I would like to introduce the first session which is entitled bullying trends where we have been, where we are now and where we are going. We have three excellent speakers for the session. First up is mr. Tom snyder from the department of education. He is the director of annual reports and information staff at the National Center for Education Statistics and is a recognized expert on Education Statistics. [ applause ] thank you for this opportunity to come talk to you about some of the data that we collect and compile at the National Center for Education Statistics. Many of the things i am going to talk about to you today you may be familiar with and certainly working with bullying there are many things you are well aware of from your own observations. I think there is something here for everybody that is going to be some new things that we can talk about. There is a lot of new sources coming out with bullying data. There are new sources that you can take advantage of that may be useful in your presentations. Here we go. There is a number of sources for bullying data. Some of them go back further in time and some are very recent. In particular there is a survey on school crime and safety that is done based on Public Schools. This survey has been in process since 19992000. This survey unfortunately was terminated in 200910 but there is a process underway to begin the survey again. There is a survey done based on Health Statistics from the world health organization. And that is on Health Behavior in school aged children. It covers children in grades six through eight. This particular survey is based on individuals unlike the Public School survey which is actually a survey of schools. Also, the traditional survey that we have used at the National Center for Education Statistics and in particular in our indicators of school crime and Safety Survey is the National CrimeVictimization Survey. We use what is called the School Crime Supplement. This is the specific survey that has the information on the bullying. There is also an excellent survey from cdc, the Youth Risk Behavior surveillance system. We actually use that in our school indicators report, as well. That covers grades 9 through 12. This is an individual level survey. It covers children in grades 9 through 12. One thing i think is interesting, this is an observation in terms of recognition of the problem of bullying across the world is the new surveys that are coming out from some of the international organizations. I do a lot of International Educational statistics, as well. In my work with colleagues i am getting a lot of feedback that people are interested and have many programs going on about bullying and specifically in the nordic countries very aggressive moves towards preventing bullying. Im looking at charts i have that highlight bullying statistics. This is based on the National CrimeVictimization Survey which covers children ages 12 through 18. Basically you can see that there is no real trend in terms of bullying going up and down for males and females together. There is a decline over time in bullying for males. However, we dont see that for females. There is really no trend for females. Differences there are nonsignificant. We are in position where difference between males and females is not significant in 2005 but now females are more likely to be bullied than males. If we look at the kinds of bullying that studentstypically report you can see that the ones most frequently reported are being a subject of rumors, having fun made of them. Some of the bullying articles i have been reading have focused more on physical bullying but that is actually less of the actual bullying occurrences. We have to recognize it may not be readily observable. Perhaps it is worth notice that the differences for males and females is highlight here is rumors and being made fun of is much higher for females than for males. For males they are more likely to be involved in sort of a physical bullying incident. The males are slightly more likely to be pushed or shove or tripped than a female. If we turn towards the grades that students are most likely to be bullied at. Middle school is the period of time where children are most likely to be bullied so grades six and seven. For Cyber Bullying grades 10 and 11 students are more likely to be cyber bullied than grades 6 and 7. If we look at bullying by Race Ethnicity white students are more likely to be bullied than hispanic and asian students. Black students are also less likely to be cyber bullied than white students. Turning towards the locations where children are most likely to be bullied mosttypically it is actually inside the schools. Sometimes people think maybe school buses are more common location. There is certainly bullying on school buses or on School Grounds most bullying does occur on hallways or stair wells inside the classrooms. If you are thinking about middle school or High School Students you have a lot of potential for things to happen in between classes and that is what the data shows. In terms of differences between males and females the only substantial difference here is between males and females with respect to bullying and bathrooms or locker rooms. It turns out that males are more likely to be bullied in those particular locations. One of the things i think is particularly important as a practitioner or dealing with bullying problems is to know about how often you are actually alerted by the students that a bullying incident has occurred. It turns out that the younger children are more likely to report a bullying incident than an older child. This is important because it may effect your knowledge about what is actually occurring in the school and when we turn to look at school reported data you will see that there is huge potential for incidents not being reported. Even in here in the best case among sixth graders only about half of the incidents are reported. Turning now to look at some of the data that is actually reported by schools. This contrasts with what we were just talking about which were actually data reported by students themselves. This does show a decline in terms of the bullying being reported to the schools. What the schools were asked to report back was whether bullying incidents were occurring at least once per week. And i think you have to think in terms of this is what is coming up to the principals office, something the principal is dealing with at least once a week. It is certainly not reflective of what is happening for individual students but tells you about the more extreme cases that are arising to the principals level where they would be logical to report that. We see a decline here between 992000 and 2010 dropping from 29 of schools reporting this occurring every week to 23 . You are looking at the same data but at the various types of schools. You can see as might be expected from student reported data that middle schools are most likely to report frequent bullying occurren occurrences. You see about equal percentages of Elementary Schools and high schools. Reinforcing unfortunately we dont have a lot of information about Elementary School students. This is one of the few places where we have something. Children younger than sixth grade are really not able to report. They dont have the understanding of the questionnaire instruments, too complicated for them. While they can report to an adult on an individual level they cant fill out survey forms in a large scale survey for Something Like this. There is also problems with sensitivity, as well. That is another issue with gathering information from very young children. I want to turn now to talk briefly about some of the other data sources that you may be able to use and may be of interest to you. The Health Behavior survey is done by w. H. O. This survey is not readily extensible. There is Important Research using this survey but the website doesnt really provide information. You have to obtain raw data sets and do your own analysis. While i think you may encounter this data source looking at Journal Articles or references it may not be convenient to use. I should note that the survey has identified that there was a decline in bullying for this age group. It is, again, looking at middle grade students and they have a decline from 12. 6 to 7. 5 . You will notice that the bullying data dont align across the surveys. Some of it has to do with survey methodology. In this case it is also important that the reference period is the past couple of months. It is not a year long reference period. The information we were looking at before was a year long reference period. The children reporting about bullying that occurred over an entire school year. One of the surveys i am most enthusiastic is on the Youth Risk Behavior surveillance system. This covers grades 9 to 12. This website gets my recommendation for being one that is easy to use. I encourage people. They have a very nice data tool that you can actually get bullying data for your state. And so i think this is a really good Reference Point for you and you can obtain the information easily. I am going to briefly mention two international studies. There is a bullying question on surveys but in the context of student assessment. It is a small part of the survey but does illustrate that bullying is important in other countries and is a serious problem. It is about the same level as the United States. There is a bullying question in the program for International Student assessment and concerns on 15 year olds. Somewhat surprisingly bullying is reported more of a problem in some of the very high achieving countries. I wasnt able to assemble that in context for you but it was an interesting observation. I wanted to wind up the presentation there. I want to welcome you to look at our indicators of School Crime Safety report. It has a wealth of information about bullying and other aspects of crime and misbehavior in schools. We have a crime and Safety Survey group and there is a website to access more information on our surveys. Thank you. [ applause ] our next speaker is dr. Katherine bradshaw from the university of virginia where she is professor and associate dean for research and faculty development. Some of her Research Projects include examining bullying in School Climate and the design, evaluation and implementation of evidencebased Prevention Programs in schools. [ applause ] thank you so much for inviting me here today. I am pleased to report out some findings from an institute of medicine work shop that was held recently just this past april on the topic of bullying. It is really quite a thrill not only to participate in an iom activity but also just to see the institute of medicine focus on the issue of bullying. Those of us who have been doing this work for sometime felt it was an educational issue or school issue. To see it rise to the level based on the federal partners pushing it and wanting it be covered through an iom report is very exciting and i think will help chart it as a top priority both within the medical field as well as within education and other fields so i am really very excited about that. So i am speaking here as a member of the panel and not an official briefing on the institute of medicine report. There is an official briefing that just got released today that is on the table there. I want to make sure you see that and you can take a quick look at that today and perhaps do a more thorough read. It was intended to have a more practitioner and Research Base summary for a wide audience. So i am going to give you a quick overview of some of the material that was covered in the report and some of the highlights. The overall theme was really just to pull together information about bullying including its prevalence, impact, what do we know in terms of strengths of the field and what are the gaps and different partners we need to work with in terms of putting together a more systematic bullying prevention initiative. A couple of themes came out as we started thinking about the reflections on this particular event. And one of which was the Interdisciplinary Group that helped organize this. We were led by fred rivera who is the editor of jamma pediatrics and has led a number of different efforts around consensus reports and iom reports. So it is really quite an honor to work with him as our chair. There were a number of other people from different disciplines. It is a really important piece for the iom to make sure different disciplines are represented there. I come from several disciplines myself in terms of education, psychology, Public Health so that was nice. And then nina fred ln is from the field of nursing. Nancy guerra is a developmental psychologist. Denise is a criminologist who has perspective on the field. Megan morano is a pediatrician and then we were joined by a lawyer on our team, Jonathan Torres who provided a nice perspective around legal issues. In terms of general themes that i extracted and then i will delve into particular topics more specifically i thought it was quite important and very exciting to see iom embrace the idea of different perspectives. So we actually convened a youth panel that were there as well as a practitioner panel. So i helped put together the practitioner panel. I knew a couple of youth who were strong advocates in this area. They werent just tacked on at the end. They were front and center. We began the event having them speak about their experiences and perspectives. They were in many ways providing us ongoing dialogue and feedback about the topics. It was really great to have that perspective in house and not just a tack on. It was truly embedded throughout and paused many times to ask for their feedback on these particular issues. The interdisciplinary i talked about the connection between physical health and Mental Health is one that iom does so nicely and was really great to see in terms of how we knit together the different topics that were covered under the broader heading of bullying prevention. As a developmentalist the life course perspective was really nice. The original title had a life course perspective. We struggled a little bit about how to bring that in since most of the work was focused on school aged youth. We talked about bullying or adulthood and long term impacts. As we start thinking about the notion of bullying showing up in work place violence and other concerns for adults so it is not just a kid phenomenon although there is tension between that and definition put forward by cdc. It is interesting to think about the different definition and how we can stretch that. Cultural and contextual considerations are critical for this issue. Rather than having a panel on cultural factors we wanted to weave that through different topics. There were times we had to stop and make sure we were respecting and reflecting a cultural on this. That is one area we need to improve. And evaluating the strengths as well as the gaps in the literature. To drill down a little bit more the sessions began with an opening by sue limbburg who has done a lot of work in the area and provided a little bit of the state of the science and what we know about prevalence and introduced the bullying definition by cdc. She prepared a longer report that will be covered in greater detail by the iom eventually. Then we had a panel. Dorothy was one of our fabulous panelists in the session talking about different issues related to the development of outcomes associated with bullying. We heard a little bit from robert faris about social networks and the peer context of bullying and issues related to culture as it is embedded within that. Dorothy talked about a rich body of research that she has been leading and others have contributed to around harassment and teen dating violence. Tracy vallen cort had a presentation about how bullying gets under the skin and citing research about Brain Development and intersection between stress and coping strategies as it relates to bullying and some of the work she has done originally and citing others, as well. That was a unique perspective and one that was poigant. This is one of the graphics down at the bottom that she displayed about childrens brains and showing this. I think the original citation for this is a bruce perry study several years ago looking at the impact of trauma on the brain and you dont have to be a neurscientist to see the two brains, the one on the left of a developing child and the one on the right that experienced abuse. It provides the frame for thinking about trauma and adverse childhood events. I was on a panel with denise and dewey corp nel where we talked about a school perspective. This is where the body of literature is the largest, i would like to say the strongest but there are still a lot of gaps in this particular area. Denise talked a lot about School Climate. I was happy to hear that was picked up in the themes today and talked about legal issues and policies and zero tolerance and some of the reactive approaches that schools often take about video cameras and metal detectors. We dont have research to show they have a strong impact on reducing bullying. I spoke about meta analysis and research about particular programs. I had this graphic in my talk about is the Glass Half Full or half empty . You can view it in terms of the review of literature. Some programs can reduce bullying. However, some of the studies are done abroad and may not generalize very well to the United States or are limited to certain outcomes. So while it is exciting to see there is evidence based models there is a lot more room for improvement as we think about their impact but uptake within school settings. So then we moved into talking about family perspectives and melissa holt was there and talked about the issues of disclosure and parent child communication. She and her colleagues have a nice paper that highlights the importance of the family dinner as an opportunity to be talking about issues related to bullying and some of the Research Showing that it buffers the impacts of Cyber Bullying on Mental Health outcomes. It is exciting to see more Research Getting into the next layer outside of the school and the family because there hasnt been a lot of research in this area specifically in the topic of bullying. Mostly about how the parents respond and sometimes they dont respond in the ways we like them to often encouraging kids to hit back or fight for themselves or blaming their child for being a target of bullying. Then we heard from Deborah Gorman smith who has done a lot in the area of Youth Violence prevention particularly in the chicago area much of which had a family focus. She summarized the Broader Research around Youth Violence prevention because there hasnt been a lot of programming focused specifically on families. It is promising to see the strategies we use in other areas of violence prevention might generalize to bullying should we begin to look at those outcomes. That is a limitation of the research that we havent always looked at bullying behavior as an outcome. We need more precise measurement in making sure people are including measures particularly of bullying. Then we moved into the hot topic of technology really very exciting set of presentations focusing on the use of technology both to perpetrate bullying but also potential interventions. A Public Health researcher and who is doing work around several different areas gave a very nice presentation citing other Public Health preventions and work abroad and other areas like hiv prevention where she has used technology to try to prevent transmission of different types of healthrelated issues. That holds a lot of promise for the work of bullying prevention. It is exciting to see that interdisciplinary and international lens. Community interventions you can see we are moving layers out of the eclogical bottle here. The further we go out the thinner the Research Base gets. We were excited to hear a little bit about some of the work in communities but that hasnt focused specifically on the area of bullying. The care model has been very effective for reducing Substance Use and aggressive behavior but havent focused so much on bullying. That is one area to focus. Joe wright who is a very well established researcher and pediatrician, very well known here in d. C. For his work around policy and provides a pediatricians perspective on health. It was nice to hear from him making up the role of Health Care Providers both within schools and community settings. And then this is also a very hot topic. Peer led programs because there has been such a push about lets get youth involved and have youth be leaders and co facilitate different types of prevention. There has been controversy in the literature because we find when you group aggressive kids together and sometimes pair other kids up to try to prevent bullying you can make things worse if they are not done effectively and the right way. We brought in two leading researchers in this area to talk about their perspectives and their long line of research around this area. And virtually they focus mostly on gang related issues and overlap with bullying and then also some of the intervention framework. We didnt have as much literature on peer led programs. There is such a push in this area. We have a lot of home grown models on this but dont have a lot that are rigorously protected. What are the programs they are effective. How can we support schools in promoting these kinds of models with integrity and models that dont do harm but improve outcomes for youth . Then we the last level here was about policies and practices. This is more global perspective, talked about some of the issues related to lgbt populations which we heard from so eloquently this morning from our colleagues about different perspectives. This was really a helpful knitting together of different policy perspectives and legal issues as it relates to bullying prevention because as you know all but one state has a specific law related to the issue of bullying. We talked about the fact that there hasnt been a lot of research documenting the outcomes of those particular policies and certainly very Little Research looking at implementation and variation of implementation of those. Then we thought a little more about translating what we know, how do we get what we do know out into the field with a particular interest in evidencebased programs. While the glass is half full or half empty what do we know about the fields from implementation science and prevention science that we can clean on as we think about bullying prevention. We had three leading researchers in the area of prevention science including lou ann robuck who has done a lot of work, Abigail Fagan in communities that care model and leading method aulgist, Hendrix Brown who has done work in Suicide Prevention and violence prevention. It was great to get their perspectives on this. Just to wrap up here. Next steps there was the release of the briefs. This is the first step in a process that iom often goes through depending on level of commitment and investment. The next step possibly could be what is referred to as a consensus study which would lead to a more formal book that would summarize different issues related to bullying. This was intended to be a bit of an overview of the field and help drive where are the gaps that need to be filled through a more systematic study. Certainly that is intended to motivate and foster more research and more programming through the community. Thank you for opportunity to share some of the work that the iom did to support this. I want to acknowledge the great staff of National Academies of science that put this together, patty simon, stacy smith it is great to be part of that network and see this issue raise up to this level of visibility. Thank you. [ applause ] thank you. Our last speaker is dr. Michael lou, associate administrator of maternal and child health. Prior to joining hrsa he was associate professor of subst obstetrics, gynecology and Public Health. He has received numerous awards and voted one of the best doctors in america since 2005 and well known for research on racial ethnic disparities and birth outcomes. Welcome. [ applause ] good morning. Im delighted to be here and very honored to be invited to speak at this summit. Let me start off by saying what a tremendous honor it is for me to share this panel. I also want to take a moment to thank our partners at hhs including cdc, nih, nicf as well as our partners at the department of education, justice and agriculture and the white house for all of their partnership and collaboration. I want to give a special shout out to my colleagues at the department of education and for the Planning Committee for bringing us all together, all their hard work and the tremendous leadership to bring us together for the summit. I was asked to talk about where we are going. Let me start by telling you how we are going to get there. I want you to take a moment and look around this room. Thats how we are going to get there. We are not going to be able to move the needle on bullying prevention by working in silence. It is going to take coming together, federal partners, state and local partners, public and private partners, educators and researchers, doctors, nurses, social workers, Public Health professionals, Family Community leaders and youth and especially the youth all coming together, working across sectors thats how we are able to move the needle on bullying prevention in our nation. As was mentioned, i am hrsas associate administrator for maternal and child health. Thats been our mission for over 100 years dating back to the sta establishment. I have been pushing hard to do better for kids and families in our country. When it comes to bullying prevention we know we can still do a lot better as a nation. We certainly made a lot of progress in the last decade. In 2004 when hrsa launched the first Antibullying Campaign many people still believed bully was just a rite of passage. Kids will be kids. They used to say that is just what kids do. I think we have come a very long way in the last decade. In part due to the work of all of the federal partners coming together to create the stopbullying. Gov. I think in larger part due to all of the great work that you are all doing on the ground we really raised the Public Awareness to know that bullying is not okay and that there are serious destructive consequences across the life course. So we made a lot of progress in raising awareness, but as you just heard from mr. Snyder lightning too many kids in this country are still bouullied eve day. What more can we do . How do we go from awareness to action. How can we move the needle on bullying prevention as a nation . In Public Health there is something we call the richmond college. The Public Health folks will recognize richmond as the one who founded head start. You bring about real social change in three things. You need Knowledge Base, you need social strategy and you need political will. And i think that is where we need to go in the next five years if we are going to be able to move the needle on bullying prevention. We have to keep building on our Knowledge Base. We have to keep advancing social strategy and we have to keep growing political will to do something about bullying in our nation. So let me start with the Knowledge Base. You just heard a summary of the iom work shop from dr. Bradshaw and the work shop brief was released. Hrsa supported this work shop to begin to synthesize the Knowledge Base about what we know and what we dont. What do we know in terms of what works and what doesnt work . It turns out that we actually know a lot about what works. As you just heard from dr. Bradshaw. Some of the most promising strategies involve a whole school, whole Community Approach that the entire school as a community to change the climate of the school and norms of behavior, taking a multilevel approach that target the individual, the classroom and the school and the community levels. We also know a lot about what doesnt work. Zero tolerance policies dont work. Conflict resolution and peer mediation dont work because bullying is a form of victimization and not conflict. Group treatment for children who bully doesnt work because it might reinforce bullying or antisocial behaviors. We have to keep building up our Knowledge Base about what works and what doesnt so that if in the next five years we are going to know a lot more about how to move the needle on bullying prevention for the nation. Second, social strategy. While there is a lot that we still dont know we know enough to act today. So each of us need to be asking ourselves what more can we do. We at hrsa are doing our part. Some of you may know that we have recently proposed making bully a performance measure for our title 5 block program. Title 5 block grant is the primary system for child and maternal health. With 640 million it is a 6 bill kwn enterprise every year. It is one of the biggest levers we have to lift up the population, one of the best vehicles we have to drive improvement, drive transformation in maternal and child health. I believe title 5 can play a major role in bullying prevention in the states. Virginia the state title 5 program used block grant funds to initiate bullying Prevention Program using obey model that spread to Elementary Schools across the state. By making bullying prevention a performance measure we will be able to hold programs accountable for moving needles on bullying. Title 5 cannot do this alone. It will take professionals, policymakers schools and communities coming together sharing best practices. We are looking at new ways to support the states and community in doing just that. Over the past two years we brought the whole science of collaborative improvement and innovation to help states share best practices in reducing infant mortality and improving birth outcome and created a coin complete with shared work space and data dashboard to provide Real Time Data to drive real time improvement and brought together state officers, medicaid directors, title 5 directors, Governors Office as well as professional leaders in this learning collaborative. I wont go into the detail of the coin here but just to say over the past two years in the 13 Southern States where we started we saw 31 reduction in early elective deliveries which translates to 71,000 averted and a 9 reduction translating to about 15,000 fewer pregnant women smoking across the south. I cant say all of that was attributable to the coin but i can say it has really accelerated collaborative improvement innovation across the states and we are looking to do the same for bullying prevention by bringing the science to accelerate across states across communities. Third is political will. What we are doing will require a great deal of political will to get us there. We are seeing this ground swell of political will across the nation to do something about bullying. In all 50 states there are laws and or policies in place to address bullying. Many schools and School Districts have adopted antibullying policies. Many of you in this room have been champions of this National Movement on bullying prevention that is growing. I want to give a special shout out to the youth and families in the room. Some of you have endured great pain or witnessed great pain and i applaud your courage to rise above the pain of speaking out so that other youth and other families dont have to go through what you went through. You are the real heroes, the real drivers of the National Movement and Going Forward will have to keep that momentum going, keep growing the political will to do something about bullying prevention in our nation. So building the Knowledge Base, advancing social strategy, growing political will. Thats what we have got to do to go from awareness to action. That is what it will take to start moving the needle on bullying in the next five years. So let me just close by adding one more thing that we are going to need Going Forward by going back to the first point i made. We not going to move the needle on bullying by working in silence. We have to come together federal partners, state and local partners, Public Private partners, schools and communities across sectors, across states. Look around me. Look around in the room. This is what change looks like. This is what leadership is all about. So in closing let me say on behalf of hrsa we are all in on this partnership. We all have a partner that you can count on. We will be working side by side with you doing everything we can to help you move the needle on bullying for the nations children, youth and families. Thank you very much. [ applause ] we dont have a ton of time for questions but we do know that we have people in cyber space watching. So we have a virtual question from our social media outlets. We have over 300 folks virtually participating today. Here is a question from twitter. Is there research on the long lasting effects of awareness raising events . Is that only a spike in terms of impact . So awareness raising is certainly part of the pieces of puzzles when thinking about putting together a bullying prevention initiative. We have a long line of Public Health research that shows that raising awareness is an important part but you also need the Skill Development to follow up. When you talk about awareness raising event we recommend that that happen within a broader set of activities. The one shot deal of a symposium or program for kids in schools generally have not shown to be effective. They might be a kickoff event that could be combined with other things but the Research Shows you need to spend time developing skills and talking about issues on a regular ongoing basis and Skill Development happens for kids as well as adults. Awareness raising i think is important and we have certainly seen National Evidence of awareness in terms of increasing the general populations awareness of the issue of bullying. It will be exciting to see trends and translating that to outcomes but it is further evidence that it will take more than just awareness raising to change behavior. Do we have other questions from the audience . I ask that you go to one of the microphones so everybody can hear you. There is one right there and one here. Go ahead. So my question is primarily for tom snyder. I had the opportunity last year to participate on a panel to discuss revising the bullying measures on the School Crime Supplement to better match the cdc uniform definition. I am wondering if you can speak to progress made. Right now the questions on the School Crime Supplement are behavior based and dont take into account repetition or potential to be repeated or power. I am wondering if you can speak to whether they will be revised and when you might expect revised items . I cant speak to that specifically because i am not working on the survey myself. We will be releasing information from the th13 survey. The first time we can see new numbers would be 2015 Data Collection in 2016. We can check on that or you can contact katherine chandler. Thank you. I will take one last question. My question was generated by dr. Lous sharing of the Knowledge Base and things that we know works. I am curious if you have any familiarity or knowledge about how Restorative Justice or restorative practice works with students that have been involved in bullying. I dont but certainly love to hear more about it. I know there are a lot of these good practices interventions out there and what we are trying to figure out is that instead of these sharing to occur by accident can we engineer