Article overviews to answer question for conference

Question 3: Research suggests that bullying prevention should be extended into the community. What does
community involvement look like in a bullying prevention/intervention program? More specifically, what does it
look like in neighborhoods that experiences higher than average crime/violence incidents?
Allison Love Question 3: Research suggests that bullying prevention should be extended into the community. What does community involvement
look like in a bullying prevention/intervention program? More specifically, what does it look like in neighborhoods that experiences higher than
average crime/violence incidents?

Research and literature are scarce on the ideas of bullying and the community, but much of it states that for bullying
intervention and prevention to be significant more than the school should be involved. Bronfenbrenner’s socioecological model has
each aspect of a child’s life overlapping, so why are most bullying prevention programs only in one aspect of an individual’s life? One
example of a way the community and school could work together would be a full-service community school (Chen, Anderson, &
Watkins 2016), this is where the school provides education to the students but also comprehensive services to all ages of the
community. This creates a central hub for the surrounding school community and brings people from all services to one place. With this
it increases partnerships between all types of individuals and can make the positive upbringing of children the focus of all members in
the community.
Another study done by Mazur, Tabak, and Zawadzka (2014) inferred that the community an individual comes from can be a
factor for bullying in the school. Over 4000 students were surveyed about if they had seen or participated in bullying activities in the
past two months, in general it could be seen that individuals who lived in a large city were more likely to be bullies. This correlation
could be made by stating that children who live in big city are exposed to more violence in the school and their neighborhood because
they are generally in the same area. This exposure to more violence for an individual could increase their aggression and problem
behaviors.
An article written by Holt, Raczynski, Frey, Hymel, and Limber (2013) shows significant evidence that when the community
and others are involved in intervention and prevention, bullying rates go down. Community involvement can range from extracurricular
activities, to health care providers and even law enforcement. Extracurricular programs provide structured activities not bound to
academia that are supervised by an adult. When students were surveyed, they stated that their coach or other influential adult was
more important than their parent’s in most cases concerning problem behaviors and graduation (Corley, and Orpinas 2012). Health
care providers can also play and important role in the cognitive side of bullying. In a study done by Wagman Borowsky et al. (2004)
found that when children went through their normal medical check-up they were screened for psychological problems also, that an
intervention with their parents over the phone by a health professional about authoritarian parenting had a significant impact on their
bullying behavior. Yet another example in this article is from law enforcement and the SRO of the school. An SRO from the South
Euclid Police Department (2001) surveyed students about bullying behaviors and found hot spots around the school where incidents
happened. With an integration of educational programs for students, faculty and parents, bullying was reduced. Also with staggering
bell schedules to reduce numbers in the hall, teacher standing near hot spot areas, and the SRO desk being in the cafeteria reduced
bullying in the school by 40%.
This is evidence from literature and experiences that show bullying prevention and intervention needs to be community based
as well as school based. Bullying is an increasing issue of public health among children and adolescence and it is our duty as
educators, researchers, and individuals to protect and help the youth that is our future. By combining efforts of community and school,
more children can be helped and heard when it comes to bullying.
1. Parent perceptions of connectedness in a full-service community school project;
Chen, Anderson & Watkins
a. This article researched the effectiveness of parent-teacher involvement, parent-
parent involvement and school-community involvement. They used the
Providence Full Service Community Schools in Rhode Island to study. The FSCS
provides comprehensive services, like case management, family literacy, health
outreach, and family engagement. A school like this can improve the parent’s
social capital which in turns helps the child develop well roundelay.
b. In Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological model there is an overlay of systems that
help an individual grow and understand the world. For a child, their learning is
enhanced by overlapping relationships among their families, schools and
communities.

c. Epstein proposed an overlapping model a lot like

Bronfenbrenner’s that shows the interactions
between the child and the family, school and
community. he argument for this is that each
aspect is as important as the others.

c. Full-Service Community Schools; ones where the center of the community is the
school and this is where not just education is happening but health awareness,
and community involvement.
i. The school provides a quality education, services ( health education,
social skill training, etc. ), support services (employment training, dental
services, AA ).
d. This helps bring together personnel from all types of social services.
e. This inclusion of all ecological systems will help a child develop and thrive.
f. The issue with this type of school based community hub is the funding behind it
g. The ultimate goal of this school is to bring together partnerships of parents,
school and neighborhoods so that the wellbeing of the children, especially the
at-risk population is the main focus of all the members of the community.
2. Determinants of bullying at school depending on the type of community: Ecological
analysis of secondary schools in Poland. Mazur, Tabak, Zawadzka.
a. Ecological study of schools to evaluate intervention programs.
b. The environment from a big city, aggressive behaviors with the law, and
delinquent behaviors were significant predictors of bullying
 i. Because a youth lives in a big city it is harder to create meaningful social
ties with the community
c. In two meta-analysis by (Ttofi & Farrington, 2009, 2011), bullying prevention
programs were 20-23% capable of decreasing violence in schools.
i. These programs would include, but not limited to, parent training, more
playground supervision, disciplinary methods, classroom rules and
showing videos.
d. It is very important to assess if high social capital of the neighborhood and
positive school climate influences different attitudes and behaviors related to
bullying similarly.
3. Designs for evaluating the community-level impact of comprehensive prevention
programs; Examples from the CDC centers of excellence in youth violence prevention.
4. Farrell, Henry, Bradshaw, Reischl.
a. Evaluate 6 examples of prevention programs put on by the CDC.
b. Each intervention strategy and evaluation had to meet the following criteria
i. Targeted high risk communities, targeted at both the general population
and individuals at elevated risk for violence, be evidence based, and focus
on risk factors representing multiple levels of influence.
c. The focus of the community being where individuals were residing in a
geographical area. This pushed the assumption that the key cause of violent
behavior included systemic factors in settings where youth live ( aka,
neighborhoods )
d. Stand alone programs that only focus on one factor are far less effective
e. If the program promotes positive buffer effects and reduce risk factors, then
multiple ecological levels will be effected
f. You have to implify multiple subsets of individuals for a project to be effective.
g. This article suggests the need for more comprehensive strategies aimed to
reduce risk and enhance protective influences in multiple contexts.
5. School and community-based approached for preventing bullying; Holt, Raczynski,
Hymel, Limber
a. Community involvement; resources that exist in almost every community;
extracurricular programs, health care providers, and law enforcement.
i. Extracurricular; Have a benefit of supervised activities for students that
are structured. These activities are also not centered around demands of
increasing tests scores or other educational aspects.
1. School based programs can be stretched to be apart of the
extracurricular programs, or other programs can be started as
extracurricular that are there to combat bullying and violence.
ii. Health care providers; with bullying being a public health issues most
health care providers are supposed to know the signs of bullying and be
prepared to intervene and make appropriate referrals for the patients
who are in need of more help.
1. Wagman Borowsky et al. (2004) had a program where
psychological screening would be done on youth during a routine
 medical exam. Positively screened individuals were put into a
intervention and control group. The ones put into an intervention
group showed signs of reduced problematic behavior and
bullying. This was done by a phone call to the parents regarding
authoritarian parenting styles.
iii. This shows how the community could be an asset to prevent and
intervene with bullying. If the school was unable to address the bullying
of these individuals, the health care providers stepped in and helped
correct the issue. More individuals would be helped if the community
was more involved, even if it is not all tied together through a program
from the school.
iv. Law enforcement; many SRO officers and regular law enforcement deal
with calls about bullying in and out of the school.
1. One effective measure that was taken by an SRO officer from the
South Euclid Police Department (2001) who used surveys and
bullying hot spots in the school to find ways to decrease the
bullying incidents. He worked with the kids, teachers, and parents
on educating them on bullying prevention. He also changed the
bell schedule to create less people in the halls and the time and
set up his office in the cafeteria. This reduced the school bullying
by 40%.
v. Many steps need to be taken to provide a community with a bullying
prevention program. Community efforts may make a greater impact
when they are comprehensive and coordinated across multiple levels of
service providers [ health care providers, law enforcement, coaches,
parents ]. This could be very challenging, time consuming, and require a
lot of money. But it can be seen as helpful. ‘Bullying thrives when the
community remains silent. With vigorous involvement of youth and
adults in the community, we amplify our potential for creating a safe
haven from bullying’

Citations

Mazur, J., Tabak, I., & Zawadzka, D. (2017). Determinants of Bullying at School Depending on
the Type of Community: Ecological Analysis of Secondary Schools in Poland. School Mental
Health, 9(2), 132-142. doi: 10.1007/s12310-017-9206-7

Holt, M. K., Raczynski, K., Frey, K. S., Hymel, S., & Limber, S. P. (2013). School and Community-
Based Approaches for Preventing Bullying. Journal of School Violence, 12(3), 238-252, doi:
10.1080/15388220.2013.792271

Chen, M., Anderson, J., A., & Watkins, L. (2016). Parent Perceptions of Connectedness in a Full
Service Community School Project. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(7), 2268-2278. Doi:
10.1007/s10826-016-0398-5