demonstrated by the fact that we are presently involved in two large-scale U.S. evaluation studies of the OBPP in which the preliminary analyses of both student and teacher data show quite promising results

A Focus on Bystander Behavior

In his Boston Globe article, Mr. Swidey notes that, “one strategy gaining a good deal of traction involves bystander training.  The thinking is that we can reduce bullying by encouraging uninvolved students to step in to protest when they see it happening.”  This idea is not new.  As educators and school children know who have implemented the OBPP, the program does, in fact focus on bystander behavior, and it has done so from its inception (Olweus, 1993; Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999). 

Olweus’ Bullying Circle (Olweus et al., 1999), which diagrams the numerous roles that children may play in bullying incidents, has been cited widely.  Bystanders are engaged in the OBPP in many ways.  (See Olweus et al., 2007).  However, we feel it is naïve to believe that one can change the social ecology of the school with regard to bullying with an approach that focuses on “henchboys” and “henchgirls” without also focusing on others who are key actors in bullying prevention, including educators, parents, children who bully, children who are bullied, and other bystanders.  Mr. Swidey, himself, admits that, “there’s not a lot of science to back the sidekick approach.” 

In Conclusion

Ongoing research is, of course, important to continue to shed light on effective practice in bullying prevention.  However, concluding that “nothing much is working,” as Swidey does is inaccurate, unhelpful, and devalues the hard work that is being done by many educators, students, and parents in this country to reduce bullying.  The most sound policy involves promoting those approaches to bullying prevention that have the most research support.  Quite a few governmental and other organizations have recognized the OBPP in this light, including:

• The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado (The OPBB is one of 11 approved Blueprint Programs and the only one focusing on bullying prevention; a total of more than 600 programs have been assessed.)

• U.S. Department of Education (Level 2 Program, which is “scientifically demonstrated to prevent delinquency or reduce/enhance risk/protection for delinquency and other child and youth problems using either an experimental or quasi-experimental research design, with a comparison group, and the evidence suggests program effectiveness).

• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Effective Program)

Dan Olweus, University of Bergen

Sue Limber, Clemson University

References

Black, S. A., & Jackson, E. (2007). Using bullying incident density to evaluate the Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme. School Psychology International, 28, 623-638. doi:

Merrell, K.W., Guelder, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention program? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26-42.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 120-129. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01015.x.

Olweus, D., Limber, S.P. & Mihalic, S. (1999). The Bullying Prevention Program: Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Vol. 9. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.

Olweus, D., Limber, S. P., Flerx, V., Mullin, N., Riese, J., & Snyder, M. (2007). Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Schoolwide guide. Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school bullying: Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39, 38-47. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09357622.

Ttofi , M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). What works in preventing bullying: Effective elements of anti-bullying programmes. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 1, 13–24. doi:

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Baldry, A. C. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to reduce bullying. Stockholm, Sweden:Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.