With an increasing focus on bullying among the public, educators, researchers, and policy makers, there is a need to delineate what we know works in bullying prevention and what areas might benefit from greater attention. The social-ecological framework provides a useful tool through which to consider what contexts and factors within these contexts might yield promising results in bullying prevention. In this article we first provide an overview of bullying prevention program evaluations to date, and then highlight two salient components of the social-ecology that have received limited attention to date. Specifically, we discuss the role of teacher implementation in influencing bullying program effectiveness, and consider how community-based bullying prevention efforts might serve to address factors relevant to bullying involvement that are outside the sphere of influence of educators.

Keywords: prevention; intervention; social-ecological framework; teacher implementation; communities; bullying

In the past decade there has been an increasing focus on bullying prevention in the United States and around the globe. With it, there has been a growing recognition that effective bullying prevention programs should be situated within a social-ecological framework ([22]; [25]; [38]; [54]), addressing the characteristics of the individual involved and the multiple contexts in which they are embedded. In support of this perspective is research documenting that factors at each level of the social-ecology contribute to bullying behavior, from peer group levels of aggression (e.g., [18]) to parenting styles (e.g., [ 2])to classroom norms about aggression ([30]).

Efforts to evaluate existing bullying prevention programs have yielded mixed results, however, and for schools and communities there is limited practical guidance about which programs or program components to implement, even when bullying prevention is mandated by legislation ([51]). This article provides an overview of bullying prevention program evaluations to date, highlighting promising approaches and components, the importance of addressing issues of implementation integrity and fidelity, and possibilities for greater community involvement in bullying prevention efforts.

ARE BULLYING PREVENTION PROGRAMS EFFECTIVE?

The success of school-based antibullying programs has been documented in countries around the world, using very different approaches (e.g., [ 8]; [20]; [39]; [35], 2004; [46]), yet initial reviews of the overall effectiveness of universal bullying prevention programs have yielded mixed results (for a review see [54]). For example, a meta-analysis conducted by [49]), considered the impact of 14 schoolwide bullying prevention programs and concluded that there were only small program effects. Similarly, a meta-analysis of 16 studies from European and U.S. schools indicated that, although bullying prevention programs were associated with changes in knowledge, attitudes, and self-perceptions about bullying, actual decreases in bullying behaviors were less evident ([31]). More recent meta-analyses of social-emotional learning programs in general ([11]), and antibullying programs in particular ([41]; [56]) have yielded more encouraging results. Indeed, Ttofi and Farrington's (2011) meta-analysis of 44 evaluations of schoolwide antibullying programs indicated that these programs were generally effective overall, albeit with an average reduction in victimization of 17% to 23% and an average reduction in bullying perpetration of 20% to 30%.

How might we make sense of the mixed findings to date? One approach is to consider which specific bullying prevention programs and components seem to yield the most promising results and which factors might hinder program success. We outline a few such factors here. With respect to promising programs, the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (and programs patterned after it) has perhaps received the greatest research attention (for a review see [37]), owing in part to the fact that it was one of the first schoolwide programs developed and evaluated (see [35]). With its focus on changing the social climate of the school and school norms with regard to bullying, it has also been shown to be one of the more effective programs for reducing school bullying (see [56]). However, the Olweus program is not the only approach to reducing bullying. Researchers have also documented the success of other programs that reduce bullying by changing the school climate (e.g., [39]) or highlighting the salience of bystander behavior, such as the KIVA program in Finland ([45]; [46]) and the Steps to Respect program in the United States ([20]). Reducing retaliation, which predicts increased victimization ([19]; [44]) is another approach used in successful programs ([20]).

Although no program to date has been shown to eliminate bullying, significant reductions in bullying have been documented using diverse approaches. Different approaches may address different aspects of the problem or may be effective with different segments of the student body, suggesting that multiple or combined approaches may be needed (see [42]; [53]). Indeed, reviews to date have indicated that whole-school antibullying efforts that are longer in duration and more extensive in scope tend to be more effective ([43]; [56]; [57]). [56]) have also identified several features of schoolwide programs that are associated with greater effectiveness, including parent meetings, firm disciplinary methods, better playground supervision, classroom management, teacher training, and cooperative learning. Evidence of success in one domain, however, is no guarantee of success in another. Aggressive retaliation, for example, appears to respond to intervention more slowly than the initial bullying ([20]; Hirschstein, Edstrom, Frey, Snell, & McKenzie, 2007). The effectiveness of bullying prevention programs can vary for a number of reasons, including differences in implementation fidelity and dosage (e.g., [37]; [49]), and schools' readiness to implement schoolwide programs ([37]).

In sum, despite mixed findings about the effectiveness of bullying prevention programs to date, recent research provides a more hopeful outlook for bullying prevention programs as a whole and for particularly efficacious program components. Despite the documented success of several schoolwide programs, overall reductions in bullying and victimization have been limited. More work is needed to enable greater reductions. To that end, we discuss two areas that have received less attention in the literature: teacher implementation and community involvement.

TEACHER IMPLEMENTATION

Many of the bullying prevention program evaluations to date have been efficacy studies in which educators receive material and technical resources from developers or researchers. In actual practice, effectiveness will vary widely. Effectiveness studies may yield poorer results than efficacy studies when resources, planning, and implementation are insufficient to the task ([10]) and may yield better results when educator ingenuity, local knowledge, and sense of ownership exceed what can be provided in an external evaluation. Given the critical role of implementation integrity, this section focuses on issues of teacher motivation, knowledge, and capacity; maintaining fidelity despite adaptation; and addressing teacher turnover by planning for long-term sustainability.

Building Teacher Capacity

There can be substantial differences between classrooms, even within the same school, in beliefs supporting bullying ([47]) and in levels of victimization and reinforcing bystander behavior ([21]; [48]). Although some of these variations can be attributed to grade level differences, research findings have also documented variability across classrooms of the same grade (e.g., for antibullying norms; see [47]). In addition, studies have found classroom differences in response-to-intervention ([ 6]; [20]). While student makeup of classrooms contributes to that variation, so does between-teacher variation. Teachers are more likely to address bullying if they believe the problem is serious, feel empathy for bullied students, perceive that they have key roles to play in reducing bullying (teacher efficacy), and believe that their intervention will be effective ([26]; [27]). Building capacity in teachers entails supporting teacher motivation and skills in both program-specific and general ways ([59]).

Beliefs, motivation, and skill

The potential of teachers to provide emotional support, facilitate competent coping, and foster positive social norms is unrealized when teachers do not recognize or intervene in bullying behavior, or when they do not view it to be problematic (see [33]). For instance, [ 3]) found that preservice teachers viewed relational bullying as less serious than physical or verbal manifestations, and were in turn less likely to intervene in relational bullying episodes. Training can increase teachers' understanding of the harmful effects of indirect bullying and cyberbullying, and their role in fostering aggressive confrontations on school grounds ([60]). Training that includes role-playing of intervention scenarios raises teachers' self-efficacy for dealing with bullying ([ 4]) and supports effective intervention.

Fidelity and adaptation

Program effectiveness is enhanced with high fidelity, the extent to which implementation matches the original program's design and procedures ([10]). For example, within the literature on schoolwide antibullying efforts, [46]) found that student reports of being bullied in response to the KIVA program decreased from 14.9% to 10.5% in low implementation integrity classes (i.e., a relative reduction of 30%), but decreased from 21.7% to 6.7% (a relative reduction of 69%) in high implementation integrity classes. Particularly when programs include classroom lessons, educators often wish to adapt programs to fit specific teaching styles or perceived student needs. Some adaptations may enrich established programs, such as by providing images of people and situations typical of the student body. Others inadvertently delete core components (i.e., the elements that translate underlying theory into practical procedures), or add elements that obscure core learning goals and dilute their effectiveness (e.g., the addition of scare tactics). Given the emphasis on using evidence-based programs, educators may benefit from training on identifying core elements and undertaking a systematic process in implementing program adaptations (e.g., [16]).

A systematic approach supports faculty and program effectiveness. In order to knowledgeably assess a program, teachers need to adhere closely to program elements the first year. Problems and ideas for improvements can be discussed in weekly team meetings, with suggestions summarized for review at the end of the year. Some changes are unlikely to affect fidelity (e.g., using student-typical language in role-plays). Those that require more caution (e.g., changing lesson sequence or eliminating lessons) can be evaluated with the help of program developers. A coordinated approach among team members with respect to making changes allows for consistency in program implementation, and the team can then collect process data on the adapted program as the next year unfolds. Although it is important not to make changes to core program components, educators are hampered by a dearth of evidence identifying essential elements for program success. Researchers can provide more guidance by using factorial designs ([12]) that estimate unique and joint effects of presumed core components.

Relationships and influence

Aspects of program delivery, such as teacher-student relationships, integration of program elements into daily classroom routines, and extra support for students involved in bullying, also affect program effectiveness. Students are less aggressive when teachers are supportive ([32]). Strong student-teacher relationships can improve outcomes (e.g., [ 9]). Further, when relationships are important to teachers, they may be more likely to actively foster empathy and inclusiveness among their students on a daily basis. Students with teachers who make such efforts are less likely to reinforce playground bullying or have attitudes that support aggression ([21]). Given these characteristics are associated with greater aggression ([47]; Salmivalli et al., 2012), teacher efforts may reap rewards across the school year.

Despite best efforts, bullying will occur, and educators must be prepared to respond effectively with both perpetrators and targets. Planning for Tier 2 interventionsupport of students already involved in bullyingcan be a weak link in programs focused on prevention. There is considerable evidence, however, that specific strategies are related to program success. For instance, utilizing disciplinary methods that include firm sanctions has been found to be associated with reductions in bullying perpetration and victimization ([56]). Research shows higher-than-average reductions in victimization and retaliatory aggression when teachers spend as little as 10 minutes a week coaching involved students and holding them accountable ([23]). Teacher efforts to influence their students' behavior are more successful in the context of positive student-teacher relationships, and effective behavior support practices enable teachers to influence their students with a minimum of disruption in relationships. These considerations indicate that professional development training needs to be more comprehensive than just learning a curriculum.

Sustaining efforts in the face of turnover

Building administrator, teacher, and staff capacity to respond to changing conditions and achieve a lasting positive impact requires sustainability planning. As well-trained as any faculty may be, changes in staffing provide an ongoing challenge ([15]). Yearly training of new faculty, playground monitors, and other staff may be an important element of sustainability. Ongoing data collection that documents changes over time may support motivation and spur improvement. What little research there is suggests this is the case ([24]), but considerably more long-term evaluation is needed.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Although schoolwide efforts are essential, additional community-based efforts may be needed to address factors outside of the sphere of influence of educators. Research is sparse on which community-level factors most affect bullying outcomes ([55]). In the absence of such information, we focus here on resources that exist in almost any community: extracurricular programs, health care providers, and law enforcement officials. Some programs are conducted in the community without connection to schools (e.g., [ 7]; [58]), but many community collaborations are launched as a component of school-based bullying prevention efforts.

Extracurricular Programs

Extracurricular programs offer many opportunities to prevent and address bullying. They have the benefit of providing supervised, structured activities for students without the accountability demands (e.g., raising achievement test scores) that are placed on schools. Antibullying content can be delivered in many contexts, including after-school programs, city or county recreational department activities, summer camps, faith-based organizations, and community-at-large events (e.g., county festival). Bullying programs that were initially developed to be school-based may be implemented in extracurricular settings (e.g., [ 7]), or programs may be selected or developed that are more targeted toward the specific extracurricular context. Within these programs, influential adults, such as coaches, have the ability to exert a strong positive influence on students. For example, [13]) found that highly aggressive high school students identified a positive relationship with a coach as among the most important factors in their persistence toward graduation. One notable aspect of the coach/student relationship was that coaches held students to high standards. Students interpreted this vigilance as evidence of the coach caring for the student. Adult-student relationships play an important role in bullying prevention, as positive adult role models are a protective factor against bullying ([17]). Extracurricular programs may be most conducive to developing positive adult-student relationships when they are time-intensive (e.g., high-school athletics) and when adults set high expectations for behavior.

Health Care Providers

Bullying has been identified as a public health problem ([40]), and the negative health outcomes associated with bullying perpetration and victimization are well documented (e.g., [ 1]). The Society for Adolescent Medicine calls on health care providers to recognize signs of bullying, be prepared to discuss possible interventions, and to make appropriate referrals for patients in need of additional help ([14]). [58]) describe one successful program set in a pediatric care setting. Children were screened for psychosocial problems during the course of a regular medical care visit; those who screened positive were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups. For the intervention group, primary care physicians were made aware of psychosocial problem scores, and parents were referred to a telephone-based education program that highlighted core aspects of authoritarian parenting. Results indicated that youth in the intervention group demonstrated reductions in a range of problematic behaviors, including bullying.

Law Enforcement

School Resource Officers (SRO) and local law enforcement are regularly called on to respond to bullying situations, both in and out of schools. Law enforcement officers may be valuable partners for school and other community antibullying efforts. However, research assessing strategies for and effectiveness of collaboration has been almost nonexistent. One example of a successful collaboration between police and a school district to reduce bullying is described by the [50]). The SRO used student surveys and GIS mapping to identify bullying hot spots, and worked with educators to develop a comprehensive strategy to address bullying, including student, teacher, and parent education. Other activities involved staggering the bell schedule to reduce the number of students in the hallway at a given time and increased monitoring of hot spots, including establishing a SRO office in the cafeteria. Over the course of the intervention, a 40% drop in reported incidents of bullying was observed.

The WITS Rock Solid Primary Program ([28]), designed to reduce peer victimization and enhance school climate at the elementary level, also involves collaboration with local police and other emergency services personnel. In addition to a classroom component led by teachers, the WITS program involves bringing emergency service personnel (police, fire fighters, and paramedics) and university athletes into schools to serve as positive role models and to reinforce the curriculum. In this component of the program, uniformed officers conduct an initial visit where students in Grades K-3 are "sworn-in" as WITS special constables to help keep the school safe and assist their peers. Officers conduct occasional follow-up visits to reinforce the curriculum. Evaluations indicated that the program is associated with decreases in peer victimization, especially for high-poverty schools ([29]), although lack of component-specific analyses hamper conclusions about the efficacy of the classroom, role model, and constable components.

Increasing Community Capacity to Prevent Bullying

In developing community-wide efforts, process steps can be borrowed from recommendations in the broader school-based literature. These include (a) forming a team that includes a wide variety of stakeholders, (b) defining the problem to be addressed, (c) identifying measurable objectives, (d) selecting a prevention/intervention approach, (e) implementing the approach, and (f) evaluating the outcomes ([38]). For practical assistance creating a community-wide response to bullying, we refer readers to the Community Action Toolkit at www.stopbullying.gov (n.d.).

Community efforts may make the greatest impact when they are comprehensive and coordinated across multiple levels of service providers. Developing, coordinating, and sustaining partnerships, however, can be challenging. The same types of issues that impact school-based interventionbuilding motivation, knowledge and capacity; maintaining fidelity despite adaptation; and planning for long-term sustainabilityalso apply to community involvement in bullying prevention efforts. More research is needed on best practices for forming and sustaining successful partnerships (especially in the face of changes to leadership or funding support) and how community-based bullying prevention programs can balance fidelity with the need for culturally appropriate adaptation. On an even more basic level, additional research is needed to help understand which community-level factors are most salient in reducing bullying, what components of community-based prevention efforts are most effective, and how these factors vary across context. Despite these challenges and gaps in knowledge, comprehensive community-wide efforts hold much promise for bullying prevention and intervention. 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.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Over the past decade, along with a growing recognition of the deleterious effects of bullying there has been increasing emphasis on "evidence-based practice" in education, with efforts to adopt programs and practices with empirically demonstrated effectiveness. Such a focus makes considerable sense. However, as demonstrated in this review, research evaluating the effectiveness of bullying prevention programs has yielded mixed results. Although a more hopeful outlook is starting to emerge in more recent reviews of this literature, it is clear that there is as yet no single program or set of strategies that has been found to eliminate bullying. Rather, several different approaches have been shown to significantly reduce bullying, although reductions are far from extensive (e.g., 20%-30%; [56]). Given this, it is important to encourage and support innovative efforts to address bullying, and to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of such innovations. Evaluation research, however, can be challenging for many program developers, especially given the hierarchy of evidence considered appropriate for demonstrating effectiveness ([ 5]) and the "standards of evidence" set forth by professional organizations (e.g., Standards of Evidence, Society for Prevention Research 2004; www.preventionresearch.org/). Moreover, evidence of effectiveness in one context is no guarantee of effectiveness in another. Accordingly, it is imperative that schools and communities evaluate the impact of their efforts to address bullying, whatever they may be. Collaborations between university researchers, program developers, and schools can be especially useful in making such evaluations possible.

In this article we highlight some promising programs and program components, and point to teacher implementation and community involvement as salient issues that have received limited attention to date. Continued basic research on the processes and mechanisms involved in bullying, as well as applied research on the components of effective prevention programs are clearly needed. Finally, it is important to support knowledge translation and mobilization efforts, bringing research to lay audiences, especially parents, teachers, and community members as well as youth themselves. As one example, over the last five years, the online magazine Education.com has sponsored a special edition on bullying including over 60 short (2-4 page) articles and summaries of research, submitted by established scholars in language accessible to parents and teachers ([34]).

By way of future directions for knowledge mobilization, we recommend the creation of a central repository for evidence-based bullying prevention strategies, following examples of the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development (www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/) online resource, the online Safe and Sound Guide, or the 2013 CASEL Guide to Effective Social and Emotional Learning Programs prepared by the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (www.casel.org/guide/). Such resources would provide valuable information for schools and communities as they respond to increasing legislative mandates to implement bullying prevention programs, and would result in organizations selecting the programs that are most likely to result in bullying reductions.

Research Question: Can social workers effectively prevent school bullying or sexual harrassment?

2. Define your research question or problem statement.
4. Select your databases and search keywords.
6. Read abstracts of the articles and select appropriate articles for your study. Your literature review must contain seminal work in the field or on the topics and relevant studies.
8. Review and refine your search results.
10. Organize and manage your citations.
12. Evaluate the quality of the sources.
14. Analyze and synthesize the literature.
16. A literature review following a structured format. Read sample articles in BB to see the examples of literature review.
18. Cite your sources properly and create a reference list.
20. Edit and revise your literature review for clarity and coherence.
22. Your references must have more than 60% of articles published in the last five years. Stay updated with new research related to your topic.
24. Consider ethical considerations in your research process.

2. Define your research question or problem statement.
4. Select your databases and search keywords.
6. Read abstracts of the articles and select appropriate articles for your study. Your literature review must contain seminal work in the field or on the topics and relevant studies.
8. Review and refine your search results.
10. Organize and manage your citations.
12. Evaluate the quality of the sources.
14. Analyze and synthesize the literature.
16. A literature review following a structured format. Read sample articles in BB to see the examples of literature review.
18. Cite your sources properly and create a reference list.
20. Edit and revise your literature review for clarity and coherence.
22. Your references must have more than 60% of articles published in the last five years. Stay updated with new research related to your topic.
24. Consider ethical considerations in your research process.

Part B:Develop an outline of the conceptual framework resulting from your literature review.

Conceptual framework-It provides a roadmap to researchers and a theoretical foundation and structure for the proposed studies. It brings clarity and coherence and provides theoretical grounding to the research. CF is a crucial research activity in the theory-building process and the advancement of new knowledge in the field of the proposed study. It also involves a visual representation or map of how different factors or variables interact and influence each other, facilitating an understanding of causal connections. Systematic exploration of the phenomena also helps identify patterns and relationships of variables with reference to specific theoretical underpinnings and facilitates finding gaps in knowledge, deficits of the existing theories, and the advancement of new knowledge through synthesis.

Please look at the examples below on the Impact of Mentoring Program on Academic Achievement of At-Risk Youth

This study aims to investigate the impact of a mentoring program for at-risk youth to enhance their academic achievement. The conceptual framework draws from the following key theoretical perspectives as presented below:

Theoretical model: Resilience Theory

Resilience theory offers helpful insights into how individuals can overcome adversity and achieve positive outcomes, even in challenging circumstances. The proposed study aligns with this perspective and proposes to use it as the framework to understand how mentoring relationships may enhance the resilience of at-risk youth by buffering the risk factors. These relationships can help provide emotional support, role modeling, and problem-solving skills, all of which contribute to resilience and, subsequently, academic achievement.

Conceptual Model

Incorporating these theoretical perspectives, we propose a conceptual model to guide our research. The model illustrates the relationships between participation in the mentoring program (independent variable), academic achievement (dependent variable), and the mediating factor of resilience on academic achievement. Or you can find support in the literature that mentoring can moderate the negative effect and enhance academic achievements among at-risk youth. If you do not find any mediating or moderating variable, you can simply explain the direct relationship among independent and dependent variables. You may draw a figure following the model of mediating and moderating variables uploaded in BB.

or,

You can use the Self-efficacy theory of Bandura, which indicates that improved self-efficacy can lead to increased motivation and persistence in pursuing educational goals. It also emphasizes the role of self-belief and confidence in one's abilities that can be enhanced by mentoring, and mentoring can help at-risk youth with academic achievements. It is just a brief example which you can elaborate on.

Other examples of differentiating between Borad and well-built research questions and corresponding hypotheses. Please read the textbook for more information.

Broad research question-

"What are the factors influencing the successful reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals into society?"

Revised Research Question: How do access to education, availability of social support networks, and employment opportunities influence the successful reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals between ages 18 and 25 years into society?

• Corresponding hypothesis: Formerly incarcerated individuals between ages 18 and 25 years who have access to educational programs, strong social support networks, and stable employment opportunities are more likely to experience successful reintegration into society compared to those lacking access to education, social support, and employment opportunities.