Journal of Adolescent Health 40 (2007) 266 –274

Original article

The Effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program

in Public Middle Schools: A Controlled Trial
Nerissa S. Bauer, M.D., M.P.H.a,*, Paula Lozano, M.D., M.P.H.a,
and Frederick P. Rivara, M.D., M.P.H.a,b
a
Department of Pediatrics, Child Health Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
b
Department of Epidemiology, Child Health Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Manuscript received June 22, 2006; manuscript accepted October 2, 2006

Abstract Purpose: To examine the effectiveness of a widely disseminated bullying prevention program.
Methods: A nonrandomized controlled trial with 10 public middle schools (7 intervention and 3
control) was conducted. Student-reported relational (e.g., spreading rumors, social exclusion) and
physical victimization, and whether the program improved student attitudes and perceptions toward
bullying were assessed pre- and post-implementation using available school survey data.
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 by 28% (RR ⫽ .72, 95% CI: .53–.98) and 37% (RR
⫽ .63, 95% CI: .42–.97), respectively, among white students relative to those in comparison schools.
No similar effect was found for students of other races/ethnicities; there were no differences by
gender or by grade. Students in intervention schools were more likely to perceive other students as
actively intervening in bullying incidents, and 6th graders were more likely to feel sorry and want
to help victims.
Conclusions: The program had some mixed positive effects varying by gender, ethnicity/race, and
grade but no overall effect. Schools implementing the program, especially with a heterogeneous
student body, should monitor outcomes and pay particular attention to the impact of culture, race and
family influences on student behavior. Future studies of large-scale bullying prevention programs in
the community must be rigorously evaluated to ensure they are effective. © 2007 Society for
Adolescent Medicine. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bullying; School-based intervention; Prevention; Victimization; Middle schools

Bullying is aggressive behavior marked by an imbalance
of power occurring repetitively with intent to harm [1,2] and
can be either physical (e.g., fighting, pushing) or relational
(e.g., social exclusion, spreading rumors). Bullying is a
social phenomenon, with each child’s role— bully, victim,
bully-victim, or bystander [1,3]— dependent on the situa-
tion. Children who either join in bullying or observe without
trying to stop it reinforce the bully’s behavior [4]. Children
who refrain from intervening are termed bystanders. Bul-
*Address correspondence to: Nerissa S. Bauer, M.D., M.P.H., Indiana
University, Department of General & Community Pediatrics, 1001 West
10th Street, Wishard-Bryce Building, B2007, Indianapolis, IN 46202.
E-mail address: nsbauer@iupui.edu
1054-139X/07/$ – see front matter © 2007 Society for Adolescent Medicine. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.005
lies, victims, and bully-victims are at risk for negative
mental health and social outcomes that may persist into
adulthood [5–7].
Without appropriate intervention, bullying behaviors tend
to increase and contribute to a negative school environment
[8 –10]. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP)
was designed to improve peer relations and promote a safe
and positive school environment by fostering school-wide
awareness of bullying [8]. Program core components target
school-, classroom-, individual-, and community-level in-
terventions and include regular discussions about anti-
bullying rules and other activities designed to engage stu-
dents, with the long-term goal of changing student attitudes
and perceptions surrounding bullying. The original study of
 N.S. Bauer et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 40 (2007) 266 –274
Figure 1. Study design and implementation timeline of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. *One of seven intervention schools implemented program
in 2004 –2005 academic year.
OBPP involving 2500 students in 42 schools in Norway
reported a 50% reduction in student bullying behavior 2
years after implementation [8]. Since then, other studies,
including one in U.S. rural schools [11], using interventions
modeled after or replicating the OBPP, have found mixed
results [12–14]. Nonetheless, the OBPP has been dissemi-
nated widely in the United States and abroad.
In 2003–2004, as part of a system-wide focus on high-
risk youth [15], leaders from 7 Seattle middle schools
(grades 6 – 8) implemented the OBPP to address bullying
and victimization. Three remaining middle schools chose
less formal activities for bullying prevention in the same
district. Concurrently, in the fall of 2002, a state-level man-
date required all schools to implement anti-bullying school-
level policies by August 2003. In 2004, the school district
requested a program evaluation to assess its effectiveness
and identify areas for improvement for future adaptation of
the program in other schools. This afforded us the unique
opportunity to evaluate the OBPP in a nonrandomized trial
1–2 years after implementation. The objective of our study
was two-fold: (1) to characterize the implementation of the
OBPP in the seven schools, and (2) to compare schools with
(N ⫽ 7) and without (N ⫽ 3) the OBPP to determine if the
program was effective with regard to: (a) reducing student-
reported victimization (primary outcome), (b) improving
student attitudes toward bullying and perceptions of others’
readiness to intervene (key program targets), and (c) im-
proving the general school experience beyond bullying.
Methods
Sample
We conducted a controlled trial with a cohort of 10
middle schools (grades 6 – 8) following a statewide mandate
267
requiring all middle schools to implement anti-bullying pol-
icies and measures. We chose to limit our sample to middle
schools because the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
was originally targeted for this age range. School leaders
decided how they would satisfy the mandate, thus random-
ization was not possible. Seven schools elected to imple-
ment the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program and the
remainder pursued less formal activities (Figure 1).
Procedures
We assessed the type and extent of bullying prevention
efforts in OBPP intervention and comparison schools. With
the help of district trainers overseeing the OBPP, we invited
key informants from each middle school to participate in
in-depth interviews. In 2002, the district proactively inte-
grated specific questions from the Olweus survey verbatim
into existing school climate surveys to learn more about the
prevalence of bullying. As this survey was administered to
all schools, regardless of participation in the OBPP, it pro-
vided us the ability to determine the effectiveness of the
OBPP. We used all available annual school climate survey
data from the Olweus indicators and select others felt to
measure key program target outcomes at two different time
points, pre- and post-implementation. Study procedures
were approved by the University of Washington Human
Subjects Protection Committee.
Measures
Primary outcome (victimization experiences)
Students were asked to respond to four questions regard-
ing relational and physical bullying victimization. Ques-
tions were from the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Ques-
tionnaire [8,16] as shown in Figure 2. The section was
prefaced by the following general question, “Have you been
268 N.S. Bauer et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 40 (2007) 266 –274
Figure 2. Survey questions.
bullied at school in the past couple of months in one or more
of the following ways?” Students responded on the fre-
quency of each of these events using a five-point scale.
Responses were dichotomized using the cut-off of “2–3
times a month” or greater to capture the repetitive nature
specific to the definition of bullying, consistent with prior
literature [8,16 –18]. The two relational and two physical
indicators were collapsed into separate composite measures.
If a student responded positively to at least one of the pair
of indicators, the student was coded as experiencing rela-
tional or physical victimization, respectively.
Secondary outcomes
Selected questions were chosen from the student climate
survey to measure student attitudes, perceptions of others’
readiness to intervene, and school experience (Figure 2).
Program targets
As the program objective was to reduce student bullying
by increasing awareness, we wanted to measure students’
pro-victim attitudes. To examine the desired program effect
of shifting more students’ attitudes towards wanting to help
victims, we dichotomized this indicator at “feel sorry and
want to help.” Perceptions of others’ readiness to intervene
were measured by two separate questions, one for the actions
of other students and the other for actions of teachers or other
adults. Responses were dichotomized so that “sometimes” or
greater was considered to be a positive response.
General school experiences
Additional questions related to the perception of safety,
support, and school engagement were selected to measure
the general school experience beyond bullying. In the
present study, one indicator (“I feel safe in my classroom”)
was chosen to measure the perception of safety. There were
seven variables that related to the students’ perception of
school support. A factor analysis was conducted and re-
vealed all seven variables loaded on one factor, “being
supported.” These 7 variables explained 42% of the vari-
ance. A new composite variable was created so that a
positive response to any of the seven indicators resulted in
the student being coded as feeling supported. School en-
gagement was measured by one indicator.
Intervention
The 10 schools were assigned to 1 of 2 groups based on
whether they elected to implement the OBPP (intervention
group) or pursued less formal prevention efforts (compari-
son group). Each intervention school underwent consulta-
tion by district trainers prior to implementation.
Covariates
Variables correlated within a particular school were used
in the statistical analyses to account for interschool varia-
tions. In this study, school size, percent of students eligible
for free/reduced lunch, and percent of students meeting state
standards for a reading achievement test were obtained from
 N.S. Bauer et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 40 (2007) 266 –274 269

Table 1
Definitions of “Olweus Standards” for core component implementation*
Component Olweus Standard definition

School-wide
1. OBPP survey 1. Administer survey & results shared with school
2. School assembly 2. Official implementation start date. Show commitment to bullying prevention, introduce
concepts & school rules, raise enthusiasm
3. Student supervision 3. Schools should revise problem spots as identified, intermittently revisit protocol to
ensure adequacy
4. Staff discussions 4. Hold regular meetings to discuss problematic issues, with goal of fostering collaboration
in implementation efforts
5. Coordinating committee 5. Identify core group of people responsible for initial planning & oversight of
implementation
6. School rules 6. Set common language & expectation for student behavior
7. Engaging parents 7. If engage parents, expectations & follow-through of consequences of student behavior at
school can occur
8. Engaging students 8. In effort to change student attitudes and perceptions, involve students in activities to
raise awareness. Target students who are otherwise known as bystanders
9. Tracking & identification of “hot spots” 9. Not by one-on-one experience with individual students per se, but by examining patterns
of problem areas with intent to shift supervision as needed
10. Staff training 10. After coordinating committee trained, committee members train remaining adult staff
Classroom
1. Class discussions 1. Regular & consistent discussions of schoolwide rules; teach skills to deal with bullying,
foster empathy for others
2. Reinforcement of school rules 2. Teachers should feel comfortable in intervening in bullying incidents, either by actively
stopping it themselves or at least identifying and reporting to administration/counselors
Community
1. Raise community awareness 1. Public relations and foster OBPP-inspired program development based in the community

* Schools rated on 4-point scale: 0-no implementation, 1-attempted but not to Olweus standard, 2-meets Olweus standard, 3-exceeds Olweus standard.

each school’s annual reports and entered into the database
(Table 1). These covariates were predictive of victimization
in a previous study [19]. Clustering by schools was not
possible because the results became unstable due to the
small number of clusters.
Data analysis
Key informant interviews and analysis
Key informant interviews were conducted by the primary
investigator (NB) at each of the schools. Informed consent
was obtained prior to the interview. Information concerning
the timeline of implementation of any prevention efforts
(OBPP for intervention or other methods for comparison
schools) was ascertained. As many of the OBPP core com-
ponents are not unique to the program, both intervention and
comparison schools were asked further questions about each
core component. We were not able to collect information
regarding individual-level components, as records of stu-
dent incidents and meetings with parents were not available
at the time of the interview and not consistently docu-
mented. Each interview lasted approximately 60 minutes.
School efforts were evaluated with respect to an “Olweus
Standard,” to adequately capture teachers’ use of core com-
ponents with the program’s intended regularity and consis-
tency to remain involved with students (Table 1). The Ol-
weus standard was developed from a review of the literature
[8,11]. A blinded coder (an outside expert in the field of
developmental psychology and particular expertise in bul-
lying prevention) and a study investigator (NB) indepen-
dently coded the 10 schools’ activities across the 3 levels, as
well as, implementation fidelity of individual core compo-
nents based on a 4-point scale (0 ⫽ no effort/activity, 1 ⫽
attempted but not to Olweus standards, 2 ⫽ meets Olweus
standard, or 3 ⫽ exceeds Olweus standard). Inter-rater re-
liability was 87% (113 of the 130 coded observations were
in 100% agreement). Sixteen of the 17 discordant observa-
tions were coded within a 1-point difference. Conflicts in
coding were resolved by consensus. Mean school scores
were aggregated by group (intervention or comparison) and
calculated. To test for statistically significant differences
between implementation fidelity, t-tests with equal vari-
ances were performed to examine differences between im-
plementation efforts by school-, classroom-, and community-
level scores.
Quantitative analysis
Because surveys lacked identifying information, individ-
ual students could not be linked to survey responses. Stu-
dent data were aggregated by school, and school-level data
were used in the analyses.
Poisson regression was performed, controlling for the
school-level covariates. Baseline frequencies of victimiza-
tion were included in the models to adjust for differences at
baseline. Separate models were examined for each of the
secondary outcomes using the same procedures. As bullying
trends for both gender and age have been documented
270 N.S. Bauer et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 40 (2007) 266 –274

previously [8,12,17,20], we stratified each outcome by gen-
der and grade level. Given the ethnicity/race diversity in
these schools, we elected to examine the effect of ethnicity/
race on our outcomes of interest.
Results
Qualitative data
On average, intervention schools implemented more core
components at the school-wide and classroom levels to the
Olweus Standard than comparison schools (school-wide
score: mean, 9.1 intervention vs. 2.7 comparison, p ⬍ .05
[10 points max]; classroom score: 1.3 intervention vs. 0
comparison, p ⬍ .05 [2 points max]). Only one of the
intervention schools implemented a community-level com-
ponent by the Olweus Standard by offering bullying pre-
vention training to businesses surrounding the school to
raise awareness of bullying that may occur to and from the
school. Comparison schools tried implementing some ac-
tivities, but without regularity or within the context of a
whole school approach. The greatest sources of variation
within the intervention schools were activities to engage
parents, methods to keep abreast of bullying incidents, hold-
ing regular staff discussions, and classroom meetings. Most
of the OBPP schools, at a minimum, notified parents about
the start of the OBPP, but only a few held additional events
to actively educate parents. All intervention schools used
the OBPP survey data to identify “hot spots” (problematic
areas prone to bullying), but some actively monitored these
hot spots by having students complete bullying reporting
forms and marking where the incident took place on a
school map. Reporting forms were dropped in designated
locked boxes or specific lockers and reviewed by counselors
and/or administration. Schools differed in their tracking of
incidents, with the majority of schools having an informal
tracking system in place. One school started an electronic
system by year two. Holding regular staff discussions and
class meetings was difficult for most intervention schools.
Some schools designated specific class periods to discuss
school rules against bullying, for role playing, and other
curricular activities. Among intervention schools, two con-
sistently maintained high cooperation and enthusiasm for
the program, whereas the others faced obstacles related to
funding, effort, and administrative support. One of the com-
parison schools elected to start the OBPP in fall of 2004.
This school underwent consultation with district trainers
and formed a school coordinating committee but did not get
started during the time of the present study and therefore
remained classified as a comparison school. The other two
comparison schools were involved with less formal mea-
sures such as peer mediation and curriculum dealing with
racist attitudes.
Quantitative analysis–student characteristics at baseline
Comparison schools had a higher proportion of African
American students (28% vs. 12%), while the intervention
schools had more white students (40% vs. 23%). Other
demographic characteristics were similar between the two
groups (Table 2).

Table 2
Baseline student characteristics and school-level covariates
Characteristic Intervention students Comparison students
N ⫽ 4959 N (%) N ⫽ 1559 N (%)

Female gender 2522 (51) 782 (50)

Ethnicity/Race*
Black/African American 610 (12) 422 (28)*
Hispanic/Latino 362 (7) 102 (7)
Asian 1148 (24) 384 (25)
White 1941 (40) 348 (23)*
Native American 95 (2) 22 (1)
Other 434 (9) 159 (10)
Grade level
6th 1672 (34) 570 (37)
7th 1629 (33) 515 (33)
8th 1588 (32) 449 (29)
Achievement
Mostly As 2241 (47) 661 (44)
Mostly Bs/Cs 2262 (47) 724 (48)
Mostly D/F 274 (6) 116 (8)
School-level covariates Intervention group N ⫽ 7 Comparison group N ⫽ 3
School size 877 (617–1247) 714 (467–994)
% Free lunch 45 (16–69) 56 (36–71)
% Meeting state standards reading 53.8 (38.8–81) 44 (31.9–66.7)
WASL (55.0)

* Test of proportions, p-value ⬍ .001.

 N.S. Bauer et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 40 (2007) 266 –274 271

Table 3
Intervention and comparison schools’ student-reported prevalence of student victimization, attitudes and perceptions, baseline and follow-up
Student-reported 2003: Baseline 2005: Follow-up

Comparison Intervention Comparison Intervention

N/total N (%) N/total N (%) N/total N (%) N/total N (%)

Relational victimization* 428/1408 (30.4) 1144/4607 (24.8) 439/1456 (30.2) 1105/4480 (24.7)
Physical victimization* 224/1373 (16.3) 627/4531 (13.8) 254/1448 (17.5) 643/4419 (14.6)
Student attitude N ⫽ 1559 N ⫽ 4959 N ⫽ 1580 N ⫽ 4843
Probably what student deserved 131 (8.4) 513 (10.3) 162 (10.3) 516 (10.7)
Don’t feel much 214 (13.7) 705 (14.2) 217 (13.7) 655 (13.5)
Feel sorry for student 511 (32.8) 1838 (37.1) 513 (32.5) 1556 (32.1)
Feel sorry & want to help 544 (34.9) 1594 (32.1) 575 (36.4) 1773 (36.6)
Students help other students# 44/731 (6) 140/2518 (5.6) 219/1075 (20.4) 769/3193 (24.1)
Teachers help other students# 670/1100 (60.9) 2324/3664 (63.4) 764/1167 (65.5) 2545/3730 (68.2)

* At least 2–3 times per month.

#
Sometimes or more often.

Victimization
Middle school students of both groups at baseline re-
ported being victims of relational bullying more frequently
than physical bullying (Table 3). For both types of victim-
ization, baseline frequencies in the intervention group were
lower than in the comparison group. Males consistently
reported more relational victimization at baseline than fe-
males (29.5% vs. 20.4% intervention, 34.6% vs. 26.2%
comparison, p ⱕ .001). This was also true for physical
victimization at baseline (18.4% vs. 9.5% intervention,
19.8% and 12.9% comparison, p ⱕ .001).
Attitudes and perceptions
Fewer students in intervention schools held pro-victim
attitudes and wanted to help others at baseline when com-
pared to students in comparison schools (34% vs. 39%, p ⱕ
.001). With regard to perceiving others’ readiness to inter-
vene, almost two thirds of the students or greater felt teach-
ers were already actively intervening at baseline among all
schools. Only 6% of students in both intervention and com-
parison groups felt other students were actively intervening
on behalf of student victims at baseline.
Multivariable analyses
Primary outcome: victimization
Overall, there was no difference in relational (RR ⫽ .96,
95% CI: .86 –1.08) or physical (RR ⫽ 1.00, 95% CI: .87–
1.17) victimization reports for the intervention schools ver-
sus comparison schools over the two-year period (Table 4).
When stratified by ethnicity/race, white students in inter-
vention schools were 27.5% less likely to report relational
(RR ⫽ .72, 95% CI: .53–.98) and 36.6% less likely to report
physical victimization (RR ⫽ .63, 95% CI: .42–.97) com-
pared to white students in comparison schools. There were

Table 4
Multivariable analyses of primary outcomes and program targets
Student-reported Relational Physical Attitude RR Students help other Teachers help
victimization victimization (95% CI) students RR (95% CI) other students
RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI)

Overall 0.96 (0.86–1.08) 1.01 (0.87–1.17) 1.04 (0.94–1.14) 1.21 (1.05–1.40) 0.98 (0.93–1.03)
Gender
Female 1.01 (0.84–1.21) 0.91 (0.71–1.16) 1.07 (0.95–1.20) 1.18 (0.97–1.43) 1.02 (0.95–1.09)
Male 0.94 (0.80–1.09) 1.05 (0.87–1.26) 0.97 (0.82–1.15) 1.30 (1.04–1.62) 0.94 (0.87–1.02)
Ethnicity/Race
Black 0.89 (0.66–1.19) 1.24 (0.88–1.75) 1.13 (0.89–1.44) 1.01 (0.75–1.36) 0.96 (0.85–1.08)
White 0.72 (0.53–0.98) 0.63 (0.42–0.97) 1.20 (0.98–1.48) 1.33 (0.83–2.13) 1.14 (0.93–1.40)
Asian 1.00 (0.77–1.31) 1.07 (0.81–1.43) 0.91 (0.75–1.10) 1.50 (1.13–1.99) 0.95 (0.87–1.03)
Other 0.90 (0.70–1.16) 0.84 (0.61–1.16) 1.00 (0.80–1.24) 1.04 (0.76–1.41) 0.97 (0.86–1.10)
Grade
6th 1.10 (0.90–1.34) 0.88 (0.68–1.14) 1.21 (1.05–1.40) 1.30 (1.05–1.60) 1.02 (0.94–1.10)
7th 0.87 (0.71–1.07) 1.11 (0.85–1.44) 0.82 (0.68–0.99) 1.06 (0.81–1.40) 0.95 (0.87–1.04)
8th 0.89 (0.71–1.11) 0.98 (0.76–1.28) 0.95 (0.79–1.15) 1.16 (0.86–1.57) 0.95 (0.86–1.06)

ⴱAdjusted for school size; % students eligible free lunch, % students passing achievement test and baseline frequencies for each outcome.
Bold: p ⱕ .05.
272 N.S. Bauer et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 40 (2007) 266 –274
no effects for students of other ethnicities/races. No effects
were seen when examined by gender or grade.
Secondary outcomes (program targets): attitudes
and perceptions
There was no difference between the intervention and
comparison schools in student attitudes to intervene overall
(RR ⫽ 1.04, 95% CI: .94 –1.14). When stratified by grade,
6th grade students in the intervention schools were more
likely to feel sorry for students being bullied and want to
help. No effect was found based on gender, ethnicity/race,
or in the other grades.
Students in intervention schools were more likely to
perceive other students as actively intervening in bullying
incidents (RR ⫽ 1.21, 95% CI: 1.05–1.40) compared to
those in comparison schools. Similar analyses for student
perception of teachers’ or other adults’ readiness to inter-
vene did not show intervention effects.
Secondary outcomes: general school experience
Perception of support, perception of safety, and school
engagement were not affected by the intervention (data not
shown).
Discussion
Bullying is a common experience as reported by middle
school students in our sample. Almost one third of our
sample reported being a victim of frequent relational bul-
lying in the past couple of months, and a smaller proportion
reported being physically bullied. In this controlled trial,
there was no overall effect of the Olweus Bullying Preven-
tion Program on student-reported victimization. However,
when stratified by ethnicity/race, white students were less
likely to report relational and physical victimization over
the two-year period. Among intervention schools, we found
students were 21% more likely to perceive other students
actively intervening on behalf of student victims. With
regard to student attitude, 6th graders were 21% more likely
to feel sorry for victims and want to help.
The prevalence of bullying victimization in our sample,
and the higher prevalence in boys, fall within the range
reported in the literature [3,14,17,21,22], although there are
differences among these studies in the time period and
whether overall victimization was reported or separated by
type experienced. The lack of overall effect of OBPP in
these Seattle middle schools suggests that the OBPP may
not be as effective as hoped. Evaluations of OBPP (or
OBPP-inspired programs) in Europe, Australia, and Canada
have found mixed results [11–13,23,24] but are difficult to
compare due to differences in sampling, design, and anal-
yses. The Norwegian evaluation found a 50% reduction in
both types of bullying over 2.5 years [5], but had no com-
parison schools and used pre-post comparisons between
age-equivalent groups, a design that is subject to historical
threats to internal validity. Our findings of the apparent
effect of OBPP on student attitudes add to scant literature on
these intermediate outcomes, and contrast with a report
finding no effect of a bullying prevention program on 10- to
12-year-olds’ attitudes [24]. Because questions were gener-
ally phrased and not linked to individual students, we were
not able to assess contextual variables associated with stu-
dent attitudes toward bullying. In general, students possess
pro-victim attitudes. Yet, we cannot conclude the OBPP
was responsible for the difference in perception because
these feelings may have been influenced by gender [25],
ethnicity/race [23,24,26,27], and age of students.
Several possibilities exist for our findings. The OBPP
was developed in Norway for a relatively homogenous
population; the program may not translate easily into a
multi-ethnic society. Secondly, the major developmental
task of adolescence is the formation of one’s identity. In
schools with a diverse student body, ethnic identity and
attitudes toward others could be influenced by experiences
with peer groups. One study examining middle school stu-
dents’ perception of discrimination and attitudes toward
others found European-Americans held more positive atti-
tudes toward other ethnic groups and reported less discrim-
ination when compared to the attitudes of African Ameri-
cans, Vietnamese Americans, and Mexican Americans [28].
Therefore, it is quite possible that white students in our
sample held similar beliefs and thus, schools with a higher
proportion of white students did not require as intensive or
tailored approaches to bullying prevention. It is also possi-
ble that direct consultation to the schools by Olweus was
responsible for the treatment effect seen in the original
evaluation, although another study using dedicated consult-
ants did not show an intervention effect [24]. In addition, a
variety of factors affect students’ perception and report-
ing of victimization, including cultural biases, making the
transfer of a program developed for one culture to another
difficult. Our study found post-implementation student-
reported victimization rates remained stable or increased. A
recent study found student perception of experienced vic-
timization influenced responses to the Olweus Bully/Victim
Questionnaire items [29]. Therefore, post-implementation
prevalence could be made up of previously unlabeled vic-
tims and may be a direct consequence of the district’s effort
to raise awareness through bullying prevention policies as
increases occurred for both intervention and comparison
schools. Lastly, we were not able to control for additional
home and family factors previously linked to student ag-
gression, such as exposure to intimate partner violence in
the home [30], history of sexual or physical abuse [31], or
harsh parenting [32].
As we found a substantial decrease in victimization only
among white students in our sample, it raises the question of
the overlap between racism and bullying. There are few
studies that examine the issue of racism and children spe-
cifically [28,33]. Racist remarks do not need to be experi-
enced repeatedly to result in harm [33]; whereas, the current
 N.S. Bauer et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 40 (2007) 266 –274
accepted definition of bullying emphasizes the repetitive
nature of an aggressive act to be considered bullying. More-
over, the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire has only one
indicator to capture racism (“I was called nasty names about
my color or race”). Eslea et al found Asian students expe-
rience a high prevalence of racism regarding student skin
color, language and dress, and religious practice [33]. Be-
cause our sample had a higher proportion of heterogeneity
than previous studies, racism could explain some of the
observed variability of effect. A cross-sectional survey con-
ducted by Romero and Roberts is the only study we are
aware of that examined the association between ethnic iden-
tity, perceived discrimination, and attitudes toward other
racial groups among an ethnically diverse sample consisting
of 3071 middle school students (grades 6 – 8) [28]. In this
study, the authors explored two distinct but related factors
within adolescent ethnic identity— ethnic exploration and
ethnic affiliation. Students who engaged in more ethnic
exploration or possessed more negative attitudes toward
others were more likely to perceive more discrimination
[28]. Conversely, students who reported a higher sense of
belonging to one’s ethnic group (ethnic affirmation—the
social identity aspect of ethnic identity) were more likely to
hold more positive attitudes toward other groups [28]. More
research is needed to further the work done by Romero and
Roberts by examining the interplay between ethnic identity,
bullying, and racism among this segment of children.
In light of the various roles of the family and ethnicity/
race on student behavior and attitudes, we encourage
schools not to stop implementing the Olweus Bullying Pre-
vention Program. One reason is that this program is the only
available bullying prevention program that is comprehen-
sive and encompasses a whole school approach. Addition-
ally, it is a vehicle for schools to bring about change because
it establishes a common language and provides the neces-
sary framework for schools to tackle bullying. The fact that
we found positive effects among white students is encour-
aging but, given the likelihood that increased heterogeneity
exists in schools across North America as compared to
Norway, schools should be aware that the role of ethnicity/
race and culture must be considered for reasons already
stated. Moreover, students come from varied family/home
environments and schools should work to engage parents to
effectively bring about change in student behavior.
Implementation efforts of intervention schools were
broad and encompassed a significant regularity and consis-
tency when compared to efforts of comparison schools. This
“whole school” approach is the distinguishing feature of the
OBPP from less formal bullying prevention activities.
Teacher/staff communication and school attention to bully-
ing problems have been predictive of implementation on the
school level [34]. These elements are essential to contin-
ued education and commitment of the staff, parents, and
administration and should remain a priority for schools
implementing or sustaining the program despite our
273
mixed findings on the program’s effectiveness. Given the
link between students’ personal experiences with victim-
ization and school avoidance [35], schools should continue
planning specific, structured curriculum and interventions in
the classroom. Peer groups are usually aware of the bullying
that occurs [36] and are desirable targets for intervention.
Teaching victim assertiveness and bolstering friendship
quality among both bullies and victims [37] can serve as
two important strategies.
We acknowledge certain limitations of our study. This
study was a natural experiment and there were measurement
issues that we had to account for (establishing the “Olweus
standard” and qualitative interviews). Key informant inter-
views are subject to recall bias, as well as sampling error.
One investigator (NB) conducted all the interviews and
confirmed obtained data through follow-up contact with key
informants to ensure data accuracy and help filling in miss-
ing timeline information. Reliance on student reports may
have led to under-reporting of victimization, although our
rates are similar or higher than previously published studies
[17,22,38]. In addition, from year to year, we had varying
rates of missing data, due to students not responding to all
questions. The school climate survey used in the present
study did not have an operational definition and may have
caused students to report on incidents involving another
student of equal strength, which does not meet the criteria
for bullying behavior. Self-reported bullying behavior and
student knowledge about what constitutes bullying was not
measured, nor did we have observational or cross-informant
reports of bullying victimization. Lastly, our results may not
be generalizable to other schools wishing to implement the
program, given the inherent complexity required for pro-
gram implementation and historical factors in our study
setting.
In summary, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
had some positive effects varying by gender, ethnicity/race,
and grade, but no overall effect in these Seattle middle
schools. Implementation of the OBPP program may lead to
variable differences in effectiveness based on factors related
to culture, race, and the influence of the family/home
environment. Therefore, schools should be aware of the
influence that home, culture, and society have on student
behavior, and tailor preventive measures accordingly. A
major implication of our study is for schools with an eth-
nically-diverse student body not to stop implementing the
program, but rather encourage the process of ethnic explo-
ration to nurture adolescents’ emerging ethnic identity,
while advocating the development of tolerance and sensi-
tivity to other ethnic groups. Identification of resources,
administrative support, and commitment to implementation
fidelity is an ongoing process. Future studies of large-scale
violence prevention programs in the community need to be
rigorously evaluated to ensure they are working as intended.
274 N.S. Bauer et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 40 (2007) 266 –274
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by a grant from Health Re-
sources and Service Administration (HRSA) and a National
Research Service Award (NRSA) Primary Care Research
Fellowship. The authors thank the following people for their
contributions to this project: James F. Lymp, Ph.D., with the
Child Health Institute for consultation on statistical analy-
ses; Susan Haws, M.P.H., and Michael Arthur, Ph.D., from
the Social Development Research Group (SDRG), for their
input in the development phase of the project; the district
trainers from the Seattle school district and key informants
from the participating middle schools for their time, effort,
and their continued support; and Susan P. Limber, Ph.D.,
from the Institute on Family & Neighborhood Life at Clem-
son University, for her consultation and for coding the
qualitative data.
References
[1] Olweus D. Bullying at School: Blackwell Publishing, 1993.
[2] Smith PK, Morita, Y, Junger-Tas J, et al (eds). The Nature of School
Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective. New York: Routledge, 1999.
[3] Haynie DL, Nansel T, Eitel P, et al. Bullies, victims, and bully/victims:
Distinct groups of at-risk youth. J Early Adolesc 2001;21:29 – 49.
[4] Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Coie JD. The emergence of chronic peer
victimization in boys’ play groups. Child Dev 1993;64:1755–72.
[5] Olweus D. Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention.
Eur J Psychol Educ 1997;12:495–510.
[6] Juvonen J, Graham S, Schuster MA. Bullying among young adoles-
cents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics 2003;112(6
Pt 1):1231–7.
[7] Kim YS, Koh YJ, Leventhal B. School bullying and suicidal risk in
Korean middle school students. Pediatrics 2005;115:357– 63.
[8] Olweus D. Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school
based intervention program. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1994;35:
1171–90.
[9] Patterson GR. Families: Applications of Social Learning to Family
Life. Revised. Champaign, IL: Research Press, 1975.
[10] Webster-Stratton C, Mihalic S, Fagan A, et al. Blueprints for Vio-
lence Prevention, Book Eleven: The Incredible Years—Parent,
Teacher, and Child Training Series. Boulder, CO: Center for the
Study and Prevention of Violence, 2001.
[11] Limber SP, Nation M, Tracy AJ, et al. Implementation of the Olweus
Bullying Prevention Programme in the Southeastern United States.
In: Smith PK, Pepler D, Rigby K (eds). Bullying in Schools: How
Successful can Interventions Be? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2004:334.
[12] Eslea M, Smith, PK. The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying
work in primary schools. Educ Res 1998;40:203–18.
[13] Salmivalli C, Kaukiainen A, Voeten M. Anti-bullying intervention: Im-
plementation and outcome. Br J Educ Psychol 2005;75(Pt 3):465– 87.
[14] Limber SP, Nation M, Tracy AJ, et al. Implementation of the Olweus
Bullying Prevention programme in the Southeastern United States. In:
Smith PK, Pepler D, Rigby K (Eds.) Bullying in Schools: How
Successful Can Interventions Be? Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004, 55–79.
[15] Hawkins JD, Catalano, RF, Arthur MW. Promoting science-based
prevention in communities. Addict Behav 2002;27:951–76.
[16] Solberg M, Olweus D. Prevalence estimation of school bullying with
the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behav 2003;29:
239 – 68.
[17] Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Pilla RS, et al. Bullying behaviors among
US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment.
JAMA 2001;285:2094 –100.
[18] Glew GM, Fan MY, Katon W, et al. Bullying, psychosocial adjust-
ment, and academic performance in elementary school. Arch Pediatr
Adolesc Med 2005;159:1026 –31.
[19] Wilson D. The interface of school climate and school connectedness
and relationships with aggression and victimization. J School Health
2004;74:293–9.
[20] Eslea M, Rees J. At what age are children most likely to be bullied at
school? Aggressive Behav 2001;27:419 – 429.
[21] Nansel TR, Craig W, Overpeck MD, et al. Cross-national consistency
in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial ad-
justment. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004;158:730 – 6.
[22] DeVoe JF. Student Reports of Bullying: Results from the 2001
School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Sur-
vey, Statistical Analysis Report (NCES 2005-310). In: National De-
partment for Education Statistics (ed). U.S. Department of Education
IoES.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005.
[23] Rigby K, Slee PT. Bullying among Australian school children: Re-
ported behavior and attitudes toward victims. J Soc Psychol 1991;
131:615–27.
[24] Stevens V, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Van Oost P. Bullying in Flemish
schools: An evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and
secondary schools. Br J Educ Psychol 2000;70(Pt 2):195–210.
[25] Baldry AC. “What about bullying?” An experimental field study to
understand students attitudes towards bullying and victimization in
Italian middle schools. Br J Educ Psychol 2004;74(Pt 4):583–98.
[26] Smith PK, Ananiadou K, Cowie H. Interventions to reduce school
bullying. Can J Psychiatry 2003;48:591–9.
[27] Stevens V, Van Oost P, De Bourdeaudhuij I. The effects of an
anti-bullying intervention programme on peers’ attitudes and behav-
iour. J Adolesc 2000;23:21–34.
[28] Romero AJ, Roberts RE. Perception of discrimination and ethnocul-
tural variables in a diverse group of adolescents. J Adolesc 1998;21:
641–56.
[29] Theriot MT, Dulmus CN, Sowers KM, et al. Factors relating to
self-identification among bullying victims. Child Youth Serv Rev
2005;27:979 –94.
[30] Bauer NS, Herrenkohl TI, Lozano P, et al. Childhood bullying in-
volvement and exposure to intimate partner violence. Pediatrics 2006;
118:e235– 42.
[31] Shields A, Cicchetti D. Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregu-
lation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle child-
hood. J Clin Child Psychol 2001;30:349 – 63.
[32] Carney AG, Merrell KW. Bullying in schools: Perspectives on un-
derstanding and preventing an international problem. School Psychol
Int 2001;22:364 – 82.
[33] Eslea M, Mukhtar K. Bullying and racism among Asian schoolchil-
dren in Britain. Educ Res 2000;42:207–17.
[34] Kallestad JH, Olweus D. Predicting teachers’ and schools’ implemen-
tation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: A multilevel
study. Prev Treat 2003;6:23.
[35] Astor RA, Benbenishty R, Zeira A, et al. School climate, observed
risky behaviors, and victimization as predictors of high school stu-
dents’ fear and judgments of school violence as a problem. Health
Educ Behav 2002;29:716 –36.
[36] Craig WM, Pepler DJ. Peer processes in bullying and victimization:
An observational study. Except Educ Canada 1995;5:81–95.
[37] Bollmer JM, Milich R, Harris MJ, et al. A friend in need: The role of
friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and
bullying. J Interpers Violence 2005;20:701–12.
[38] Genta ML, Menesini E, Fonzi A, et al. Bullies and victims in schools
in central and southern Italy. Eur J Psychol Educ 1996;11:97–110.